U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:20 AM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,617,384 times
Reputation: 2983

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Well, Los Angeles was at one time the least racially diverse big city in the United States. It was actually among the most conservative as well. Here in California, acknowledgement of our Mexican past is virtually non-existant. For the most part, we histortically glorify our Spanish colonial past more. This is evidenced by the Mission Inn (the Spanish Art Gallery at the Mission Inn), Santa Barbara's Old Spanish Day's Fiesta, old real estate posters depicting California as the land of European looking Spanish settlers. In reality, the majority were Mestizo settlers (some Chinos even as well...but not nearly as many Criollos). The first wave of Americans in California were primarilly from the North East. Thus, depict California as a place where beautiful Spanish women eat oranges on a sunny veranda...and the rest will follow. California later had a large Southern contingent as well. Southerners following a more racially segregated pov, helped also shape the debate of Mexicans in California.

I really don't know too much about Texas...but I do know that there was animosity all the way back from the Republic of Texas.

You see, the way that California entered into the Union was by no means fair. American biz interests in California were conflicting with Mexican political interests. Americans told rich Californios that they will be able to make more money if they help create the Bear Flag Republic. Well, what ended up happening was that all of the sudden they lost their lands and wealth. Some were even deported.

So there is a love/hate relationship in California with our Mexican past. But we love our Spanish European past more.
Interesting..but what does "our" feeling roward our Mexican past (the feelings of all 36 million of us), have to do with TODAY'S out-of-control illegal immigration? "Our Mexican past" occurred well over 150 years ago; lasted only about 25 years; involved only a small percentage of the actual area of the present-day state (i.e., the southern coast), and involved only a very few tens of thousands of inhabitants.

And THIS, you say, is now somehow relevant to illegal immigration in 2009? Because of our "feelings" toward a brief chapter of history lasting only a single human generation, over a century in the past, we're forever prevented from rational discussion involving illegals, because our attitudes are somehow 'tainted'? WOW....talk about painting things with a 'broad brush'! This takes the prize.

I say this partly because of personal interest, living as I do on a parcel of land granted to its inhabitants during the Spanish administration, married to one of its owners, who's an American Indian. Around here, we're pretty well tuned in to the 'big picture' of California history..and I can assure you nobody I'm aware of has any particular problem with "our Mexican past".but it CERTAINLY is not relevant enough, nor important enough, to toss out rational objection to illegal immigration. Sounds like a lot of romantic High-School sentiment to me, (maybe with just a dash of guilt), if you'll pardon my frankness.

So we "only object to illegal immigration because we won't acknowledge our Mexican past"?.....hmmm. That's one I'll have to think about. I'm sure there MUST be other reasons....but I'll have to get back to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,628,664 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Well, Los Angeles was at one time the least racially diverse big city in the United States. It was actually among the most conservative as well. Here in California, acknowledgement of our Mexican past is virtually non-existant. For the most part, we histortically glorify our Spanish colonial past more. This is evidenced by the Mission Inn (the Spanish Art Gallery at the Mission Inn), Santa Barbara's Old Spanish Day's Fiesta, old real estate posters depicting California as the land of European looking Spanish settlers. In reality, the majority were Mestizo settlers (some Chinos even as well...but not nearly as many Criollos). The first wave of Americans in California were primarilly from the North East. Thus, depict California as a place where beautiful Spanish women eat oranges on a sunny veranda...and the rest will follow. California later had a large Southern contingent as well. Southerners following a more racially segregated pov, helped also shape the debate of Mexicans in California.

I really don't know too much about Texas...but I do know that there was animosity all the way back from the Republic of Texas.

You see, the way that California entered into the Union was by no means fair. American biz interests in California were conflicting with Mexican political interests. Americans told rich Californios that they will be able to make more money if they help create the Bear Flag Republic. Well, what ended up happening was that all of the sudden they lost their lands and wealth. Some were even deported.

So there is a love/hate relationship in California with our Mexican past. But we love our Spanish European past more.
Remember in all fairness that California was under Mexican control for less than 30 years (1821-48)---------and, was sparsely populated to boot.

And what the Spanish Hispanics did to the indigenous peoples was not nice either-------------yet; the descendants of the raped Aztec, etc. women embraced the culture of the White conquistador. One would think that once Mexico won its independence in 1821 that the Mestizos/Indians would have adopted Nahautl as their language------------not Spanish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:43 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,078,866 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
Interesting..but what does "our" feeling roward our Mexican past (the feelings of all 36 million of us), have to do with TODAY'S out-of-control illegal immigration? "Our Mexican past" occurred well over 150 years ago; lasted only about 25 years; involved pnly a small percentage of the actual area of the present-day state (i.e., the southern coast), and involved only a very few tens of thousands of inhabitants.

