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.
Some people do argue that about language, however that is a distinct minority of complaints on that language issue. The vast majority of complains I have read and problems in communication I have had are about people who come here not speaking English and never learn to speak English and start most public and business conversations with "speak (fill in language)".
Not really. Read even previous posts on this thread.
As to your point. If you ask most "anti-illegal" folks the blanket question
"Should laws be able to changed and the constitution amended to reflect a changing society?" most will say yes. Now they may not want to change the law, but they would most likely agree that there should be a means to change the law if necessary. This is entirely different the "pro-illegal" perspective of If X person breaks the law, but had a reasonable excuse for doing so, then that's fine.
If the new paradigm is that illegal immigration occurs due to economic factors and can be rectified with amnesty for those that have been here for X number years or a guest worker program...we've seen on this forum that most anti-illegal immigrant people have polled against both.
The "pro-illegal" camp simply says that we should change the laws as to decrease illegal immigration.
Most in the "anti-illegal" camp feel that walls and extreme defense is the answer. Not citing studies that have shown that walls push illegal immigration further and futher out of populated areas and doesn't decrease the flow, and how defense (in the military sense) is very costly.
The first point is a matter of perception.
On the second point your post spells out my point exactly. As far as current law is concerned it doesn't matter if an illegal came here yesterday or 100 years ago there is no statue of limitations on illegal immigration and there are laws that prescribe remedies as to what is to happen to illegals. An an amnesty by the very definition of the word is the "pro illegal" perspective that I stated is it not? An amnesty in an of itself proclaims "we know you broke the law, but that's fine now meet the terms of the Amnesty and you will not face legal remedies."
As to the opinions of most in the "anti-illegal" you only state half the picture. Most couple boarder security and enforcement with strict laws regarding employers who hire illegal immigrants.
This was proven to work in the late 1990s when Singapore faced an illegal immigration crisis due to the economic downturn in East Asia. Singapore coupled strict priority enforcement with harsh penalties against employers hiring illegals in that country and as a result was able to mitigate the problem of rising illegal immigration.
I wouldn't particularly object if we were a "Salad Bowl", wnich in many ways, we are, of course. And it's just an analogy, anyway. But to have a 'Salad Bowl', you'd have to have a basic, mutual, acceptable concept of what a SALAD actually is...there are "good" ingredients for a Salad, too numerous to mention here...but few people would want to include chocolate syrup...or raw liver....or ice cream....or similar things, in a salad. And that's where the analogy falls short. The CONCEPT of what IS..and is NOT, a "SALAD" is analogous to out basic, secular Western culture; this provides the framework of freedom and individual liberty un which all of us "ingredients" are able to live in harmony..(whether we choose to 'blend' or not).
It's just the model name. The analogy simply states that there are distinct communities within the US. We can all agree on that. That all these communities exist within the framework called the United States of America. We can agree on that. The idea is not that African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics are the salad...but not Asians (insert any groups). This again defeats the whole theory. The theory doesn't state that people agree what the salad is. Taste is not a part of the theory.
A Salad Bowl is a fine thing...but it has its limits. Those limits are what we call our American 'culture'. Culture, in this respect, denotes a way of life, not the petty details such as art, music, or even foreign languages. Those things will work, as long as the basic framework holds. Take away that 'base' of mutual understanding, and the system becomes unsustainable.
You are putting in melting pot theory now. Those petty details are among the main basis of what culture is.
Analogies, though, do have their limits..and we're not REALLY a melting pot, NOR are we REALLY a salad....we're a unique, special society....one that depends upon our cooperation for its continued survival. Since we don't have a common race, nor a common religion, nor a common ethnicity, we, more than MOST societies, need a common culture, including a common language. Take THAT away, and our prospects grow increasingly dim...
That is true, we are a unique society. Again that's why I stated one of the limits of these anologies is that they imply a cultural rigidity that we know don't exist.
However, we don't (nor ever have, nor will) NEED a common culture. Even within the core American cultures, the communities are quite different. Southern culture is NOT Nothern Eastern culture...nor is it even close to Californian culture. These are distinct communities. African American culture is NOT White Mid-West. Each have different traditions, music, art, ethos...
Increasingly, with the internet and growth of consumer products, the world is emerging as one culture anyways. I don't know if it's good or bad, but it is happening.
I'm tired of people saying it's "racist" to be against illegal immigration. That is hardly the case...people are most likely upset that these immigrants are BREAKING THE LAW, yet we're just supposed to look the other way... What's next, amnesty for all criminals? America is known for being a melting pot -- there are legal immigrants from all over the world here, key word legal. If all of these illegals came in the correct way, and became productive members of society, I highly doubt there would be as much animosity towards them? I don't know, I personally enjoy diversity and love learning about new cultures, but I don't understand why we would condone a criminal act?
