I've been curious about this for a long time. A lot of anti-illegal immigration folks will state that they are concerned about security, not race. However, I can't help but notice some interesting trends. Where I live in the mid-plains region, immigration is an effective recruiting tool for the Ku Klux Klan. On a larger scale, the Anti-Defamation League has noticed that the issue of illegal immigration has led to a troubling resurgence of membership in the KKK.
To me, there is an obvious connection. I don't buy concerns about security at all. I do believe that people who depend on jobs that face wage depression due to immigration are not racist, though I think their anger is misplaced. I ask the third debate question as to me, it appears that the Bush administration's plan and the current bi-partisan agreement do have positive elements. I do like the option of helping people earn citizenship through a point system and believe it to be very fair and a positive step in the right direction. I can't help but feel that such animosity towards this plan, no matter how reasonable, has a darker underlying context that most don't want to admit publicly.
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
QUOTE
"If any one single issue or trend can be credited with re-energizing the Klan, it is the debate over immigration in America," said Deborah M. Lauter, ADL Civil Rights Director. "Klan groups have witnessed a surprising and troubling resurgence by exploiting fears of an immigration explosion, and the debate over immigration has, in turn, helped to fuel an increase in Klan activity, with new groups sprouting in parts of the country that have not seen much activity."
To me, there is an obvious connection. I don't buy concerns about security at all. I do believe that people who depend on jobs that face wage depression due to immigration are not racist, though I think their anger is misplaced. I ask the third debate question as to me, it appears that the Bush administration's plan and the current bi-partisan agreement do have positive elements. I do like the option of helping people earn citizenship through a point system and believe it to be very fair and a positive step in the right direction. I can't help but feel that such animosity towards this plan, no matter how reasonable, has a darker underlying context that most don't want to admit publicly.
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
No, not even close.
I noticed in this question- you didn't seperate illegal immigration vs legal immigration- that is the way those that exploit the illegals work. I think the way we look the other way over ILLEGAL immigration is racism, however. Beause there are alot of folks out there that want a brown person working for them, cheap. Legal immigration, however, I am all for- the country needs it, and needs it badly. our children are too fat and stupid to keep this country going- we need smart foreign kids, with parents that don't blame the teacher for thier kids failing grades
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
KKK also is all about christianity, should we make Christianity a crime, and call all christians racist because the KKK exploits Christianity.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No- it is the exploitation of the illegals that is racist. I have NEVER been for busting illegals unless they do other crimes, other than sneaking across the border. You can't blame a fella for wanting to support his family- I just can't bring myself to feel bad feelings for the illegal immigrant, but I have great animosity for those that would exploit those illegals.
I believe mandatory 5-10 year sentences for all board members of any corporation found to have more than 10 illegals in thier employ, UNLESS they have a DNA database of ALL employees and a policy in place that has heroic measures for keeping illegals from being employed.
The racism here is the willingness to look the other way at what are, essentially, indentured servants while here.
No, not even close.
I noticed in this question- you didn't seperate illegal immigration vs legal immigration- that is the way those that exploit the illegals work. I think the way we look the other way over ILLEGAL immigration is racism, however. Beause there are alot of folks out there that want a brown person working for them, cheap. Legal immigration, however, I am all for- the country needs it, and needs it badly. our children are too fat and stupid to keep this country going- we need smart foreign kids, with parents that don't blame the teacher for thier kids failing grades
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
KKK also is all about christianity, should we make Christianity a crime, and call all christians racist because the KKK exploits Christianity.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No- it is the exploitation of the illegals that is racist. I have NEVER been for busting illegals unless they do other crimes, other than sneaking across the border. You can't blame a fella for wanting to support his family- I just can't bring myself to feel bad feelings for the illegal immigrant, but I have great animosity for those that would exploit those illegals.
I believe mandatory 5-10 year sentences for all board members of any corporation found to have more than 10 illegals in thier employ, UNLESS they have a DNA database of ALL employees and a policy in place that has heroic measures for keeping illegals from being employed.
The racism here is the willingness to look the other way at what are, essentially, indentured servants while here.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Hmm...This is a difficult question to answer. My first reaction is to answer, "yes." The answer is obvious, if anyone has any inkling of how our current immigration policy developed. When we first decided to implement an immigration policy, it was inherently racist. We favored letting in white, Norther European immigrants. Old passports from the beginning of the 20th century clearly state "skin color" and heritage. During the 1920's, we passed immigration laws that would only allow immigrants in based on that immigrant population percentage in the US. Thats a little difficult to explain, but essentially, even white immigrant populations were not allowed to grow more than 3% through immigration. We placed strict limits on Asian immigrants (the first group to actually be banned from entering the US was Chinese). In the 1960's, we did a little bit better, and eased up on race restrictions...However, there is still a clear racial preference in our immigration policy, with most of the visas being granted to European citizens.
It is hard to argue that immigration policy isnt racist. However, it is also hard to argue for a completely nonracist policy. What would that mean exactly? That *every country* receive the same quota that allows their citizen to enter the country? That's also a little ridiculous...We get more visa applications from London than say, New Zealand. If each country had the same quota, clearly some countries would be getting shafted...