And THIS, you say, is now somehow relevant to illegal immigration in 2009? Because of our "feelings" toward a brief chapter of history lasting only a single human generation, over a century in the past, we're forever prevented from rational discussion involving illegals, because our attitudes are somehow 'tainted'? WOW....talk about painting things with a 'broad brush'! This takes the prize.

I say this partly because of personal interest, living as I do on a parcel of land granted to its inhabitants during the Spanish administration, married to one of its owners, who's an American Indian. Around here, we're pretty well tuned in to the 'big picture' of California history..and I can assure you nobody I'm aware of has any particular problem with "our Mexican past".but it CERTAINLY is not relevant enough, nor important enough, to toss out rational objection to illegal immigration. Sounds like a lot of romantic High-School sentiment to me, (maybe with just a dash of guilt), if you'll pardon my frankness.

So we "only object to illegal immigration because we won't acknowledge our Mexican past"?.....hmmm. That's one I'll have to think about. I'm sure there MUST be other reasons....but I'll have to get back to you.
If you read the post, you'd understand our romantic sentiment more towards Spain vs. Mexico. This is kind of an underlying Europhile sentiment that has shaped immigration from the California Republic to modern day. Past racial/cultural views are pertinent to today's views. This is why many in southern states were reluctant to vote for Obama. Past cultural/racial views permeate into our modern understanding. History does not occur in a vacuum. The past does influence our present understanding. I think that even you can agree with that (if not, then well, this is why we need to understand history in America...so people will see how the past is relevant).

First off, I never said we "only object to illegal immigration due to denying our Mexican past". You did. You clearly did not understand the comment I made. If anything, this is only a facet of the immigration debate. Others include the increased nationalism from the cold war onwards (with an up turn post 9/11), the shift from a manufacturing society to an educated service sector work force, increased suburban devlopment in the SW, the rapid polarization of the rich and the middle class. These are also huge contributors to the illegal debate. History is just one facet that must be looked at.

I also never stated that it was somehow irrational. I simply stated that it taints the debate.

If you actually took any history class relating to California history, you'd know that it was not just regulated to the Southern Coast or just ten thousand. It was the entire state and more like 100-200,000 people.

Plus, I was a double major in History...not high school stuff. In high school I wrote a thesis called "Modern Africa: How Neo-Colonialism Affects Africa, The Kenya and Ivory Coast Case Study" was not interested in the immigration debate at that time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:46 AM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,617,384 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by fashionaddict View Post
I live in NYC, the most ethnically diverse city in this country. NYC does not have this deep rooted hatred for immigrants that I see on this forum and in Texas/California. I have no idea how these states reached a point where unfounded hate lives within them. I say unfounded because I hear stories all the time from legal Hispanics on the West Coast who say life is hard these days because people make snide comments to them before they even know if they are legal or not. Trust me, I understand all of your grievances. I really do. What I don't understand is the emotion of hatred. I mean really a bird can fly over your head and someone will make a thread on this forum BIRD POOPED ON ME: THANKS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! Hatred is the scariest emotion a human being can have because it forces people to do irrational things.
I live in California. I haven't noted the "deep rooted hatred" here that you refer to..(obviously we have a few 'wackos')...but a "deep-rooted hatred" toward "immigrants" in general? A hatred unique to California and Texas, which New York City is somehow immune to? I don't see that. Is it possible that comparing a single, fairly unique city, with two very large states is not a very relevant comparson?

You DO understand that this thread is about ILLEGAL immigration, and inquires as to one's feelings on that subject? What does this have to do with the diversity or (apparent) non-judgementalism found in the 5 boroughs of New York City, or the (apparently) benighted conditions existing among the "hateful" masses comprising California and Texas? I don't see that connection.

By the way, the term "legal Hispanic", around here, is considered a VERY patronizing and demeaning term. Use it in New York, if that's your custom..but if you ever visit HERE, I don't recommend it. Calling someone a "legal Hispanic" here will get you just about as many points as calling someone else a "law-abiding Italian"; or a "sober Irishman"; or a "Korean who smiles"....or a "black from a two-parent family". Around here, these are considered offensive, NOT complimentary. Not sure how they'd go over in New York, though....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:52 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,078,866 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
Remember in all fairness that California was under Mexican control for less than 30 years (1821-48)---------and, was sparsely populated to boot.