It isn't racist to be against illegal activity including illegal immigrants, the other side chooses to use that in an attempt to shut people up.
Again, read previous posts on this thread. It's very prevelant. You can take the data for yourself, but a HUGE number of posts deal with language in an informal setting.
On the second point your post spells out my point exactly. As far as current law is concerned it doesn't matter if an illegal came here yesterday or 100 years ago there is no statue of limitations on illegal immigration and there are laws that prescribe remedies as to what is to happen to illegals. An an amnesty by the very definition of the word is the "pro illegal" perspective that I stated is it not? An amnesty in an of itself proclaims "we know you broke the law, but that's fine now meet the terms of the Amnesty and you will not face legal remedies."
No, the law CHANGES to allow amnesty. The law is amnesty. Law is dynamic, thus if you change the law the previous law does not have any bearing to ANY conversation.
As to the opinions of most in the "anti-illegal" you only state half the picture. Most couple boarder security and enforcement with strict laws regarding employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Which is not a comprimise...which goes against what you earlier stated. Which further illustrates my point.
This was proven to work in the late 1990s when Singapore faced an illegal immigration crisis due to the economic downturn in East Asia. Singapore coupled strict priority enforcement with harsh penalties against employers hiring illegals in that country and as a result was able to mitigate the problem of rising illegal immigration.
Singapore also has issues regarding human rights and censorship. I think we can find better ways.
Again, read previous posts on this thread. It's very prevelant. You can take the data for yourself, but a HUGE number of posts deal with language in an informal setting.
On the second point your post spells out my point exactly. As far as current law is concerned it doesn't matter if an illegal came here yesterday or 100 years ago there is no statue of limitations on illegal immigration and there are laws that prescribe remedies as to what is to happen to illegals. An an amnesty by the very definition of the word is the "pro illegal" perspective that I stated is it not? An amnesty in an of itself proclaims "we know you broke the law, but that's fine now meet the terms of the Amnesty and you will not face legal remedies."
No, the law CHANGES to allow amnesty. The law is amnesty. Law is dynamic, thus if you change the law the previous law does not have any bearing to ANY conversation.
As to the opinions of most in the "anti-illegal" you only state half the picture. Most couple boarder security and enforcement with strict laws regarding employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Which is not a comprimise...which goes against what you earlier stated. Which further illustrates my point.
This was proven to work in the late 1990s when Singapore faced an illegal immigration crisis due to the economic downturn in East Asia. Singapore coupled strict priority enforcement with harsh penalties against employers hiring illegals in that country and as a result was able to mitigate the problem of rising illegal immigration.
Singapore also has issues regarding human rights and censorship. I think we can find better ways.
The law can be changed, but amnesty and what you are describing is an ex post facto change of the law and that is another matter entirely. Ex post facto changes in the law are almost universally seen as violating the rule of law and that is why they are frowned upon in pretty much every common law system.
The compromise is not in the remedy, but rather in the means of approaching changes in the law, which IS what I said earlier.
Singapore has issues regarding human rights, but so does the US or almost any country for that matter. Additionally, most of those are based on Singapore's liable laws (which have nothing to do with actually controlling immigration) and the use of corporal punishment, which as you know if you have studied human rights, is one of the flash points of the perceived western bias in what is are considered "universal human rights." Asian scholars have cited numerous examples where traditional Asian views on human rights particularly in the matters of access to education, community emphasis and corruption prevention are marginalized because they conflict with western views...but this also has nothing to do with controlling illegal immigration, which Singapore does very well and in a matter largely consistent with western interpretations of the law.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 11-20-2009 at 07:52 PM..
Really, we do have a common culture, and until very recently that common culture was the foremost authority. Whether it be WASP, White, Western, whatever one wants to call it. It was the underlying basis for the establishment of our culture.
The reality is that the Salad Bowl theory or whatever is a pie in the sky theory that isnt really applicable to our culture at all. A salad bowl would imply that we all have individual ingredients that remain individual even when disturbed. But that is not how the U.S. has ever operated. We have always been a melting pot and always will be. In our melting pot the ingredients (cultures) are added to our existing culture, and they literally formed an amalgam (assimilate) FROM the predominate base ingredient; as every recipe has.
What people are trying to imply here is that because our base culture has been established and consistent, then somehow that culture seeks hegemony over Hispanic culture, which is not the truth. But the illegal immigrant culture (which is largely represented by Hispanics) has thus far, sought to emulsify without actually blending with the rest of the stew. Our laws are a reflection of our established culture. And our political process is a reflection of our established culture. When people advocate flagrant disregard for our laws, and even overriding the established political process, in the interest of those who arent even American citizens, they are essentially saying that their particular ingredient (culture/nationality), takes precedence over the ingredients which they seek to blend into. And I think thats where most Americans draw the line.