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
It is based on racist roots, and that is why the KKK can exploit it to their advantage.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
Hmmm...this is hard to say. There are very real economic and social issues that arise from high levels of immigration. However, I think it's easier for people to blame immigrants, than look into the deeper policy issues that created the problem in the first place. Our current immigration problem in the US is a good example. It's easy to blame the Mexicans and grumble that they're not assimilating. However, we've very actively supported Mexicans crossing the border, and up until the mid 1900's, there were no restrictions on Mexicans crossing the border. Additionally, US economic programs in Mexico have really hurt the Mexican economy; therefore, giving Mexicans more incentive the cross the border. There's a myriad of factors that need to be addressed if we really want to create a comprehensive immigration policy...However, I dont think thats what we want. And most people do not really want to try and find a feasible solution. It's a lot easier to simply blame the Mexicans.
Hmm...This is a difficult question to answer. My first reaction is to answer, "yes." The answer is obvious, if anyone has any inkling of how our current immigration policy developed. When we first decided to implement an immigration policy, it was inherently racist. We favored letting in white, Norther European immigrants. Old passports from the beginning of the 20th century clearly state "skin color" and heritage. During the 1920's, we passed immigration laws that would only allow immigrants in based on that immigrant population percentage in the US. Thats a little difficult to explain, but essentially, even white immigrant populations were not allowed to grow more than 3% through immigration. We placed strict limits on Asian immigrants (the first group to actually be banned from entering the US was Chinese). In the 1960's, we did a little bit better, and eased up on race restrictions...However, there is still a clear racial preference in our immigration policy, with most of the visas being granted to European citizens.
It is hard to argue that immigration policy isnt racist. However, it is also hard to argue for a completely nonracist policy. What would that mean exactly? That *every country* receive the same quota that allows their citizen to enter the country? That's also a little ridiculous...We get more visa applications from London than say, New Zealand. If each country had the same quota, clearly some countries would be getting shafted...
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
It is based on racist roots, and that is why the KKK can exploit it to their advantage.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
Hmmm...this is hard to say. There are very real economic and social issues that arise from high levels of immigration. However, I think it's easier for people to blame immigrants, than look into the deeper policy issues that created the problem in the first place. Our current immigration problem in the US is a good example. It's easy to blame the Mexicans and grumble that they're not assimilating. However, we've very actively supported Mexicans crossing the border, and up until the mid 1900's, there were no restrictions on Mexicans crossing the border. Additionally, US economic programs in Mexico have really hurt the Mexican economy; therefore, giving Mexicans more incentive the cross the border. There's a myriad of factors that need to be addressed if we really want to create a comprehensive immigration policy...However, I dont think thats what we want. And most people do not really want to try and find a feasible solution. It's a lot easier to simply blame the Mexicans.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 19 2007, 12:16 PM) 
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
No. America likes immigration.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 19 2007, 12:16 PM)
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Gee I dunno... Since we all get a long so well and the KKK are just such a wonderful group of folks... hmmm. How could the KKK get people to rally around them on a topic like ILLEGAL immigration? Who would they target?
I'm sorry this question isn't really worth answering. I mean unless you honestly don't know.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 19 2007, 12:16 PM)
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
Who is against a process where illegals can become legal? Amnesty, you'll find is derided by immigrants and Mayflowers alike. It's a bad idea. Sets a bad precendent. Is unfair to those doing the right thing. We have immigration laws. They're pretty liberal (not in the political sense) now. Maybe people who want to become Americans should try them out.
***
The end game is this. You come to America to have a better life. Great, come on in! Just do it legally. You're a person who hires illegal immigrants - You need to go to jail For a long, painful time.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
A few racist xenophobes oppose all forms of immigration because they don't like people who look too different from themselves and their families. The other 90-99% of us are only concerned about illegal immigration because porous borders leave us relatively defenses, illegal immigrants get exposed to economic exploitation. Law-abiding people, by definition, don't immigrate illegally-- they immigrate legally. I live in a South Texas town that is predominantly of hispanic ethnicity, and we also have some of the strictest ordinances to stop human trafficking/illegal immigration. This has almost nothing to do with race except for a few haters on both sides.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
If pacifism is not based on terrorist roots, then how can groups such as al-Qaida exploit it to their advantage? The question's implications are absurd. Wackos can use just about anything to their own advantage. The ADL you quoted is also referenced in the Wikipedia article on the KKK marginalizing their numbers.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No, for the reasons cited in the two questions above.
A few racist xenophobes oppose all forms of immigration because they don't like people who look too different from themselves and their families. The other 90-99% of us are only concerned about illegal immigration because porous borders leave us relatively defenses, illegal immigrants get exposed to economic exploitation. Law-abiding people, by definition, don't immigrate illegally-- they immigrate legally. I live in a South Texas town that is predominantly of hispanic ethnicity, and we also have some of the strictest ordinances to stop human trafficking/illegal immigration. This has almost nothing to do with race except for a few haters on both sides.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
If pacifism is not based on terrorist roots, then how can groups such as al-Qaida exploit it to their advantage? The question's implications are absurd. Wackos can use just about anything to their own advantage. The ADL you quoted is also referenced in the Wikipedia article on the KKK marginalizing their numbers.
QUOTE
As of 2005, there were an estimated 3,000 Klan members, divided between estimates of 100 and 158 chapters of a variety of splinter organizations, about two-thirds of which were in former Confederate states. The other third are primarily in the Midwest.
Okay, 3,000 of 300+ million is a very miniscule proportion of the population, indeed.3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No, for the reasons cited in the two questions above.
Seamus and others- doesn't it tick you off a bit in the way this debate (NOT nebraska's question, I mean, in the national level of the debate) that there is no distinction being made between legal and illegal immigration? I mean- that makes all the difference in the world- don't ya think?
I mean, it is kinda hard to be racist, if you WANT to see LEGAL immigrants, that are say, oh, Mexican, vs illegal immigrants from the same nation? "I hate mexicans, but only ILLEGAL mexicans"
Funny- never heard the KKK make that distinction either.
