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.
I was wondering: Why is the historical perspective which drives the emotion of revenge (Im not saying you personally want revenge..Im saying many illegal immigrant activists do), anymore important than the outraged emotion, driven by nostalgia, patriotism, or exceptionalism?
It's not revenge. It's trying to achieve parity, trying to survive. If parity were to be achieved, then most likely activists would not protest. So it's not really based on emotion. It's based on the tangible reality that minority groups have less in this nation. It's based on the tangible reality that due to poor treatment abroad by the United States (think neo-colonial attitudes) that there are sharp economic divisions abroad.
They are both emotions that may or may not be understandable depending on one's interpretation of history. So why is the emotion of many anti Illegal Americans any less valid than the emotion of illegal immigrant activists? I guess my question is (historical perspective vs. nostalgic)...isnt the only distinction to be made bitterness?
One is based solely on emotion, the other is based in the tangible reality of actually having less. The Walmart Patriot feels that their nation is somehow "dying", somehow they are losing. For the most part, they are suburban middle class people. They blame the underclass for their "plight". This is a very, very emotional based claim with little to substantiate it.
1guy. An interesting read and you stated your position about as well as it can be done. Although I disagree with much of it, it is not without merit...
Thanks, let's see what we got.
Man is an example of the one of few animals that can adapt at will. In fact we are the undisputed masters of adaptation.
Self deportation. It happens everyday. Normally from an illegal unfriendly state to a friendly state.
There are too many variables to actually know for certain if "friendliness" of a state causes deportation. For example, illegal immigration is down in California with reports of a decrease in certain areas. California and Arizona were in the middle of the subprime crisis. It is important to not that the VAST majority of illegal immigrants have not left. Most stayed due to the fact that while things were bad in unfriendly states, it is entirely possibe to find work and thrive.
The burden simply shifts to another group of tax payers. Now if all states passed equal or comparable laws. what would happen?
If we enacted laws that punished any and all employers of illegals. What would happen?
What if we made making a living so difficult and so tedious for illegals as to remove it as a viable option?
They would be forced to self deport. They would adapt and move to where life isn't as difficult.
You neglect the black market. If markets are over-regulated, people simply create black markets. A great parallel is the drug trade. The drug market is overly regulated, thus people illegaly sell drugs (the black market). People would simply hire "under the table" in greate numbers or forge documents. It's not as if work would all of the sudden leave. It is expensive to hire new employees that don't have the same training and rapport. So a business would find ways to retain the older employees.
One might say that it is better to be poor than to be hunted.
For example. Where I work we have more rules and policies than the US Navy. At first many defied the rules when they started coming down.
Most of them no longer work for the company. Some quit, some were fired. Most who said that they would never give in, gave in without a fight. That is man.
Not really a good parallel since a single job does not have the same complexities as an entire economy.
The border. We as a nation actually have a great deal of experience in border security. Just not our own. The military is being paid for regardless of how we use them. WE have multiple enemies who wish to harm American citizens. They won't actively engage our military because inspite of their brave words they have no desire to be slaughtered.
Mexico was a favorite route for the KGB in the day. It has not changed.
Now do I believe that someone will try to sneak a nuke through Mexico?
Not really but it is about an easy a way to do it as there is. What I think is more likely is sneaking terrorists accross that border is an option that these groups consider everyday.
The KGB and terrorists usually came/come in the same way...JFK International Airport (or LAX or O'Hare). Not sneaking through the border. Typically you don't want to draw attention, thus entering in a normal fashion is preferred. The 9/11 bombers came via airports and had visas. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg worked in the Los Alamos lab...they were American operatives that worked with the KGB.
Drugs and the border. Can anyone deny that drugs flow accross the border?
Secure the border use the money wasted on the war on drugs that we give Mexico to help fund better border security. Post soldiers new recruits as well as seasoned vets with border agents. Its a great training opprotunity and it serves a valid purpose.
Well, the fact of the matter is that drugs, specifically marijuana needs to be legalized and regulated in order to reduce drug cartel money. The money to secure the border would do absolutely nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Nothing whatsoever.
Walmart patriot? Not this patriot. This one has paid in the most expensive tender. I paid in blood and friends.
