Immigration is history repeating itself
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
Diego Moita wrote:
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly.
Which only shows your lack of understanding regarding the concepts.
Diego Moita wrote:
The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me.
Once again, you obviously know little of the KKK. We don't kill them, and we don't hate them because of there race/nationality. We hate what they are doing. If an American belittled our country I'd have just as much disrespect.
Diego Moita wrote:
Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...
Oh dear God, pseudo intellects like yourself abuse the word "xenophobia" just as much as the word "matrix" was after the movie came out. Really, your use of it really shows you either don't understand the issues or you don't understand that word. And, if you really bothered to pay attention (which I doubt) you'd noticed not one of us said we hate Mexicans because they're Mexicans. Perhaps you're too shallow to understand the difference.
Diego Moita wrote:
Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
For one, you can still get into the country the same way. Just marry someone, aka get a relative here. Boom, instant pass and perfectly legal. Besides, this arguement is stupid anyway. Of couse, I'll have to point the obvious. I'll make sure to use small words... And in that period in time, ancestors did what was required to enter legally. If it wasn't much, so what. They obey the law and became tax paying citizens. If you can't see the difference, then I'm wasting my time.
Diego Moita wrote:
Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed.
I don't look down on the legal ones. So bull. Jeremy Falcon
-
Diego Moita wrote:
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly.
Which only shows your lack of understanding regarding the concepts.
Diego Moita wrote:
The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me.
Once again, you obviously know little of the KKK. We don't kill them, and we don't hate them because of there race/nationality. We hate what they are doing. If an American belittled our country I'd have just as much disrespect.
Diego Moita wrote:
Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...
Oh dear God, pseudo intellects like yourself abuse the word "xenophobia" just as much as the word "matrix" was after the movie came out. Really, your use of it really shows you either don't understand the issues or you don't understand that word. And, if you really bothered to pay attention (which I doubt) you'd noticed not one of us said we hate Mexicans because they're Mexicans. Perhaps you're too shallow to understand the difference.
Diego Moita wrote:
Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
For one, you can still get into the country the same way. Just marry someone, aka get a relative here. Boom, instant pass and perfectly legal. Besides, this arguement is stupid anyway. Of couse, I'll have to point the obvious. I'll make sure to use small words... And in that period in time, ancestors did what was required to enter legally. If it wasn't much, so what. They obey the law and became tax paying citizens. If you can't see the difference, then I'm wasting my time.
Diego Moita wrote:
Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed.
I don't look down on the legal ones. So bull. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
For one, you can still get into the country the same way. Just marry someone, aka get a relative here. Boom, instant pass and perfectly legal.
If only it were that easy. I speak as one who received a 'boom, instant pass' which took 7 months and that was extremely fast by normal standards. It's not uncommon for the whole process to take 3 years or more, depending on the country of origin. I happen to have been lucky enough to be applying from Australia where they almost bend over backwards to make the process fast. Here's the process http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/family.htm[^] Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
For one, you can still get into the country the same way. Just marry someone, aka get a relative here. Boom, instant pass and perfectly legal.
If only it were that easy. I speak as one who received a 'boom, instant pass' which took 7 months and that was extremely fast by normal standards. It's not uncommon for the whole process to take 3 years or more, depending on the country of origin. I happen to have been lucky enough to be applying from Australia where they almost bend over backwards to make the process fast. Here's the process http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/family.htm[^] Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
Rob Manderson wrote:
It's not uncommon for the whole process to take 3 years or more,
Warning, Sarcasm Level is High. More pseudo intellectual liberal hysteria. Using facts as an argument just shows you don't understand the issue. And if you would pay attention you would notice that almost no one said it didn't take a long time to get into the country. Anyway this is a USA issue so if you want to argue it speak English. We are not about to discus this issue in Australian.
"What classes are you using ? You shouldn't call stuff if you have no idea what it does" Christian Graus in the C# forum led mike
-
Rob Manderson wrote:
It's not uncommon for the whole process to take 3 years or more,
Warning, Sarcasm Level is High. More pseudo intellectual liberal hysteria. Using facts as an argument just shows you don't understand the issue. And if you would pay attention you would notice that almost no one said it didn't take a long time to get into the country. Anyway this is a USA issue so if you want to argue it speak English. We are not about to discus this issue in Australian.