And what the Spanish Hispanics did to the indigenous peoples was not nice either-------------yet; the descendants of the raped Aztec, etc. women embraced the culture of the White conquistador. One would think that once Mexico won its independence in 1821 that the Mestizos/Indians would have adopted Nahautl as their language------------not Spanish.
I never said it was nice. I simply stated that we don't acknowledge the time under Mexican rule (which btw was not 30 years, since Mexico was a viceroy [NewSpain], thus more political power in Mexico City than Madrid for the most part).

Also, why would they not adopt Spanish? Just like in any new country, you go with the language of power. Hence why the majority of African nations are English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish speaking. Those in power are most tied to the European power structure. Those that want independence were in a position of power by the Europeans. Even if it's relative power like in Haiti where the general was a simple farmer, but was a supervisor of other farmers (he was free by the time of the revolution).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:55 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,078,866 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
I live in California. I haven't noted the "deep rooted hatred" here that you refer to..(obviously we have a few 'wackos')...but a "deep-rooted hatred" toward "immigrants" in general? A hatred unique to California and Texas, which New York City is somehow immune to? I don't see that. Is it possible that comparing a single, fairly unique city, with two very large states is not a very relevant comparson?

You DO understand that this thread is about ILLEGAL immigration, and inquires as to one's feelings on that subject? What does this have to do with the diversity or (apparent) non-judgementalism found in the 5 boroughs of New York City, or the (apparently) benighted conditions existing among the "hateful" masses comprising California and Texas? I don't see that connection.

By the way, the term "legal Hispanic", around here, is considered a VERY patronizing and demeaning term. Use it in New York, if that's your custom..but if you ever visit HERE, I don't recommend it. Calling someone a "legal Hispanic" here will get you just about as many points as calling someone else a "law-abiding Italian"; or a "sober Irishman"; or a "Korean who smiles"....or a "black from a two-parent family". Around here, these are considered offensive, NOT complimentary. Not sure how they'd go over in New York, though....
Yeah, but as FormerCaliforniaGirl pointed out, her neighborhood is "icky" because of "illegal" Hispanics (of which she really does not know the legality of these people). So she moved out of state because of "illegals" (again she doesn't know the legal status).This is very common. California has also a history of white flight (Compton, anyone?).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 08:58 AM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,617,384 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
If you read the post, you'd understand our romantic sentiment more towards Spain vs. Mexico. This is kind of an underlying Europhile sentiment that has shaped immigration from the California Republic to modern day. Past racial/cultural views are pertinent to today's views. This is why many in southern states were reluctant to vote for Obama. Past cultural/racial views permeate into our modern understanding. History does not occur in a vacuum. The past does influence our present understanding. I think that even you can agree with that (if not, then well, this is why we need to understand history in America...so people will see how the past is relevant).

First off, I never said we "only object to illegal immigration due to denying our Mexican past". You did. You clearly did not understand the comment I made. If anything, this is only a facet of the immigration debate. Others include the increased nationalism from the cold war onwards (with an up turn post 9/11), the shift from a manufacturing society to an educated service sector work force, increased suburban devlopment in the SW, the rapid polarization of the rich and the middle class. These are also huge contributors to the illegal debate. History is just one facet that must be looked at.

I also never stated that it was somehow irrational. I simply stated that it taints the debate.

If you actually took any history class relating to California history, you'd know that it was not just regulated to the Southern Coast or just ten thousand. It was the entire state and more like 100-200,000 people.

Plus, I was a double major in History...not high school stuff. In high school I wrote a thesis called "Modern Africa: How Neo-Colonialism Affects Africa, The Kenya and Ivory Coast Case Study" was not interested in the immigration debate at that time.
I agree with much of what you say. My objection comes when you suggest that somehow our collective guilt for 'dismissing' our Mexican past (?) cn be expiated today by 'turning our heads' as millions of illegals move in. THAT'S the irrational stretch that others me.

This thread isn't about Mexicans, or the past, or racism, or immigrants...it's about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Many illegal immigrants aren't Mexicans at all. What does a discussion of our past oversights regarding Mexico, have to do with a thread discussing today's illegal problem and all its attendant costs? Only ONE connection that I can see..and that is that "If we didn't dislike Mexicans, we wouldn't object to illegal immigration". That's what I hear in your posts; and if it's true, than that's simply wrong and dishonest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 09:08 AM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,617,384 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Yeah, but as FormerCaliforniaGirl pointed out, her neighborhood is "icky" because of "illegal" Hispanics (of which she really does not know the legality of these people). So she moved out of state because of "illegals" (again she doesn't know the legal status).This is very common. California has also a history of white flight (Compton, anyone?).
California has a history of white flight? Wonderful point. So does New York City...yet one is 'hateful', while the other is 'enlightened'. Go figure.