I agree with you that many simplify the problem. Me included. Why? Because most problems have simple but hard solutions.
It's a very complex issue. The same line "most problems have simple but hard solutions" has led us to failed policies in the past. Most recently, and most notably, Iraq and the war on terror. Not taking all the working pieces to create a viable solution is a major element of a Walmart Patriot.
As having a brother serve in the military, my grandfather serve in the military...I have much respect for the PEOPLE in the military.
I do not and never will agree with rewarding a cheat or a criminal. We read all the time about deportee's sneaking back in. About criminals who sneak in and victimize citizens. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because in most cases it was preventable.
This occurs VERY rarely. People who victimize others, regardless of legality, are wrong. However, the hard working illegal immigrant family is not that person.
We have the technology, we have the national will and we have the ability to rid ourselves of this burden. We owe nothing to illegals and everything to legal citizens.
It's not as if we are not partly to blame for the reason why illegal immigration happens. We can't simply wash our hands of every single thing that we as a nation do. Sometimes we need to take responsibility. Sometimes we need to set an example so hopefully others will follow.
Unfortunately the way things are is that the anti-illegal sentiment has an element of xenophobia to it. One of the largest critiques against illegal immigrants is the lack of assimilation. This goes against the current body of knowledge that shows that immigrants (regardless of legality) speak more English after subsequent generations. This implies assimilation. However, many state that immigrants and their children do not learn the language, thus contributing to an us. vs. them mentality. The main goal of xenophobics is to create a large enough divide in order to persuade the general population ("us") to go against the ohter group ("them").
But thats my point..they arent part of our general population...we never were with them..our laws state it clearly...I dont see how a xenophobe could create a divide between something that never was...
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy
We also see the complaint of too many people in a household. The average Hispanic family has about 3-4 people per household. Claims of how many people in a household are greatly exaggerated. This contributes to further the divide of us vs. them.
I dont think Hispanic and Illegal should become interchangeable. Hispanic families are of no concern to me personally...if they want to have 24 kids or no kids...thats not my concern..now the moment that that becomes the main concern of anti illegal immigration activists, then that is the point at which I realize an element of etho-centrism has been introduced into a political issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy
Lies of how Hispanics and crime again serve to further the division between groups.I understand that there other illegal immigrant groups, but to represent the vast majority I will use Hispanics. Although SE Asians face the same complaints (lack of assimilation, too many per household, high crime) as well, at least in Southern California. In fact, as previously posted on this forum, the Hispanic incarceration rate mirrors the national average. Unfortunately, Hispanics are still MUCH more likely than Whites to be put in jail (not as much as Blacks, however). The high incarceration rates of Blacks and Hispanics are partly due to selective enforcement (higher enforcement on minorities than on Whites). This occurs due to the stereotypes that are prevelant in our society. Xenophobia is one of the driving forces for this selective policing, at least for Hispanics.
I would respectfully disagree with this notion...I dont think xenophobia nor profiling is the predominate force behind law enforcement...Does it play a role?..sure, no doubt about it...but is it the overwhelming CAUSE of high incarceration rates of blacks and hispanics?...I submit that it is not...if anything I think it is because of the fact that hispanics and blacks have traditionally lived in dense urban areas where crime in general is high...incarceration stats in urban areas will hardly ever be accurately comparable to the incarceration rates of whites who are more likely to be rural or suburban. And who are not only dispersed over a larger which law enforcement must patrol, but who also have money to afford better representation once indicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy
So you see, xenophobia is quite prevelant. It may be in the same forms as the Victorian era, yet it is still quite alive.
As for dual patriotism, this is increasingly becoming fact with educated youth in the United States. Due to the increase of the global culture (think Web 2.0) regional fads can automatically can become a global phenomenon overnight. Transmission and difussion of information is instant in the age of Twitter and Facebook. Usually, there is no conflict of interest.