I mean, it is kinda hard to be racist, if you WANT to see LEGAL immigrants, that are say, oh, Mexican, vs illegal immigrants from the same nation? "I hate mexicans, but only ILLEGAL mexicans"
Funny- never heard the KKK make that distinction either.
I think we can see a clear pattern here regarding race and the debate over illegals. I will grant you that it is a valid concern and that any nation on this earth is concerned when a large number of outsiders attempts to make a new home on their land. What I think is racist is the notion that each and every illegal should be deported immediately. Reasonable efforts to have them earn points towards citizenship or to gradually earn it through incentives is opposed by people who will never be happy. They will complain the porrige is too hot or cold. They don't like the plan not because it won't work or that it won't solve the problem, but rather, that "those people" that have brown skin, brown eyes, and don't speak english might just earn citizenship. Call me cynical, but calls for drastic deportation are untenable and are only based on animosity. The president's plan for gradual citizenship was a great step forward, I'm amazed at how a lot of folks opposed it, though I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.
WEll, then you discount the large number of Eastern Europe illegals, and it is a growing problem, because when I say "deport all illegals" - it is irregardless of race- i am talking white Euros or Russians as well as mexicans. In fact, I tend to be more lenient with those south of the border, because they are somewhat in the position they are in because of US political issues- that is why I would rather we dry up the source of thier jobs- those that traffic and profit from illegal labor.
BTW- my S.O. is hispanic, and has one illegal grandparent. So, this issue is not without some emotion in my house. Her family are all hard working, and only the citizens have commited real crimes - darnit- so, I believe targeting employers with felony convictions is the way to go!
BTW- my S.O. is hispanic, and has one illegal grandparent. So, this issue is not without some emotion in my house. Her family are all hard working, and only the citizens have commited real crimes - darnit- so, I believe targeting employers with felony convictions is the way to go!
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Not sure how anyone can support this idea. Are the people who are against illegal immegrants (I am one) also against “legal” immegrants? I would say definitely NO. So this premis fall flat on its face.
.)2. If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because they are a group of nuts who use race as a tool and this is one form of it. They are meaningless in the overall debate and in the broader social context of this country.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No really. Many think that if you cut the line and are essentially a criminal you should not be “rewarded” with a path to citizenship. This clearly failed miserably in the 80s and is sure to fail again unless we have real border security and enforced major penalties on employers who hire illegals – absent this ther will be few who even bother to apply for the amnesty.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Not sure how anyone can support this idea. Are the people who are against illegal immegrants (I am one) also against “legal” immegrants? I would say definitely NO. So this premis fall flat on its face.
.)2. If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because they are a group of nuts who use race as a tool and this is one form of it. They are meaningless in the overall debate and in the broader social context of this country.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No really. Many think that if you cut the line and are essentially a criminal you should not be “rewarded” with a path to citizenship. This clearly failed miserably in the 80s and is sure to fail again unless we have real border security and enforced major penalties on employers who hire illegals – absent this ther will be few who even bother to apply for the amnesty.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
I can see where it could be, but that has to be taken on an individual basis. The debate isn't about immigration, but what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that certain industries use to exploit workers outside our labor laws. That does not have to be racist at all. If the immigration laws are being ignored, then send them back and don't let them in until they wait their turn and pay whatever dues they have to pay. Meanwhile, crack down on the industries that ignore our labor laws. This has been happening around here.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because they can? The KKK does not have a great reputation for being honest, and sales is the art of deception. Or is that persuasion? Eh, whatever.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
I think that at their core, these plans are unfair to legal immigrants playing by the rules. You break a law, you gotta pay. That's how things work for the rest of us. What makes illegal immigrants any different? That they've been breaking the law for a long time? That they have family living here? That they do the labor that citizens don't want to do? Those are all rationalizations away from the simple fact that being an illegal alien is being a law-breaker. By rule of law, they should be deported and placed at the back of the waiting line.
There's nothing racist about this. I have the same opinion about illegal immigration from Canada, Europe or any other nation in the world. The only thing different from an illegal immigrant and a legall one is that one immigrant is following the law, and the other is not. That's all there is to it. That most illegals are from Mexico is coincidence, as is skin color.
I can see where it could be, but that has to be taken on an individual basis. The debate isn't about immigration, but what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that certain industries use to exploit workers outside our labor laws. That does not have to be racist at all. If the immigration laws are being ignored, then send them back and don't let them in until they wait their turn and pay whatever dues they have to pay. Meanwhile, crack down on the industries that ignore our labor laws. This has been happening around here.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because they can? The KKK does not have a great reputation for being honest, and sales is the art of deception. Or is that persuasion? Eh, whatever.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
I think that at their core, these plans are unfair to legal immigrants playing by the rules. You break a law, you gotta pay. That's how things work for the rest of us. What makes illegal immigrants any different? That they've been breaking the law for a long time? That they have family living here? That they do the labor that citizens don't want to do? Those are all rationalizations away from the simple fact that being an illegal alien is being a law-breaker. By rule of law, they should be deported and placed at the back of the waiting line.
There's nothing racist about this. I have the same opinion about illegal immigration from Canada, Europe or any other nation in the world. The only thing different from an illegal immigrant and a legall one is that one immigrant is following the law, and the other is not. That's all there is to it. That most illegals are from Mexico is coincidence, as is skin color.
There is a strong undercurrent of racism (perhaps xenophobia is a better word) behind much of the controvery over illegal immigration.