Last edited by solytaire; 11-20-2009 at 08:25 PM..
It isn't racist to be against illegal activity including illegal immigrants, the other side chooses to use that in an attempt to shut people up.
If it's racist to be against illegal immigration, presumably based on the premise that the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, then one could make the argument that it's racist to support illegal immigration, based on the premise that the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic.
Really, we do have a common culture, and until very recently that common culture was the foremost authority. Whether it be WASP, White, Western, whatever one wants to call it. It was the underlying basis for the establishment of our culture.
It agains disparages the many unique communities in the US.
The reality is that the Salad Bowl theory or whatever is a pie in the sky theory that isnt really applicable to our culture at all. A salad bowl would imply that we all have individual ingredients that remain individual even when disturbed. But that is not how the U.S. has ever operated. We have always been a melting pot and always will be. In our melting pot the ingredients (cultures) are added to our existing culture, and they literally formed an amalgam (assimilate) FROM the predominate base ingredient; as every recipe has.
Kind of true. The problem concerning models is that they don't into consideration issues like fluidity. Cultures do indeed change. However, we are finding out that we never truly assimilated to one culture in the US.
What people are trying to imply here is that because our base culture has been established and consistent, then somehow that culture seeks hegemony over Hispanic culture, which is not the truth. But the illegal immigrant culture (which is largely represented by Hispanics) has thus far, sought to emulsify without actually blending with the rest of the stew. Our laws are a reflection of our established culture. And our political process is a reflection of our established culture. When people advocate flagrant disregard for our laws, and even overriding the established political process, in the interest of those who arent even American citizens, they are essentially saying that their particular ingredient (culture/nationality), takes precedence over the ingredients which they seek to blend into. And I think thats where most Americans draw the line.
It kind of is the truth. The expectation of assimilation is that all aspects of said culture are homogenized to the "base" culture. Meaning that language, norms, customs, are to be in line with the "dominant culture". However, we know that this never truly happens. African American culture is not the same as the Jewish American experience. Each have retained much of their traditions and hence "emulsified". Are laws are really a reflection of the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. Nobody is saying any one culture takes precedence, except those arguing that there is one "base" culture that must be assimilated to. Most Americans should take an object, historical look at have we've evloved and how communities have retained their identity in the US.
It agains disparages the many unique communities in the US.
That could be.... but Im not quite sure how it would disparage the many communities in the US; anymoreso than one acknowledging that Portuguese influence is the underlying common culture of Brazil, would disparage the few African or Polynesian descendants in that nation, in stating so. It seems to me that unique cultures here are really only unique in the most minimal of ways. Further, outside of maybe New York, most immigrants are very selective of where and in who's presence they exercise the uniqueness of their culture. (Choosing to eat certain food, dress a certain way, speak with a slight accent when talking to english speakers). They may do so in their respective ethnic enclaves. But it is EXTREMELY rare that I have ever heard Asians or Indians speak in their native tongue in public.
At a previous job, I worked with a few Ghanaians. Aside from the fact that they couldnt afford to be very fashionable by western standards, I never knew them to speak in their native tongue to one another around english speakers. They didnt segregate themselves from other coworkers.
Kind of true. The problem concerning models is that they don't into consideration issues like fluidity. Cultures do indeed change. However, we are finding out that we never truly assimilated to one culture in the US.
Again, I really dont think it is totally an issue of fully or truly assimilating. Rather, as cultures continued to assimilate to what we once were, our compromise of political correctness caused a displacement rather than a dilution of the original base culture, thus blurring the line between what our established value system was, and the value system of newly arriving cultures. -- Almost as though someone reached in the pot with a ladle, scooped out much of the rue and began tossing in all kinds of other ingredients, eventually relegating the base ingredient to being almost somewhat of a condiment.
But I would submit that the vast majority of immigrants did assimilate in decades past. Whether it took place over the course of two or three generations, or whether the immigrants immediately made efforts to assimilate, they did integrate themselves into the larger existing culture, simply because in those times they had to for work purposes. People then, worked side by side, in large manual labor operations, mostly ran by none other than the predominant culture. There was a certain degree of cultural assimilation that one had to undergo in order to stay employed. Of course labor unions did eventually change that dynamic.
Another important difference that I see, is that there exists today a much larger chasm between the level of economic prosperity (opportunity) of the countries from which immigrants come today, and the level of economic prosperity of the countries from which immigrants arrived in yesteryear. In generations past, our economy's wealth was not yet exceedingly superior to that of other nations. So our culture, appeared very similar to that of other impoverished regions of the globe, in terms of having a large underclass/working class. And in terms of having a plutocracy that immigrants could arrive to, and integrate into the working class mesh of what was then the predominant way of life.