I can see that how mass communications would transform the perspective of youth...however, I also think this is one of the very reasons for conflicting interests. Our apathy toward our illegal immigration problem, and our refusal to enforce our laws are no doubt attributable to the kumbayaa spirit of kinship, so easily evoked by youngsters. This is in direct conflict with those who serve our country in office and in arms, and those older Americans who do value our laws. Younger Americans are certainly more globalized than previous generations...consequently our apathy towards our rate of outsourcing is leading us toward demise as swiftly as our apathy toward our border security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy
People automatically assume that the person who speaks Spanish in public is illegal. An informal sampling of posts on this sub-forum has shown that. Several closed threads were based simply on the topic of Spanish in public. The poster usually would have no knowledge of the legality of the person and thus assume that they (the Spanish speaker) was illegal.
Social Darwinism is simply the belief that certain groups (racial, economic, or cultural) are lower by nature, thus are not fit. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. This driving belief has caused people to espouse the belief that illegals are somehow "naturally" lower. That inherently, they are unfit. Coupled this with American exceptionalism and you have very jingoist attitudes towards much of the world (specifically towards the rest of the Americas).
Our lending policies in Latin America have proved to be disasterous. Argentina, Mexico, Venezuala, Jamaica, and Haiti have suffered due to poor policies pushed by American interestes. Part of the rationale was that somehow, America knew what it was doing. Fair assumption. However, the local business communities of these nations were not given a voice to tell how implement policies. Again this is was due to the unfair assumption that the local population had no clue how their economy worked. Thus, economic collapse happened in those nations.
Ill disagree with this as well...America has actually actually been very accepting of refugees from Haiti (pre-quake), a provision which permitted them to offload their impoverished in the Southern U.S. Our lending policies in Mexico wouldnt be set by the U.S. specifically...that is a global lending institution that deems Mexico a country which does have the resources to support itself and therefore does not need the lending of poorer countries. We cant save the world and Mexico isnt our responsibility...the country has allowed itself to become a complete oligarchy, which abandoned any discipline in its spending, which has resulted in an obstruction of power among the poor class, and the abuse of it by the upper class.
From what I understand the country nationalized its mining and other industries that could produce privatized capital, which led to the hoarding of money by its govt. officials.
Essentially more of the same, and its becoming the increasingly familiar case in America: The govt. sold its citizens up the river for profit made from its natural resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy
So again, it's not the xenophobia, jingoism, and social Darwinism of the Victorian era. It's those things 2.0. The general public is led to believe these things without going in depth about the issues. They are led to believe in American exceptionalism in order to garner support to push the agenda of those in power. It goes beyond just domestic policies, but also how we handle issues abroad.
I just dont understand how we can be globalists as was alleged earlier, and exceptionalists at the same time...again, I really think that begets us a conflict of interests. Nevertheless, I honestly think policy is a separate issue from existing law. What I speak of when addressing illegal immigration is enforcing the laws that we have already set...Policy is something for legislators to squabble over...However the legislators that we have elected dont hold our diplomacy and policies with Mexico, Venezuala, Jamaica etc as paramount to our nation. The policies are set, as are the laws... What I ask is that our elected officials not allow policy discrepancies to prevent them from doing their job as enforcers of set law.
In summary I think the biggest distinction I would make between America and Mexico/Venezuela/Haiti etc. is that Americans know that change comes from within...America isnt waiting on anyone to change their fortunes...even myself and other citizens who whine on this forum about illegal immigration are doing so with the understanding that change comes from one's self and the sentiment within. Without the initiative to change their own fates, Haiti, a democracy will still be subject to whoever wants to come along and offer to "save" them next...and once again, that nation, or Mexico, or Venezuela, or Jamaica, will be completely beholden to the will of its next "savior". Essentially it would be volunteer victimhood.
Last edited by solytaire; 02-06-2010 at 08:58 PM..
But thats my point..they arent part of our general population...we never were with them..our laws state it clearly...I dont see how a xenophobe could create a divide between something that never was...
We are the general population, they aren't. Pretty sure I stated that. I don't think you read this correctly. Xenophobes try to get the general population (us) against them (those not in the general population). I hope this provided some point of clarification.
I dont think Hispanic and Illegal should become interchangeable. Hispanic families are of no concern to me personally...if they want to have 24 kids or no kids...thats not my concern..now the moment that that becomes the main concern of anti illegal immigration activists, then that is the point at which I realize an element of etho-centrism has been introduced into a political issue.