If I had a dime for how many times I've heard that "the Mexicans" are taking over, well I'd have a few bucks, but its enough to get the idea.
Racism is a tricky beast to corner and one has to watch for the bywords now that centuries of sobering experience has finally forced it out of the public esteem.
These days its couched in concerns over culture and language.
Many Americans fear illegal immigration will change the "culture" of the nation, whatever that means.
..and Newt "Ghetto" Gingrich typifies the fight over Spanish speaking.
It my not be the prime motive, only those involved can really know, but it plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate.
The KKK knows and exploits this.
If I had a dime for how many times I've heard that "the Mexicans" are taking over, well I'd have a few bucks, but its enough to get the idea.
Racism is a tricky beast to corner and one has to watch for the bywords now that centuries of sobering experience has finally forced it out of the public esteem.
These days its couched in concerns over culture and language.
Many Americans fear illegal immigration will change the "culture" of the nation, whatever that means.
..and Newt "Ghetto" Gingrich typifies the fight over Spanish speaking.
QUOTE
"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. . . . We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
It my not be the prime motive, only those involved can really know, but it plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate.
The KKK knows and exploits this.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Not even close. I have yet to hear anybody outside of groups like the KKK oppose legal immigration.
The underlying premise is twofold. First off we have millions of people that entered this country illegally. Second is the economic factor.
I keep hearing about jobs that 'Americans won't do'. Well that is total garbage. It is true that you may not be able to hire them for 5 dollars an hour to haul garbage, but if they are paid enough Americans can and will do just about any job there is.
Here is California (my new home again) the entire service industry is made of illegals. Why? That's simple the owners don't have to pay them as much as they would for an American worker. When I lived in Ohio the entire service industry was American. Why? Because there weren't a lot of illegal workers available. So Americans can and do work in the service industry if they are not displaced by illegal foreigners.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because they exploit anything remotely in their favor.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
The hostility is not racism, it is a well developed sense of justice. Criminal behavior should not have any rewards.
There are millions of people here in America that followed the law they are one of this nation's greatest assets. But to say to those that apply and are not accepted, we say 'break the law and come here anyway and you can get citizenship' is got to be one of the dumbest ideas ever proposed.
Deport every single illegal and inform that they can not apply for 20 years. Arrest and jail anybody who rents to illegals, hires illegal, or transports illegals just like the laws state. Then we will have immigration reform.
Not even close. I have yet to hear anybody outside of groups like the KKK oppose legal immigration.
The underlying premise is twofold. First off we have millions of people that entered this country illegally. Second is the economic factor.
I keep hearing about jobs that 'Americans won't do'. Well that is total garbage. It is true that you may not be able to hire them for 5 dollars an hour to haul garbage, but if they are paid enough Americans can and will do just about any job there is.
Here is California (my new home again) the entire service industry is made of illegals. Why? That's simple the owners don't have to pay them as much as they would for an American worker. When I lived in Ohio the entire service industry was American. Why? Because there weren't a lot of illegal workers available. So Americans can and do work in the service industry if they are not displaced by illegal foreigners.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because they exploit anything remotely in their favor.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
The hostility is not racism, it is a well developed sense of justice. Criminal behavior should not have any rewards.
There are millions of people here in America that followed the law they are one of this nation's greatest assets. But to say to those that apply and are not accepted, we say 'break the law and come here anyway and you can get citizenship' is got to be one of the dumbest ideas ever proposed.
Deport every single illegal and inform that they can not apply for 20 years. Arrest and jail anybody who rents to illegals, hires illegal, or transports illegals just like the laws state. Then we will have immigration reform.
QUOTE(loreng59)
Not even close. I have yet to hear anybody outside of groups like the KKK oppose legal immigration.
..but that's because they don't have to the numbers are so small that only the most xenophobic could ever worry about an influx of a "foreign culture."
Race gets interjected into illegal immigration because it involves a large influx of people from one, non-European area of the world.
For many the legality (which I would point out is technically different from justice) is the issue, but other merely use this as a smokescreen to hide their disdain for the people they call "wetbacks".
Racism is still a powerful force in America, it infects almost every area of politics even as its influence wanes.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 21 2007, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE(loreng59)
Not even close. I have yet to hear anybody outside of groups like the KKK oppose legal immigration.
..but that's because they don't have to the numbers are so small that only the most xenophobic could ever worry about an influx of a "foreign culture."
Race gets interjected into illegal immigration because it involves a large influx of people from one, non-European area of the world.
For many the legality (which I would point out is technically different from justice) is the issue, but other merely use this as a smokescreen to hide their disdain for the people they call "wetbacks".
Racism is still a powerful force in America, it infects almost every area of politics even as its influence wanes.
So because they are such a small minority, their impact is minimal. That I can agree with the rest, I do not.
Legality is the issue of which immigrants are legal. But rewarding illegal actions is not legality it is a gross injustice to those that have entered this country legally and to those that have applied legally. You call it a smokescreen, I call it aiding and abetting criminal activity. Justice is rewarding those that do not break the laws of this country. So no I do disagree with you on the fundamental issue of justice for those that immigrate here legally.
I do not agree at all about your statement of racism. It is a factor that much, I regretfully have state, as for being powerful, no not anymore. Yes there are racist of various degrees and colors, but for the most part they have been marginalized. There are exception to that too like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Don Imus, but for the most part Americans have moved anyway from that.
I do not know of a single person that expresses any different concern about illegal immigration because of race. Regardless of their race, national origin, religion, whatever category you wish to state I say anybody that is here illegally is a criminal. Anybody the supplies them with residents, transportation, or employment is a criminal as well.
Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
I would say racism still plays a factor in the immigration debate today. Historically? Absolutely:
Objection to illegal immigration doesn't need to be based on racism, but for many people, including at least a few Republicans, it is. In the end, the only thing that paranoia and resentment accomplishes is give Democrats the advantage in policy reform. That's not the Democratic Party's fault. Only you can choose to be bigoted.
When I think about immigration I tend to ask myself what would I want if I weren't an exile, but whenever someone slams Mexicans or mumbles about a Hispanic takeover I second guess myself.
I would say racism still plays a factor in the immigration debate today. Historically? Absolutely:
QUOTE(Gary Farber)
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship, though not immigration, to free white persons "of good moral character."
There were minor changes in the Naturalization Act of 1795.
I don't recall that there were any other legal restrictions on immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Acts/Immigration Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1884, 1886, and 1888. Subhuman, opium-taking, Chinese were the menace then.
The Immigration Act of 1917, a period of tremendous nativism and anti-leftism, is when restrictions really started to come in. Asian Indians were, I believe, excluded. But no racism involved, you know!
Then rapidly followed a slew of acts restricting subhuman and threatening Japanese, Filipinos, and others, as well as Alien Land Laws restricting the brown people's right to own land, and so on.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was another huge response to immigration panic. Gotta keep out "undesirables"!
The Magnuson Act of 1934 was the first step in the other direction, followed by others.
There were minor changes in the Naturalization Act of 1795.
I don't recall that there were any other legal restrictions on immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Acts/Immigration Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1884, 1886, and 1888. Subhuman, opium-taking, Chinese were the menace then.
The Immigration Act of 1917, a period of tremendous nativism and anti-leftism, is when restrictions really started to come in. Asian Indians were, I believe, excluded. But no racism involved, you know!
Then rapidly followed a slew of acts restricting subhuman and threatening Japanese, Filipinos, and others, as well as Alien Land Laws restricting the brown people's right to own land, and so on.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was another huge response to immigration panic. Gotta keep out "undesirables"!
The Magnuson Act of 1934 was the first step in the other direction, followed by others.
Objection to illegal immigration doesn't need to be based on racism, but for many people, including at least a few Republicans, it is. In the end, the only thing that paranoia and resentment accomplishes is give Democrats the advantage in policy reform. That's not the Democratic Party's fault. Only you can choose to be bigoted.
When I think about immigration I tend to ask myself what would I want if I weren't an exile, but whenever someone slams Mexicans or mumbles about a Hispanic takeover I second guess myself.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 21 2007, 11:10 PM)
Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
I would say racism still plays a factor in the immigration debate today. Historically? Absolutely:
Objection to illegal immigration doesn't need to be based on racism, but for many people, including at least a few Republicans, it is. In the end, the only thing that paranoia and resentment accomplishes is give Democrats the advantage in policy reform. That's not the Democratic Party's fault. Only you can choose to be bigoted.
When I think about immigration I tend to ask myself what would I want if I weren't an exile, but whenever someone slams Mexicans or mumbles about a Hispanic takeover I second guess myself.
I would say racism still plays a factor in the immigration debate today. Historically? Absolutely:
QUOTE(Gary Farber)
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship, though not immigration, to free white persons "of good moral character."
There were minor changes in the Naturalization Act of 1795.
I don't recall that there were any other legal restrictions on immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Acts/Immigration Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1884, 1886, and 1888. Subhuman, opium-taking, Chinese were the menace then.
The Immigration Act of 1917, a period of tremendous nativism and anti-leftism, is when restrictions really started to come in. Asian Indians were, I believe, excluded. But no racism involved, you know!
Then rapidly followed a slew of acts restricting subhuman and threatening Japanese, Filipinos, and others, as well as Alien Land Laws restricting the brown people's right to own land, and so on.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was another huge response to immigration panic. Gotta keep out "undesirables"!
The Magnuson Act of 1934 was the first step in the other direction, followed by others.
There were minor changes in the Naturalization Act of 1795.
I don't recall that there were any other legal restrictions on immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Acts/Immigration Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1884, 1886, and 1888. Subhuman, opium-taking, Chinese were the menace then.
The Immigration Act of 1917, a period of tremendous nativism and anti-leftism, is when restrictions really started to come in. Asian Indians were, I believe, excluded. But no racism involved, you know!
Then rapidly followed a slew of acts restricting subhuman and threatening Japanese, Filipinos, and others, as well as Alien Land Laws restricting the brown people's right to own land, and so on.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was another huge response to immigration panic. Gotta keep out "undesirables"!
The Magnuson Act of 1934 was the first step in the other direction, followed by others.
Objection to illegal immigration doesn't need to be based on racism, but for many people, including at least a few Republicans, it is. In the end, the only thing that paranoia and resentment accomplishes is give Democrats the advantage in policy reform. That's not the Democratic Party's fault. Only you can choose to be bigoted.
When I think about immigration I tend to ask myself what would I want if I weren't an exile, but whenever someone slams Mexicans or mumbles about a Hispanic takeover I second guess myself.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
Ok, I'll start with the first question """Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?"""
Simplest answer to that is that is that in some cases perhaps so but overall no, as a white male republican I can tell you that Ive heard this type of thing before . I am a part of a race, gender, and political party that gets blamed for racism more than about any other combination. I'll tell you its not easy to voice an opinion in regards to race or immigration when your both white and a conservative male without receiving a label for doing so. Ive learned to accept it and honestly I don't care what people think, If a Mexican wants to call me racist for making an honest opionion it makes me do nothing but wonder about there own racial tendencies.
