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
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.
-
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.
If the First Nation leaders didn't give the Europeans the right to move into their lands, then they went there illegally - or at least, they took the land immorally.
-
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.
I think this is because of the fact, we had the discussion a few weeks ago. Nobody wants to have it again, so perhaps I should vote you down, too. ;) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
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!Nish, There are 2 issues here bothering me. The first is the "illegal" argument (which I think the article I refered addresses adequatelly) and the second is the "kick'em back" attitude, also widespread in the debate here. I will refuse to pay attention to anyone who thinks that the second is a corollary of the first; you don't "kick back" 10 million people. I'll assume you don't accept the considerations the article does on the "they're illegal" argument. I can respect that. But what do you say about the attitude? Don't you see it is a repetition of a pattern (as the article mentions)? 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)
-
Nish, There are 2 issues here bothering me. The first is the "illegal" argument (which I think the article I refered addresses adequatelly) and the second is the "kick'em back" attitude, also widespread in the debate here. I will refuse to pay attention to anyone who thinks that the second is a corollary of the first; you don't "kick back" 10 million people. I'll assume you don't accept the considerations the article does on the "they're illegal" argument. I can respect that. But what do you say about the attitude? Don't you see it is a repetition of a pattern (as the article mentions)? 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)
Diego Moita wrote:
you don't "kick back" 10 million people
sure you do, otherwise you've accepted anarachy. 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!
-
If the First Nation leaders didn't give the Europeans the right to move into their lands, then they went there illegally - or at least, they took the land immorally.
I think you fail to understand the concept of law. Law has an issuing authority and is only as good as that authority. For example, in the US it's against the law to immigrate here outside of the specified legal procedures. Those procedures are defined by our legislature and that law is only valid as far as the legislature can enfore those laws. If the US were invaded by a foreign country and defeated, our laws would not hold any water and would not matter. When the Allies invaded Germany in WWII, we invalidated their screwed up laws and replaced them with our own as we became the governing body for a period of time. I'm sure it was probably illegal to overthrow the fascist government there, but we did and faced no rebuke since their power and ability to enforce their laws was diminished. Whether the Indians had any laws on immigration (and I'm pretty sure they didn't) is irrelevant. They were overtaken and their "laws" were replaced by America's. You're applying the wrong concept to the situation. War does not follow any laws as it's a confrontation of two opposing laws. The strongest party (and their laws) prevails.
-
Nish, There are 2 issues here bothering me. The first is the "illegal" argument (which I think the article I refered addresses adequatelly) and the second is the "kick'em back" attitude, also widespread in the debate here. I will refuse to pay attention to anyone who thinks that the second is a corollary of the first; you don't "kick back" 10 million people. I'll assume you don't accept the considerations the article does on the "they're illegal" argument. I can respect that. But what do you say about the attitude? Don't you see it is a repetition of a pattern (as the article mentions)? 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)
Diego Moita wrote:
you don't "kick back" 10 million people.
Well, I think it should be done gracefully. They should be given 3 months to leave on their own. That'd give them time to settle their stuff and get back. The Mexican government should also get themselves involved and offer housing/shelter for those who are returning. Before going back to Mexico, those who want to, should be given the option to submit an application for immigration. And in future, if they qualify, they should be invited back. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!