Never said that they were. Simply illustrated the example of Hispanics, hence the disclaimer. That's exactly why I put that disclaimer in the paragraph. It may not be a personal concern, but that sentiment is felt throughout those that are extremely anti-illegal. It's a very common argument, again while you personally may not care that does not mean that it's any less used. Unfortunately it has entered into the political realm. Prop 187 in California is one notable example.
Ill disagree with this as well...America has actually actually been very accepting of refugees from Haiti, which permitted them to offload their impoverished in the Southern U.S. Our lending policies in Mexico wouldnt be set by the U.S. specifically...that is a global lending institution that deems Mexico a country which does have the resources to support itself and therefore does not need the lending of poorer countries. We cant save the world and Mexico isnt our responsibility...the country has allowed itself to become a complete oligarchy, which abandoned any discipline in its spending, resulting an obstruction of power among the poor class, and the abuse of it by the upper class.
Haitian refugees and the economic policies that America pushed in Haiti are two different issues. Not remotely linked. Our treatment of the refugees is one of the few things we have done right in Haiti. Since the inception of Haiti we have messed up. We essentially placed a high debt burden by charging interest on loans to pay French reparations. Effectively, we made them pay for their freedom. We supported unjust regimes and ousted a democratically elected president.
Where are both the IMF and World Bank located? Washington D.C. While both international, significant funding comes from the United States. We pretty much dictate much of the lending that goes on to the 3rd world. Which is part of the reason why the whole being in debt to China is a big deal. We no longer can claim hemegony as long as we are a debtor nation to China in such a way.
No, we can't save Mexico or any other nation. However, we can start trying to implement policies and have lending with less string attach as to not make the situation worse. Our means and method of lending to the 3rd world and conducting business in general does stoke the fire of regional income disparity.
From what I understand the country nationalized its mining and other industries that could produce privatized capital, which led to the hoarding of money by its govt. officials.
Which country? If Mexico, mining has been privitized in 1997. Oil exploration is set to have private investment.
Essentially more of the same, and its becoming the increasingly familiar case in America: The govt. sold its citizens up the river for profit made from its natural resources.
In 2008 a bill was proposed to allow private invest of PEMEX. By all accounts, PEMEX has enables Mexico to stay relatively solvent.
I just dont understand how we can be globalists as was alleged earlier, and exceptionalists at the same time...again, I really think that begets us a conflict of interests. Nevertheless, I honestly think policy is a separate issue from existing law. What I speak of when addressing illegal immigration is enforcing the laws that we have already set...Policy is something for legislators to squabble over...However the legislators that we have elected dont hold our diplomacy and policies with Mexico, Venezuala, Jamaica etc as paramount to our nation. The policies are set, as are the laws... What I ask is that our elected officials not allow policy discrepancies to prevent them from doing their job as enforcers of set law.
Exceptionalism doesn't mean isolationist. Exceptionalism actually implies that we know what's best abroad. It's not AT ALL a conflict of interest. Oddly, isolationism and execpetionalism are more a conflict (not that they are even a conflict, but American brand exceptionalism has a global outlook to it).
I think I see what you are trying to say. It seems that you are lumping domestic and foreign policies. My point was that the treatmen of those nations have led to economic ruin in those countries. The policies made were bad. Policies in Mexico helped stoke the already existing fire of illegal immigration. It helped increase the disparity of rich and poor. So our laws on the issue of illegal immgiration (different organization from the economic component mentioned) need to reflect those bad policies. They don't. So you have two sets of bad policies (one economic, the other immigration related).
I would respectfully disagree with this notion...I dont think xenophobia nor profiling is the predominate force behind law enforcement...Does it play a role?..sure, no doubt about it...but is it the overwhelming CAUSE of high incarceration rates of blacks and hispanics?...I submit that it is not...if anything I think it is because of the fact that hispanics and blacks have traditionally lived in dense urban areas where crime in general is high...incarceration stats in urban areas will hardly ever be accurately comparable to the incarceration rates of whites who are more likely to be rural or suburban. And who are not only dispersed over a larger which law enforcement must patrol, but who also have money to afford better representation once indicted.