To me one way to fit the definition of a racist is to establish altered notions of someone with an opinion that if held by someone of your own race the opinion is no longer held. Put another way how many Mexicans do you suppose call other Mexicans racist for supporting a secure border because they happened to fight hard to get into this country legally only to see others take advantage of a flawed system? I'm sure they are disagreed with, but certainly not labeled racist. Let me make it clear that this county apart from native Americans is nothing but immigrants, in turn immigration is what has built this country to what it is today, nearly all of us are immigrants. However you need a system in place so you know who the hell it is coming into your country, period. You cant send a message to millions considering right now whether or not to come into this country legally or illegally that you will be rewarded for breaking the very laws we put in place to keep out drug dealers, murderers, and potential terrorist to let in decent deserving Mexicans who knock on the front door. This is an insult to the Mexican Americans who did take the time to obey our laws if you ask me, but what do I know im probably racist already saying what it is I already have.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Well, because the KKK is a racist organization that wants Mexicans out of America because they don't like Mexicans its as simple as that. However they represent a very small percentage of modern America. Last I heard there numbers were down to less than 5000 in a country of over 300 million. Not only do they not represent America at the same time they don't represent those who support securing the border many of whom are minorities and even Mexican themselves.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
In general No, Why? First off the question is not composed in a way that I can answer with a yes or no because most who support a secure border and disagree with this new bill "including myself" don't like the idea of giving amnesty to illegals, but at the same time isn't one way to gradually earn citizenship at its core, to go home, and then become a legalized citizen the right way, the way they should have the first time around? I support that, and the way I propose its done is to take the illegals without a previous criminal record and very gradually send them back to Mexico over a period long enough to allow there positions in the workforce to be replaced as they leave, then put them on a list in Mexico for LEGAL CITIZENSHIP. Those with a criminal record, particularly those with a notable one can go back to Mexico and stay as far as I'm concerned, but who knows maybe that sounds racist as well, but like I said before with no offense to you personally obviously your open enough to ask the race questions rather than shouting racist out and asking questions later, but In any case I no longer care to be labeled racist, because its me and me alone who would know, but I can assure you the white hood and robe are not a part of my wardrobe
QUOTE(turnea @ May 21 2007, 05:28 PM)
There is a strong undercurrent of racism (perhaps xenophobia is a better word) behind much of the controvery over illegal immigration.
If I had a dime for how many times I've heard that "the Mexicans" are taking over, well I'd have a few bucks, but its enough to get the idea.
Racism is a tricky beast to corner and one has to watch for the bywords now that centuries of sobering experience has finally forced it out of the public esteem.
These days its couched in concerns over culture and language.
Many Americans fear illegal immigration will change the "culture" of the nation, whatever that means.
..and Newt "Ghetto" Gingrich typifies the fight over Spanish speaking.
It my not be the prime motive, only those involved can really know, but it plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate.
The KKK knows and exploits this.
If I had a dime for how many times I've heard that "the Mexicans" are taking over, well I'd have a few bucks, but its enough to get the idea.
Racism is a tricky beast to corner and one has to watch for the bywords now that centuries of sobering experience has finally forced it out of the public esteem.
These days its couched in concerns over culture and language.
Many Americans fear illegal immigration will change the "culture" of the nation, whatever that means.
..and Newt "Ghetto" Gingrich typifies the fight over Spanish speaking.
QUOTE
"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. . . . We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
It my not be the prime motive, only those involved can really know, but it plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate.
The KKK knows and exploits this.
Well I have to say this is new. Although I support the decision that congress has made in this regard, I just can't see how someone opposing it would be racist.
I think that many people calling other's racist are actually just not tolerate toward other ideals, and call other's racist to justify their own intolerate views. It shows a hatred toward the other side of the pond by going to the extreme and using big words to make them inhumane like "racist".
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
The debate? I suppose it's more xenophobia than racism. It's although fed by a healthy dose of self-interest, which is hardly racist. There are plenty of black people in New Orleans who resent the low-skill Mexicans that are coming in and taking jobs post-Katrina. I just saw a t-shirt which read "FEMA - Find Every Mexican Available." The sad thing is the big-city Democrats don't see this impact every day, because in most places it happens a lot slower without a catastrophic event like a hurricane to speed things along.
As for the issue itself, it is quite the opposite of racism, in my opinion. Immigration hurts blacks harder than whites, due to the percentage of low-skill workers in that group. Take high-school dropouts, for instance.
It's even worse, the lower employment rate of black high-school dropouts (again, caused partly by immigration of low-skill workers) causes a disproportionately high increase in the incarceration rate:
I have been making this same argument about immigration for as long as I've been debating here. Low-skill immigrants increase the supply of low-skill labor, lowering wages and employment for low-skill workers of any color. Blacks are hurt the most by this, and would conversely benefit the most by reducing or controlling low-skill immigration.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage? Groups like the KKK always need an enemy on whom to blame their problems. The ADL should stick to its knitting and worry about Islamic radicals, who are actually killing jews in this country and abroad.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
It's not racist, it's just common sense.
In 1986, it was "impossible to round up and deport 3 million illegals"
In 2007, it is "impossible to round up and deport 15 million illegals"
In 2025, it will be "impossible to round up 50 million illegals"
If the President and the jokers in Congress think that we are this stupid, maybe we are. If we can't "round up" illegal immigrants, why would you or I believe that we can identify and register them, require them to work 2 years, then go home (!) for a year, pay "fines," etc. It just isn't credible. And it isn't "racist" to point this out. We are apparently the only country in the world without the right to control our border.
