Immigration is history repeating itself
-
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! -
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 WrightCompared to many other countries, the American policy of granting visas are very liberal. But, USA has to guard against massive influx of people. I read a real life incident narrated in the Reader's Digest -- An old lady was standing in line at the immigration counter, and after a long wait reaches the counter and says to the official - "It is easier to get into heaven". The official goes - "Madam, there are a lot fewer people trying". I think this sums it up nicely. A large number of people in third world countries want to "migrate" to the US permenantly, but, they are quite sure that they will not make it through the immigration process. So, they take law into their hands, and take risks to life and health, and after so much effort, they make it into the country. Now, their offence goes up from a "petty charge" to a "felony". Sad, indeed. A thought must be spared for the desperation that causes such risk-taking. All they are doing is struggling violently because the noose is tightening. But, that said, I don't think USA will have any long term problems, if all the illegal immigrants were taken out of the mix, and legal immigrants are allowed to take their position. Being a democracy, only the voice of those who can vote counts.
-
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)
The "kick'em back" attitude is directed only towards those who are here illegally. Deportation is what the law calls for, so the second is clearly a corollary of the first.
-
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.
espeir wrote:
If the US were invaded by a foreign country and defeated, our laws would not hold any water and would not matter.
You are right - sad but true. But we shouldn't like it. There should be rights and laws depending on humanity not on strength.
espeir wrote:
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
Well, if Germany won the WWII all the killings wouldn't be murder. That's scary. We should base our society on knowledge not on violence. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
espeir wrote:
If the US were invaded by a foreign country and defeated, our laws would not hold any water and would not matter.
You are right - sad but true. But we shouldn't like it. There should be rights and laws depending on humanity not on strength.
espeir wrote:
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
Well, if Germany won the WWII all the killings wouldn't be murder. That's scary. We should base our society on knowledge not on violence. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
You are right - sad but true. But we shouldn't like it. There should be rights and laws depending on humanity not on strength.
Not humanity, but humanity's wants and needs. Democracy is the best way to ensure peace as war is rarely in the interests of the common voter. It usually arises from the desire for power of a few individuals.
ihoecken wrote:
Well, if Germany won the WWII all the killings wouldn't be murder. That's scary. We should base our society on knowledge not on violence.
But who defines the "knowledge"? We've had many countries with very different outlooks engage in such actions. Hitler was democratically elected. The fact of the matter is that people are screwed up. Sometimes war is necessary to straighten peoples' attitudes.
-
ihoecken wrote:
You are right - sad but true. But we shouldn't like it. There should be rights and laws depending on humanity not on strength.
Not humanity, but humanity's wants and needs. Democracy is the best way to ensure peace as war is rarely in the interests of the common voter. It usually arises from the desire for power of a few individuals.
ihoecken wrote:
Well, if Germany won the WWII all the killings wouldn't be murder. That's scary. We should base our society on knowledge not on violence.
But who defines the "knowledge"? We've had many countries with very different outlooks engage in such actions. Hitler was democratically elected. The fact of the matter is that people are screwed up. Sometimes war is necessary to straighten peoples' attitudes.
espeir wrote:
Not humanity, but humanity's wants and needs. Democracy is the best way to ensure peace as war is rarely in the interests of the common voter. It usually arises from the desire for power of a few individuals.
Ok, I agree.
espeir wrote:
But who defines the "knowledge"? We've had many countries with very different outlooks engage in such actions. Hitler was democratically elected.
Yes, but he took rights he wasn't allowed to based on the laws. Well, but it happened. We don't need to discuss it, I think we talk about the same just with different words :)
espeir wrote:
Sometimes war is necessary to straighten peoples' attitudes.
In this point I won't agree fully. The problem is that somebody has to decide if the war is necessary, but he won't be objective. But I don't know a perfect solution - so don't ask. War is just necessary because, we don't learn from the past and even if we do - some others won't... :sigh: ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
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.
Chill out, my initial comment had a winking smiley on it as I've pointed out three times now! I'm well aware of the points you are making, espeir, but I would say that the modern, ethical behaviour is for the right to prevail, not the might. If you think the might should prevail, then we should have left Saddam to it in Kuwait. Steve.
-
Chill out, my initial comment had a winking smiley on it as I've pointed out three times now! I'm well aware of the points you are making, espeir, but I would say that the modern, ethical behaviour is for the right to prevail, not the might. If you think the might should prevail, then we should have left Saddam to it in Kuwait. Steve.
viaduct wrote:
Chill out, my initial comment had a winking smiley on it as I've pointed out three times now!
No smiley will help you! You have written your comment - smiley or not - now you have to live with all those who feel offended and the thousands of comments you get. It's your own fault, so don't cry know! ;) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
