It's Official

[Moonlapse]

There is also nothing wrong with an individual wanting to maintain his/her identity.

The US is in a unique position, yet again in history, to tailor and control its population to suit its changing needs.

This is the main statement that I'm concerned with. I'm just stating observations of U.S. history, as a caveat, where immigrants were made out to be a threatening mass along with the primary supporters of Americanization and their true nature as I percieve it. I can't honestly say if there is a current threat. All I have to go on is someone else's word. I agree that there is indeed a problem, but I try to base it on my own principles. For instance, if I lived in Mexico, I would migrate to the U.S. - legally or not. If I lived in China, I would migrate to the U.S. - legally or not. Etc, etc.

[Favonius Cornelius]

If you lived in southern California you might see why people out on the border are paranoid of the Mexican migration. There are many parts which are totally Spanish speaking and not of an American culture as it is. More importantly you also have desperate people running the border on a constant basis by any means possible, leading to death and shoot outs. Couple that with drug running, and you have a situation that isn't just about illegality, you have a real threat to your way of life. In a way it is like an invasion. Individually people vote to protect their identity by voting for tough measures on the national scale to stop this.

 

The argument that the nation needs them to have a strong economy is false. What using this second class citizen labor really does is create a false economy for the future, and it focuses more wealth into the rich who own the corporations which exploit. If these corporations had to hire American citizens, then they would be forced to pay real wages, which would have to increase since the minimum wage is a joke right now. Illegal immigration has much greater implications than some honest folk looking for work.

[Princeps]

I agree. The leftist view (by which I mean more liberal than myself, i.e very liberal) is that this chep labour is good for an economy because the workers are willing to work in poorly paid jobs. imo it is in fact bad for the economy and subverts the principals of the free market. Instead of raising the money or quality of working conditions, employers are free to take advantage of a different section of society. This aspect of globalisation is bad for affluent societies.

 

EDIT - PRINCIPLES

Edited October 22, 2006 by Princeps

[Moonlapse]

I have previously lived in Southern California, for a total of about 8 years. I even learned to speak Spanish in elementary school. I know there is a problem that needs to be fixed. I'm not denying that. However, I feel that focusing on national identity is a dangerous red herring. Ethnic areas that don't have a specificly American culture or don't predominantly speak English are nothing new.

 

Drugs... there is a big problem right there. We spend some money on drugs that goes to pharmaceutical companies and some money on drugs that goes to foreign drug producers. In effect, our prohibition of certain drugs helps contribute to a situation that people want to escape, or that their involvement in will necessarily make them criminal.

 

The threatening element of Mexican immigration... are these the people with families who are desperate to find work? Or are they they the people who are part of a drug operation empowered by our drug prohibition?

 

I live in Colorado, were in 2000, almost half of the foreign born population was from Mexico, higher than that of California. From what I've seen with my own eyes, not counting some talking head's opinion, Mexican immigrants don't threaten my way of life any more than anyone else.

 

Again, I'd like to point out that nearly every negative aspect can relate back to illegal drug trafficking based on our drug prohibition laws. You can spend a crapload of money to put bandaids on the situations here, but it really fixes nothing. Yes we need secure borders, no we should not have people in the country illegally, no we should not have an economy based on an underclass. What do you really think the answer is?

[Princeps]

Secure borders is one way, but hard to achieve. Another, rather Orwellian method, would be to create an ID system with biometrics etc (a massive undertaking but they are planning this in the UK, at a cost of

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Touchy subject.

 

I live in an area where, just recently (maybe a year or two) and still now, massive amounts of Laotian immigrants are settling. I have been appalled by the actions the government. I do not want to sound like a bad/greedy person, but I am angered that the government gives these people cars, very cheap if not free houses, and tons of handouts. Almost none of them speak english, they for some reason have obtained a driver's license (I've almost been hit several times) and some have total disregard for our laws. In order to become a citizen, don't you have to go through a certain process for citizenship and rite of immigration before you can effectively live here and be somewhat 'beneficial' to society? If so, how could these people have possibly passed? I do not hate these people at all- but I can not see how you can justify taking money out of John's pocket to buy some stranger (who probably doesn't even know the pledge of allegience) a car. I know for a fact that if a european came over to live in our area (which I know several that have), they get squat. My ancestors got squat.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Moonlapse]

I think that's a greater threat than their language or culture ever will be.