The debate? I suppose it's more xenophobia than racism. It's although fed by a healthy dose of self-interest, which is hardly racist. There are plenty of black people in New Orleans who resent the low-skill Mexicans that are coming in and taking jobs post-Katrina. I just saw a t-shirt which read "FEMA - Find Every Mexican Available." The sad thing is the big-city Democrats don't see this impact every day, because in most places it happens a lot slower without a catastrophic event like a hurricane to speed things along.
As for the issue itself, it is quite the opposite of racism, in my opinion. Immigration hurts blacks harder than whites, due to the percentage of low-skill workers in that group. Take high-school dropouts, for instance.
QUOTE(Impact of Low-Skill Immigrants On Low-Skill Blacks)
The observed correlations suggest that immigration is an important underlying factor influencing the observed trends. In particular, their analysis finds that a 10 percent rise in immigrants in a particular skill group significantly trimmed the wages of black and white men alike. For African-Americans, the decline was 3.6 percent. For whites, it was actually slightly higher: 3.8 percent. Beyond that, however, the black-white experience differed markedly, especially for low-skilled workers. Take employment rates: from 1960 to 2000, black high school dropouts saw their employment rates drop 33 percentage points –– from 88.6 percent to 55.7 percent -- the authors found in their analysis of census data from 1960 to 2000. The decrease for white high school dropouts was only roughly half that –– from 94.1 percent to 76.0 percent.
One reason, the authors argue, is that black employment is more sensitive to an immigration influx than white employment….
One reason, the authors argue, is that black employment is more sensitive to an immigration influx than white employment….
It's even worse, the lower employment rate of black high-school dropouts (again, caused partly by immigration of low-skill workers) causes a disproportionately high increase in the incarceration rate:
QUOTE
That same immigration rise was also correlated with a rise in incarceration rates. For white men, a 10 percent rise in immigration appeared to cause a 0.1 percentage point increase in the incarceration rate for white men. But for black men, it meant a nearly 1 percentage-point rise.
Why would a boost in immigration effectively put more men, especially black men, behind bars? The authors put forward a straightforward theory: immigration causes wages and employment to fall for black workers. When this happens, some of those workers –– especially those with the lowest skills -- turn to crime to increase their income. …
Why would a boost in immigration effectively put more men, especially black men, behind bars? The authors put forward a straightforward theory: immigration causes wages and employment to fall for black workers. When this happens, some of those workers –– especially those with the lowest skills -- turn to crime to increase their income. …
I have been making this same argument about immigration for as long as I've been debating here. Low-skill immigrants increase the supply of low-skill labor, lowering wages and employment for low-skill workers of any color. Blacks are hurt the most by this, and would conversely benefit the most by reducing or controlling low-skill immigration.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage? Groups like the KKK always need an enemy on whom to blame their problems. The ADL should stick to its knitting and worry about Islamic radicals, who are actually killing jews in this country and abroad.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
It's not racist, it's just common sense.
In 1986, it was "impossible to round up and deport 3 million illegals"
In 2007, it is "impossible to round up and deport 15 million illegals"
In 2025, it will be "impossible to round up 50 million illegals"
If the President and the jokers in Congress think that we are this stupid, maybe we are. If we can't "round up" illegal immigrants, why would you or I believe that we can identify and register them, require them to work 2 years, then go home (!) for a year, pay "fines," etc. It just isn't credible. And it isn't "racist" to point this out. We are apparently the only country in the world without the right to control our border.
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes. The is an underlying premise by the open borders group that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. This thread's opening post appears to be a perfect example of the premise. Attributing such a motivitation to all opponents of illegal immigration serves to marginalize illegal immigration opponents as morally deficient, and therefore unworthy of a place at the table.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
The KKK has always been against non-European immigration. Since the great majority of the illegals are, in point of fact, non-European, there is a natural constituency. As the debate gets more heated, those voices that bear a sense of clarity become more attractive to some. Those who see the currently floating boondoggle as, at best, an pusinamulous compromise, at worst as a betrayal, will find the no-compromise stance of the KKK beckoning, perhaps enough so to overcome reservations they may have about the less savory aspects of the KKK. The KKK aren't the only radicals benefitting from this, there are those on the other side who are also benefitting.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No. Undoubtedly, there are some who are hostile because of racism, just as there are some open borders types who have come to their position as a result of their anti-Americanism. To say that such positions are "at its core" based on either racism or anti-Americanism are worse than useless generalizations.
Wow! There's a heck of an ad hominem there.
As noted, impute racism to the opponents so you can dismiss their arguments.
What, exactly, is the problem that we're attempting to solve? Perhaps if we can pin that down, we can make an assessment of whether or not this is likely to work?
I am a native American, as are most on this board. (Moif and Julian being the most obvious exceptions )
EDITED to eliminate doubled response.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes. The is an underlying premise by the open borders group that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. This thread's opening post appears to be a perfect example of the premise. Attributing such a motivitation to all opponents of illegal immigration serves to marginalize illegal immigration opponents as morally deficient, and therefore unworthy of a place at the table.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
The KKK has always been against non-European immigration. Since the great majority of the illegals are, in point of fact, non-European, there is a natural constituency. As the debate gets more heated, those voices that bear a sense of clarity become more attractive to some. Those who see the currently floating boondoggle as, at best, an pusinamulous compromise, at worst as a betrayal, will find the no-compromise stance of the KKK beckoning, perhaps enough so to overcome reservations they may have about the less savory aspects of the KKK. The KKK aren't the only radicals benefitting from this, there are those on the other side who are also benefitting.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No. Undoubtedly, there are some who are hostile because of racism, just as there are some open borders types who have come to their position as a result of their anti-Americanism. To say that such positions are "at its core" based on either racism or anti-Americanism are worse than useless generalizations.