Selective enforcement is significant cause. Tim Wise made a point at UC Irivne this past month. He stated that by percentage Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to have any illegal items in their cars. The reason? Well, because a larger number of people were searched. Punishment for the same sentence is usually stricter for minorities than for Whites. Even in suburban areas, minorities are more likely to be searched. Incarceration rates of my VERY suburban county mirror that of the nation.
"I find it interesting that while we live in a society that tries to espouse tolerance and equality. However, we don't behave so both globally and abroad. I find it even more interesting that those that want to deport and shut the borders neglect the larger issues. It's rather sad that we can decry the poor for being poor while we live out our middle class existence. Being the type of person I am, it really makes me wonder how we came to a point in which Walmart patriots have become the norm, have become the driving force in political discussion. A patriot is a person who loves their country. This does come in many forms. It can come from being critical of our government and ourselves. A Walmart patriot is a person who may love their country, but oft in a misguided and at times inadvertantly hypocritical manner. They typically lack the understanding of how nuanced issues are. They prefer consumption to conservation, feeling that it is their right to consume. Typically, they are conservative leaning. Latte liberal is the left's equivalent (I personally would put the two in the same category, but there are many demographic differences). Soundbites replace substantive research. Extremism replaces sound policies.
A great example is denouncing the DREAM act. The only substantive argument given is that those attending state sponsored universities should not be able to recieve such subsidies towards education. However, it has been shown that the majority of illegal immigrants have paid taxes. Another argument given is that they are illegal thus they shouldn't be here. True, but they are here. Simply put, it saves money in the long term to have a system in place that addresses these issues by providing these individuals with a decent education. The old adage is true; education pays.
The Walmart patriot simply uses emotional metrics to measure the success or failure of a certain policy. Selective facts are used, typically from sources that reinforce their beliefs.
Militarization of the border often times is a solution proposed by said types of people. While in theory a scare tactic is a good idea, the reality is far from theory. Currently, our government spends over $680 billion on defense. However, the figure is closer to $1trillion when considering other departments (besides defense) that aid in defense efforts. Our nation simply cannot fund this proposition. Regardless of funding, there is also the issue of international reception. With the global recession, many changes have occurred. The United States is increasingly being taken off its once golden perch. We simply cannot do as we wish. Putting troops on the border could be deemed as an escalation. This would not bode politically abroad.
The Walmart patriot simply wants to relive a sense of nostalgia in which America was the hegemonic power. A just, verdant, equal power.
We weren't. We never were. The Walmart patriot lives for American exceptionalism. Yet, we aren't the beacon of light and truth. We unjustly gained territories (the American SW, the Philippines, Hawaii). We had forced slavery. We later had an apartheid state. Our nation supported genocide in order to achieve Manifest Destiny. Currently, we have propped regimes that serve to disinterest the populations they serve (Congo, Haiti). We place demads on nations to swiftly reform their economies so that we can profit, while the local population suffer (Argentina, Jamaica, Venezuala, Mexico...various IMF reforms). We have a nasty track record of abuse in nations we are at war with (everything from prostitution rings, rape, abuse of civilians) We shoot innocent civilians in nations we aren't at war with (Pakistan). Our leaders feel that we should cut healthcare funding (the backlash against the public option). The list goes on.
Yet, Walmart patriots seem to feel that we occupy some niche of exceptionalism. They cite that our citizens help in the legal process. That they laws serve those that live here. Interestingly the facts paint a different picture. Minorities are more likely to be stopped than Whites. We have selective enforncement in this nation. Minorities are more likely to have harsher sentences than Whites for the same offense. Centuries of racist attitudes simply do not disappear. The illegal immigration debate simply reinforces this. Many arguments are given on the premise that they (typically Hispanics) do not follow the law. Somehow they don't fit within our context of exceptionalism.
The Walmart patriot simply wants pity and answers to the problems that plague them and those they care for.