[Gaius Octavius]

AoS, maybe they are the ones who fought with the Green Berets during the Viet Nam war.

[Guest Allah]

That big fence on the Mexican border is a start.

 

I hear it ain't that effective.

 

That's what guns are for, silly.

 

AoS, maybe they are the ones who fought with the Green Berets during the Viet Nam war.

 

I'm sorry, but old lady Wok did not kill VC and crawl through the same mud and spilled the same blood as Green Berets. No. No way.

 

It's called the "Okay, fine whatever" process, children do it to their parents all the time. Authority is in control, kid/liberal neo-socialist needs a reason to challenge authority, and so they use in-law/immigrants as the issue and begin the "WELL WHY" and "NO U" coupled with "THAT IS NOT FAIR" until the Authority says...

 

"Okay, fine, whatever." Tadaa!!

 

I have many immigrant friends, we have growing Mong, Hispanic and Somolian (who I am openly racist against for cultural reasons, so bad example) communities. I know of the special treatment these "poor" people get. It's also cultural reasons that get in the way. For example, look at Mexico, and how the people there live. Compare that to the Mong community. The Mexican immigrants are actually pleasant to be around, they're a little over-the-top with some stuff but yeah, I get along with the work ethic. The Mong are... Well. They're private and don't like me because I have round eyes. But we maintain a special neutrality out of respect. I will not bring up my racist vitriol on here on the Somolian community, but I will mention I have a native Somolian friend so I'm at least open-minded about my predjudice.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Allah

[Kosmo]

Multiculturalist propaganda it's building a long term threat for some short term benefits. In Europe unemployment it's high and migrants have a landlord attitude.

Anyone who points to the fact that soon in most major cities locals will be a minority it's a racist and a nazy.

The fact that this minorities, and especially the muslims, have an openly agressive to the hosts cultural and political values it's undeniable.

Theo van Goghs death and other killings, the Denmark magazine problem, the riots in France, London and Madrid bombings prove that a deep conflict it's on the way and violence from "oppressed" minorities against the excessive liberalism of the stupid "nations" will continues.

Goverments favor this acts of agrresion to curtail the basic freedoms of the outnumbered, outspoken and demoralised "majorities"

When Segoline Royale will became president of France I will be so happy! France would have her elegant way to surrender because now they would like that but there is nobody to recive their surrender. And this is because they wanted to be more numerous then the germans and to lead Europe (to the islamic caliphate)

So, you guys in US ar fortunate, West Europe it's under siege.

Sorry for the rant, but this things make me sick.

[Ursus]

If I lived in Mexico I would flee to the US as well. But I would make an attempt to learn English, and needless to say I would obey the laws.

 

I kind of agree with FC that national identity, or perhaps cultural identity, is important. I'm just not sure how that should be defined.

 

Until fairly recently American culture was equated more or less with White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Anyone not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant could be locked out of the higher eschelons of political and socio-economic power. I myself am not Protestant by any means, and while I am White I don't care to define myself in those terms.

 

I am sympathetic to arguments that English should be the offical language of government, as there needs to be a common means of communication. Aside from that I would be quite scared about how to define a common American cultural experience, especially by those on the religious right who think anyone not in their own particular religious cult are scum.

 

I suppose the fact I can't find much in American culture to inspire me is one of the reasons I turned to the classics. The Romans had certain ideals and habits which made one "Roman" - and yet people of various backgrounds were allowed to adopt Romanitas.

[Moonlapse]

What would define this national or cultural identity? Obviously, English language is a start, but what else?

[Princeps]

What would define this national or cultural identity? Obviously, English language is a start, but what else?

 

Large cars, stetson hats, gun crime.

[Gaius Octavius]

What would define this national or cultural identity? Obviously, English language is a start, but what else?

 

Large cars, stetson hats, gun crime.

 

Don't forget the Marshall Plan.

[Princeps]

What would define this national or cultural identity? Obviously, English language is a start, but what else?

 

Large cars, stetson hats, gun crime.

 

Don't forget the Marshall Plan.

 

Or 1939-41.