Today, our nation has superseded that state of impoverishment with a huge swath of our citizens comprising the middle class (lower/upper). So it is no longer possible for someone with no marketable skills, no money and no education, (and likely little understanding of the english language) to seamlessly integrate themselves into our mainstream. They would have to arrive with some of the traits that are already found here, such as money, education, or status. I think this is why Asians immigrants transition more smoothly into our culture. Because many of them already possess the same assets necessary to our way of life as our mainstream (education, money, family structure)...imo food, clothes and dances and such are only ancillary aspects of culture, that really have only a very transitive effect on any culture, in the long run.
It kind of is the truth. The expectation of assimilation is that all aspects of said culture are homogenized to the "base" culture. Meaning that language, norms, customs, are to be in line with the "dominant culture". However, we know that this never truly happens. African American culture is not the same as the Jewish American experience. Each have retained much of their traditions and hence "emulsified". Are laws are really a reflection of the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. Nobody is saying any one culture takes precedence, except those arguing that there is one "base" culture that must be assimilated to. Most Americans should take an object, historical look at have we've evloved and how communities have retained their identity in the US.
See, this is where I might disagree with you. I dont think that a culture's norms and customs are forfeited in order to be in line with the dominant culture, during the process of assimilation. The only way to accomplish that would be to ethnically cleanse or impose regulation on the practice of immigrant customs. Rather the dominant culture actually borrows the folkways of incoming immigrants, and weaves them into the existing lifestyle. However, those folkways that are borrowed from immigrants have never been more than novelty in their relation to the actual prevailing culture. At no point, did the Irish culture preside over the existing puritanical British cultural establishment, but we did borrow aspects of their culture.
And while jewish and black experiences certainly did begin differently, when I look at their presence in this country's mainstream society today they really quite parallel one another moreso than they differ. Their respective histories did indeed place them on a separate trajectory initially. However it was the expressed intent of the civil rights movement for blacks to gain access to the same tools of progress that the prevailing class enjoyed. Jews, while undergoing mistreatment of their own, actually very much participated in this plight with African Americans, to work toward the same end. Today, each community values American education, wealth, and their respective religions. Only the most militant and fringe elements of these communities really seek a completely distal relationship from the established mainstream culture. The difference being that, in the illegal immigration contingent and those advocates who are Hispanic, the minority actually have pledged their singular allegiance to this nation and their compatriots.
See, this is where I might disagree with you. I dont think that a culture's norms and customs are forfeited in order to be in line with the dominant culture, during the process of assimilation. The only way to accomplish that would be to ethnically cleanse or impose regulation on the practice of immigrant customs. Rather the dominant culture actually borrows the folkways of incoming immigrants, and weaves them into the existing lifestyle. However, those folkways that are borrowed from immigrants have never been more than novelty in their relation to the actual prevailing culture. At no point, did the Irish culture preside over the existing puritanical British cultural establishment, but we did borrow aspects of their culture.
Hence why people call it a "salad bowl". That's the basic premise. Of course there is sharing and change. These models neglect cultural fluidity.
And while jewish and black experiences certainly did begin differently, when I look at their presence in this country's mainstream society today they really quite parallel one another moreso than they differ. Their respective histories did indeed place them on a separate trajectory initially. However it was the expressed intent of the civil rights movement for blacks to gain access to the same tools of progress that the prevailing class enjoyed. Jews, while undergoing mistreatment of their own, actually very much participated in this plight with African Americans, to work toward the same end. Today, each community values American education, wealth, and their respective religions. Only the most militant and fringe elements of these communities really seek a completely distal relationship from the established mainstream culture. The difference being that, in the illegal immigration contingent and those advocates who are Hispanic, the minority actually have pledged their singular allegiance to this nation and their compatriots.
Hebrew and Yiddish speakers in West Los Angeles are similar to Hebrew and Yiddish speakers in New York than they are to African Americans in Crenshaw, culturally speaking. Jews in the US, though having dealt with their fair share of ethocentrism (since there is no "real" Jewish race, but some Jews even argue yes...that's a different topic for a different time) have always had more in terms of resources than African Americans. They may have helped each other during the civil rights movement, but again two VERY different groups. That's all my point was. That these two groups which are indeed unique to America (American Jews and African Americans) are indeed VERY different. These groups are seen as "mainstream", but are not at all culturally the same.
That's the beauty of this nation. That we don't have a homogenous culture. We have a heterogenous mix of people. That's not a bad thing, in fact that's a good thing.
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.