Illegal immigrants comprise a super minority. Yet, according to the Walmart patriot demographic, they are responsible for failling schools across the nation, hospital closures across the nation, lack of jobs, high real estate prices, the subprime crisis, increased car premiums, increased health insurance premiums, higher taxes, and increased homeland security funding...just to name a few. To put it quickly and succinctly, most studies disprove this time and time again. Failing schools usually are due to unequal funding as well as other social variables. The majority of students in our nation are legal residents. Hospital closures are due to the inability of the poor to pay for medical treatment. Roughly 35%-40% of a hospital's budget is not recouped. This is the national average according to the AMA in a 2008 study. Those without health insurance, roughly 40 million residents, typically wait untill a problem gets worse. Illegal immigrants may contribute, but according to a Pew Hispanic Research study, rougly 40-50% of illegal immigrants have health insurance. Not as high as the general population, but it disproves the notion that illegal immigrants are universally uninsured.
Low wage jobs comprise the majority of illegal immigrant employment. The average illegal immigrant household income was roughly 40-45k, 20k shy of the national average, but significantly above the poverty level. The median income was slihgtly less at roughly 35k. This narrow income band indicates that that illegal immigrants are centered squarely in the lower middle class. Their income levels are consistent with other blue collar workers across the nation. With that said, wage depression is typically seen on the lowest scales of both illegal immigrants and citizens alike. It is important to note wage depression is more likely seen in the informal sector of the economy since employment is unregulated and hence skirts labor laws.
Blue collar workers face greater threats than illegal immigration. Automation of work, outsourcing, and the retooling of the American economy to being more service based are greater threats than illegal immigration.
The Walmart patriot is not a bad person. We all have aspects of the Walmart patriot. Yet, we can't base public policy on the Walmart patriot manifesto."
that1guy, this is by far one of the best post and threads, I have read in this forum. As always, I admire not just your writing style but your intellect. Many of us in this forum get stuck writing philosophy but lack the knowledge to back up our theories with history and stats, I included.
I agree that sometimes following the majority does not always mean the majority is right...people who do often building walls that prevent them from seeing what goes on the other side.
Thank you once again for the great insight!
Last edited by zacatecana; 02-07-2010 at 02:32 AM..
Reason: add
What is the problem with seemingly intelligent people using the quote button in order to make their posts more legible?
When I see the type of hot messes that are going on above, I simply skip them. I don't have time to decipher as I read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getout
I seriously agree! It becomes just a boring mess losing content by continuous distraction.
As both of you stated.
Admittedly; I do not know how to break up a single post for multi quoting using the control buttons up top but, I simply copy/paste '[quote=Kele;12793760]', etc. on the leading edge of a paragraph then close it with the unquote tag.
1guy. I won't rehash every rebuttal.
Seld deportation happens everyday. It doesn't happen because life was made easy. It happens because the game changed. Crack downs and a higher level of threat forced the issue. No different than excessive hunting pressure will cause herds to move to safer ground.
Why do illegals flee a job when they hear rumor of a potential raid? Not because they heard about a good job 500 miles away.
Now imagine how employers would react if they were actually held accountable? Fined large sums for their misdeeds? We need look no further than what OSHA has done for the modern factory. At first big manufacturing ignored OSHA regs and laws. That is until the hefty fines caused a change in their attitudes.
The same would happen.
Now imagine a crack down accross the board... No small business could afford a 50G fine. At first none would change but as fines started to hit they would do what self preservation demanded.
Yes some black market activity would happen. But not 20 million workers worth.
Imagine if schools were required to use E verify? Hospitals?
Life is becoming more than difficult for the illegal. Many might even decide that its better to quit while they are ahead. especially if one of the penalties for being caught is that the illegals will have all assets siezed.
Why do chronic speeders change their ways? Stiff fines , huge insurance premiums and risk of loss of drivers license.
They adapt.
Taking responsibility? NAFTA certainly was one heck of a gift for Mexico. Too bad they squandered it. We by no means owe any illegal a free pass because their gov is corrupt.
Who we owe is all American citizens. Our elected reps need to remember who they work for.
I am happy to say that Congressman Chris Carney is firmly anti-amnesty and pro border enforcement. He is also pro-hammer on employers of illegals.
This democrat will enjoy my vote next election.
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.
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.