"What classes are you using ? You shouldn't call stuff if you have no idea what it does" Christian Graus in the C# forum led mike
Got my 5! :) Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
-
Diego Moita wrote:
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly.
Which only shows your lack of understanding regarding the concepts.
Diego Moita wrote:
The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me.
Once again, you obviously know little of the KKK. We don't kill them, and we don't hate them because of there race/nationality. We hate what they are doing. If an American belittled our country I'd have just as much disrespect.
Diego Moita wrote:
Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...
Oh dear God, pseudo intellects like yourself abuse the word "xenophobia" just as much as the word "matrix" was after the movie came out. Really, your use of it really shows you either don't understand the issues or you don't understand that word. And, if you really bothered to pay attention (which I doubt) you'd noticed not one of us said we hate Mexicans because they're Mexicans. Perhaps you're too shallow to understand the difference.
Diego Moita wrote:
Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
For one, you can still get into the country the same way. Just marry someone, aka get a relative here. Boom, instant pass and perfectly legal. Besides, this arguement is stupid anyway. Of couse, I'll have to point the obvious. I'll make sure to use small words... And in that period in time, ancestors did what was required to enter legally. If it wasn't much, so what. They obey the law and became tax paying citizens. If you can't see the difference, then I'm wasting my time.
Diego Moita wrote:
Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed.
I don't look down on the legal ones. So bull. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Oh dear God, pseudo intellects like yourself abuse the word "xenophobia" just as much as the word "matrix" was after the movie came out.
"pseudo intellects", as opposed to real intellectuals like yourself? I can see no evidence of your intellect in the arguments you presented in your reply. Steve
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
Interesting, hence 5. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
Interesting, history often repeats itself. As a foreigner much of my perception of America is shaped by stories of immigrants becoming successful and forming part of American culture. There is a difference nowadays though in the availability of welfare, which is (possibly only perceived to be in the US, though is certainly the case in parts of europe) disproportionately spent on new immigrants as a group.
Diego Moita wrote:
But these accounts are flawed
Erm, they are not strictly flawed, there was no law and therefore they were not breaking any.. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
Diego Moita wrote:
The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me.
Diego, Every American CPian here who's made arguments always made them about "illegal" immigration. It's the "illegal" part of it that's wrong and should not be accepted. I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal. I think, of all the time I've been in the soapbox, I've never seen a word that's been as extensively ignored as "illegal". Must be those 2 consecutive 'l's in there - makes it easy to miss the word I guess. :rolleyes: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
For one, you can still get into the country the same way. Just marry someone, aka get a relative here. Boom, instant pass and perfectly legal.
If only it were that easy. I speak as one who received a 'boom, instant pass' which took 7 months and that was extremely fast by normal standards. It's not uncommon for the whole process to take 3 years or more, depending on the country of origin. I happen to have been lucky enough to be applying from Australia where they almost bend over backwards to make the process fast. Here's the process http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/family.htm[^] Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
Rob Manderson wrote:
It's not uncommon for the whole process to take 3 years or more, depending on the country of origin
So? Can't Americans create and enforce just about any immigration laws they choose? It's not the "would be" immigrants place to say "Gee, this process is too onerous, I'll just do it illegally" and expect our empathy. If I go to Australia and break their laws I expect to be punished. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
Diego Moita wrote:
The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me.
Diego, Every American CPian here who's made arguments always made them about "illegal" immigration. It's the "illegal" part of it that's wrong and should not be accepted. I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal. I think, of all the time I've been in the soapbox, I've never seen a word that's been as extensively ignored as "illegal". Must be those 2 consecutive 'l's in there - makes it easy to miss the word I guess. :rolleyes: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
It's the "illegal" part of it that's wrong and should not be accepted.
Thank you!! got my 5 Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
Diego Moita wrote:
The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me.
Diego, Every American CPian here who's made arguments always made them about "illegal" immigration. It's the "illegal" part of it that's wrong and should not be accepted. I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal. I think, of all the time I've been in the soapbox, I've never seen a word that's been as extensively ignored as "illegal". Must be those 2 consecutive 'l's in there - makes it easy to miss the word I guess. :rolleyes: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal.