Compton? OK, let's discuss Compton. Compton was originally a 'white' suburb..the 'flight' happened...it then became overwhelmingly black....and MORE 'flight' happened and now Compton has a Hispanic majority.

"Flight" happens. Why? Maybe for a lot of reasons. The BIGGEST white flight in the history of the world involved millions leaving Europe, for various points around the globe. Why? I don't know..but I doubt it had much to do with racism. Today we've got 'Hispanic flight' in which millions move NORTH. Why? Many reasons....but probably not due to racism.

"Flight", in my opinion, is a 'catch word'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 09:19 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,078,866 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
I agree with much of what you say. My objection comes when you suggest that somehow our collective guilt for 'dismissing' our Mexican past (?) cn be expiated today by 'turning our heads' as millions of illegals move in. THAT'S the irrational stretch that others me.

This thread isn't about Mexicans, or the past, or racism, or immigrants...it's about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Many illegal immigrants aren't Mexicans at all. What does a discussion of our past oversights regarding Mexico, have to do with a thread discussing today's illegal problem and all its attendant costs? Only ONE connection that I can see..and that is that "If we didn't dislike Mexicans, we wouldn't object to illegal immigration". That's what I hear in your posts; and if it's true, than that's simply wrong and dishonest.
Again the original question, to which I responded related to why Californians have a hatred to illegal immigrants, specifically Hispanics. I noted the one unique factor to California. Our fascination with Spain and our dislike of Mexico (in a historical context). There are many other reasons that illegal immigrants are disliked, however, this historical perspective is somewhat unique to California and the SW in general.

Think of house. The paint on the stucco is the newest part of the house. It's the last thing put on the house. It's color is not dependent on the frame. However, a different framework would make the surface area of the paint differently (a three story house is different than a one story house). The frame does not directly influence the paint color, but it still affects the paint (in this case location of paint). Our history serves as the framework on which we put our present knowledge in context. The past does not, mostly, 100% influence the present...but it provides a framework on which we make present descisions (this framework is more flexible as new knowledge is acquired).

Our attitudes would be different, however, if this past were somehow different. (To which degree, I don't know) There would still be other facets to contend with, though,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,078,866 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
California has a history of white flight? Wonderful point. So does New York City...yet one is 'hateful', while the other is 'enlightened'. Go figure.

Compton? OK, let's discuss Compton. Compton was originally a 'white' suburb..the 'flight' happened...it then became overwhelmingly black....and MORE 'flight' happened and now Compton has a Hispanic majority.

"Flight" happens. Why? Maybe for a lot of reasons. The BIGGEST white flight in the history of the world involved millions leaving Europe, for various points around the globe. Why? I don't know..but I doubt it had much to do with racism. Today we've got 'Hispanic flight' in which millions move NORTH. Why? Many reasons....but probably not due to racism.

"Flight", in my opinion, is a 'catch word'.
Well if it occurs then it's not really a catch word. It's a term to describe a specific sociological phenomenon.

California is unique in the sense that Los Angeles went whitest large city in America (60-70% non-Hispanic White) to the most racially diverse city in the nation...in a matter of decades.

Compton was a middle class White community. Then as African Americans moved in, it became a lower middle class African American community. Whites fled en-masse bacause of fear of the unknown. They thought that if African Americans moved in, they would destroy the place. Initially, no, since it was too expensive to move to Compton. However, the glut of houses on the market, coupled with demand, led to slum lords. The fact that public funds were shifted to lighter areas of LA County did not help matters.

European colonialism is not White flight. They left for exploitation and money. So actually, it had A LOT to do with racism. (The White Highlands of Kenya? British settlers could have the good life in the Happy Valley...read up on the Mau Mau revolution, if you want a crash course on colonialism and neo-colonialism).

It's not really Hispanic flight either since the movement is not motivated on fear of the other. This is the one defining aspect of White Flight, fear/hatred of the other.

There is Black Flight and Hispanic Flight...too...it does not even have to be racially motivated. It can be socio-economic. Blacks fled Compton to Moreno Valley and Palmdale to escape poor Blacks.

BTW Compton is majority Black.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top