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 also hear a lot negative comments and see a lot of hate for Los Angeles, which is not the largest city the US, but the second largest city in the US. Even within California, I see more hate/negative comments coming from San Francisco/San Francisco Bay area against Los Angeles/Los Angeles area than the other way around.
People in rural areas hate LA and SF equally. Within CA, these are the two cities that may actually have an impact on people. New York City really is of no consequence being a continent away.
Why does that matter? At some point in history, there was no Canada for anyone to speak of. At one time, San Francisco was the largest city on the US west coast. It was passed up by three others. What difference does any of this make?
Gentoo, Gentoo, Gentoo. Go back to the beginning of our conversation to the post where I clearly stated that your premise " that it's always been known " was incorrect in my view. The part where I clearly stated that in the 1970's and BEFORE Expo '86 in 1986, Vancouver was NOT that well known.
If your conversations happened AFTER ( and I suspect they did ) then yes, Vancouver is MUCH better known now, then back then.
I suspect your " always " just means in your lifetime.
How are you going to tell me most aren't from Mexico??? The majority at least in San Diego County's data base are Mexican nationals. Maybe I'm wrong but that suggest to me that they are from Mexico
Not true. The vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. are not from Mexico. In recent years Asian immigration has generally dominated.
The U.S. actually has negative net immigration from Mexico right now. In other words, we are losing Mexican nationals back to Mexico.
And again, none of this has anything to do with whether Arizonans have "special insight" on immigration. They have none. They have zero right to local border controls.
With all due respect, you are not qualified to tell us that. The four states which border Mexico do have a different perspective than the policy makers in Washington DC and this is where the conflict has come from. They tightened security in California during the height of the crossings into the US so the people crossing moved east and began crossing in Arizona. More people than normal would then cross through the desert as there were fewer points to cross near then blend in so more people died in the desert, something not realized ahead of time in DC. The law makers in DC are the ones dealing with the dead bodies in the desert. The state of Arizona and private property owners are.
The state of Arizona has actually violated the constitution by imposing it's own border security so while you are right that countries (at least this one) don't work that way, these issues exist due to a distant government with little knowledge of how things are.
I have lived in Arizona and California my whole life and I agree.
Not true. The vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. are not from Mexico. In recent years Asian immigration has generally dominated.
The U.S. actually has negative net immigration from Mexico right now. In other words, we are losing Mexican nationals back to Mexico.
And again, none of this has anything to do with whether Arizonans have "special insight" on immigration. They have none. They have zero right to local border controls.
I know they are not from Mexico in recent years. What I said was that they still outnumber all others even with the negative trend. That will change the national origin some day but it hasn't yet.
If by "special insight" they know more than you, yes then they do have a special insight. People from places like you getting elected to make policy on places they swear the locals know nothing about is exactly the problem so thank you for illustrating this so perfectly.
I've already mentioned, I think twice now that they "legally" can't control the border. The fact you keep repeating this proves you only see things from your own perspective.
People like NOLA101 is exactly what I was referring to in my post.
Thank you for proving my point.
NOLA101 would be a loyalist during the 1770s, a person who would rather support a federal government across an entire ocean than support its own local people who thought they could govern themselves better.
We see the same logic all the time in the other forums and in this one. When we ask questions about Sweden, Australia, etc. who do we consider the experts of the area? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FROM THERE! Why, you may ask? Because they live there 24/7 and KNOW FROM FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE how their local area works. I don't go asking Russians about lifestyles in Spain, no? I mean, Moscow is about 2,500 miles away from Madrid I mean that's crazy how could they know being so far away... Not like Tucson is 2,400 miles away from New York City or anything...
People like NOLA101 is exactly what I was referring to in my post.
Thank you for proving my point.
NOLA101 would be a loyalist during the 1770s, a person who would rather support a federal government across an entire ocean than support its own local people who thought they could govern themselves better.
You are absolutely correct. I support the U.S. federal govt., and the democratic will of the people, over anti-American, anti-govt. yahoos in Arizona who hate immigrants and want to self-patrol the border. If the U.S. were around back in the 1770's (or will be around in the 2770's) I would feel exactly the same.
I live in the U.S. because it's a wonderful place, and I respect the laws and institutions of the country. I also don't have hatred for certain ethnic groups, and don't believe that wild mobs trump representative democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
When we ask questions about Sweden, Australia, etc. who do we consider the experts of the area? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FROM THERE! Why, you may ask? Because they live there 24/7 and KNOW FROM FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE how their local area works.
Speak for yourself. I would never think such a silly thing; that one cannot be knowledgeable about a place without residing there. Completely absurd.
If the world had your radical views, society would cease to exist in short order.
People like NOLA101 is exactly what I was referring to in my post.
Thank you for proving my point.
NOLA101 would be a loyalist during the 1770s, a person who would rather support a federal government across an entire ocean than support its own local people who thought they could govern themselves better.
We see the same logic all the time in the other forums and in this one. When we ask questions about Sweden, Australia, etc. who do we consider the experts of the area? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FROM THERE! Why, you may ask? Because they live there 24/7 and KNOW FROM FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE how their local area works. I don't go asking Russians about lifestyles in Spain, no? I mean, Moscow is about 2,500 miles away from Madrid I mean that's crazy how could they know being so far away... Not like Tucson is 2,400 miles away from New York City or anything...
Reasons vary according to city and nation. Most commonly, in my experience:
New York City: liberal politics, unpleasant/ugly urban environment. London: disproportionate government interest and investment. Paris: rude, self-centered people.
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.