Considering that America was illegally invaded and taken over by Western Europeans, I guess most non-First Nation inhabitants of the US are there illegally... ;) Steve
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
The fact that no documentation was required pre-1918 is completely irrelevent to the arguments today. It's interesting historically, but that's all. Laws change. What's pissing many US citizens off is that we have laws defining how people may enter the US. They are being ignored. What's more, some of those ignoring our laws are crying about not getting fair treatment or equal opportunity. Well, they aren't supposed to be here in the first place, and should go home and wait like other respectable people have. Our immigration process isn't the smoothest and definitely needs work, but that doesn't give anyone the right to just sneak in. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal.
Considering that America was illegally invaded and taken over by Western Europeans, I guess most non-First Nation inhabitants of the US are there illegally... ;) Steve
viaduct wrote:
Considering that America was illegally invaded and taken over by Western Europeans, I guess most non-First Nation inhabitants of the US are there illegally...
Illegally by whose laws? A law requires an issuing authority.
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal.
Considering that America was illegally invaded and taken over by Western Europeans, I guess most non-First Nation inhabitants of the US are there illegally... ;) Steve
I think the first might were illegally there. But how long will you look back? Some hundred or thousand years? Then everbody is an illegal immigrant. That isn't the point. America has the right to refuse the immigration to those who are illegally there - like any other country. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal.
Considering that America was illegally invaded and taken over by Western Europeans, I guess most non-First Nation inhabitants of the US are there illegally... ;) Steve
Whose to say the First Nation did not invade this land and take it from someone who was here befroe them?
-
I didn't participate in any debate here about immigration because they sounded plainly silly. The stupid arguments against immigration always sounded as recycled KKK talk to me. I am not the only one to think so, but I found a more based argumentation than mine: Washington Post about how the debate is a repetition[^]. Some interesting part of it: The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city. Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally ... ...But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. Perhaps rooted in human nature, each generation of immigrants tended to look down on those who followed. Not that I have any hope of dismissing xenophobia and hysteria with arguments...:rolleyes: [edited]One fascinating and lingering aspect in this story is the hability of the US (like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia and Canada also) to incorporate and rejuvenate from these waves of immigrants. Many countries needing immigrants can only dream of it.[/edited] Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles. George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) -- modified at 23:37 Sunday 7th May, 2006
I am more than a little resentful of people who feel that they can just side-step due process and pitch up wherever they feel like. The LEGAL immigration process to enter the US is long and hard and rightly so. It takes patience and determination to make it through but the rewards are high and worth waiting for. On the other hand ILLEGAL immigration is as if you get home to find a stranger sitting in your kitchen, drinking your beer, eating your food and demanding a room to live for himself and his family. And there's little or nothing you can do to get him out. No matter which you cut this it is the difference between entering the US LEGALLY or ILLEGALLY. The former should be welcomed, the latter turned away or sent home and told to join the back of the queue. Until this happens the resentments will not go away as the local population feels imposed upon and more than a little disconnected from politicians that are scared to make decisions in case they upset someone who shouldn't be there in the first place. home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door -
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I don't see why a lot of people ignore the "illegal" part of it and then attack them and talk about how America was a nation founded on immigration, and how they are racists for not accepting immigrants etc. Nobody's against immigration, as long as it's legal.
Considering that America was illegally invaded and taken over by Western Europeans, I guess most non-First Nation inhabitants of the US are there illegally... ;) Steve
It's the nature of humanity to explore and expand. Even the "native" americans travelled here - they didn't just spring up out of the ground. Other than that, your response was pedantic. ------- sig starts "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Whose to say the First Nation did not invade this land and take it from someone who was here befroe them?
In fact, many historians think they did, from Asia, but they did not destroy it like we did. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
It's the nature of humanity to explore and expand. Even the "native" americans travelled here - they didn't just spring up out of the ground. Other than that, your response was pedantic. ------- sig starts "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Other than that, your response was pedantic.
:) I know. What I said got taken rather seriously and voted down a lot for a post with a winking smiley in it.