**********************************************************************
QUOTE(Nebraska29)
What I think is racist is the notion that each and every illegal should be deported immediately
What's racist about it? If someone were to say that each and every Asian illegal should be deported immediately, but let's allow Anglo-Saxon illegals to stay, that would be racist. "Each and every" isn't racist. The mere fact that a policy prescription falls disproportionately upon a single racial group does not make the policy racist. Nor, contrary to popular opinion, is a policy that deliberately has a greater impact on one racial group versus another automatically morally deficient.QUOTE
Reasonable efforts to have them earn points towards citizenship or to gradually earn it through incentives is opposed by people who will never be happy.
Wow! There's a heck of an ad hominem there.
QUOTE
They don't like the plan not because it won't work or that it won't solve the problem, but rather, that "those people" that have brown skin, brown eyes, and don't speak english might just earn citizenship.
As noted, impute racism to the opponents so you can dismiss their arguments.
What, exactly, is the problem that we're attempting to solve? Perhaps if we can pin that down, we can make an assessment of whether or not this is likely to work?
*****************************************************************
QUOTE(Net2007)
Let me make it clear that this county apart from native Americans is nothing but immigrants, in turn immigration is what has built this country to what it is today, nearly all of us are immigrants.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with this. I am not an immigrant. Neither my mother nor my father were immigrants. My children are not immigrants. This is a great flaw in thinking that serves to buttress the open borders argument. While it is true that everybody in America today is a descendant of somebody who immigrated here sometime in the past, that does not make us immigrants.I am a native American, as are most on this board. (Moif and Julian being the most obvious exceptions
)EDITED to eliminate doubled response.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 23 2007, 07:59 PM)
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes. The is an underlying premise by the open borders group that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. This thread's opening post appears to be a perfect example of the premise. Attributing such a motivitation to all opponents of illegal immigration serves to marginalize illegal immigration opponents as morally deficient, and therefore unworthy of a place at the table.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
The KKK has always been against non-European immigration. Since the great majority of the illegals are, in point of fact, non-European, there is a natural constituency. As the debate gets more heated, those voices that bear a sense of clarity become more attractive to some. Those who see the currently floating boondoggle as, at best, an pusinamulous compromise, at worst as a betrayal, will find the no-compromise stance of the KKK beckoning, perhaps enough so to overcome reservations they may have about the less savory aspects of the KKK. The KKK aren't the only radicals benefitting from this, there are those on the other side who are also benefitting.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No. Undoubtedly, there are some who are hostile because of racism, just as there are some open borders types who have come to their position as a result of their anti-Americanism. To say that such positions are "at its core" based on either racism or anti-Americanism are worse than useless generalizations.
Wow! There's a heck of an ad hominem there.
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes. The is an underlying premise by the open borders group that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. This thread's opening post appears to be a perfect example of the premise. Attributing such a motivitation to all opponents of illegal immigration serves to marginalize illegal immigration opponents as morally deficient, and therefore unworthy of a place at the table.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
The KKK has always been against non-European immigration. Since the great majority of the illegals are, in point of fact, non-European, there is a natural constituency. As the debate gets more heated, those voices that bear a sense of clarity become more attractive to some. Those who see the currently floating boondoggle as, at best, an pusinamulous compromise, at worst as a betrayal, will find the no-compromise stance of the KKK beckoning, perhaps enough so to overcome reservations they may have about the less savory aspects of the KKK. The KKK aren't the only radicals benefitting from this, there are those on the other side who are also benefitting.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No. Undoubtedly, there are some who are hostile because of racism, just as there are some open borders types who have come to their position as a result of their anti-Americanism. To say that such positions are "at its core" based on either racism or anti-Americanism are worse than useless generalizations.
Wow! There's a heck of an ad hominem there.
As noted, impute racism to the opponents so you can dismiss their arguments.
What, exactly, is the problem that we're attempting to solve? Perhaps if we can pin that down, we can make an assessment of whether or not this is likely to work?
I am a native American, as are most on this board. (Moif and Julian being the most obvious exceptions )
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes. The is an underlying premise by the open borders group that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. This thread's opening post appears to be a perfect example of the premise. Attributing such a motivitation to all opponents of illegal immigration serves to marginalize illegal immigration opponents as morally deficient, and therefore unworthy of a place at the table.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
The KKK has always been against non-European immigration. Since the great majority of the illegals are, in point of fact, non-European, there is a natural constituency. As the debate gets more heated, those voices that bear a sense of clarity become more attractive to some. Those who see the currently floating boondoggle as, at best, an pusinamulous compromise, at worst as a betrayal, will find the no-compromise stance of the KKK beckoning, perhaps enough so to overcome reservations they may have about the less savory aspects of the KKK. The KKK aren't the only radicals benefitting from this, there are those on the other side who are also benefitting.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No. Undoubtedly, there are some who are hostile because of racism, just as there are some open borders types who have come to their position as a result of their anti-Americanism. To say that such positions are "at its core" based on either racism or anti-Americanism are worse than useless generalizations.
**********************************************************************
QUOTE(Nebraska29)
What I think is racist is the notion that each and every illegal should be deported immediately
What's racist about it? If someone were to say that each and every Asian illegal should be deported immediately, but let's allow Anglo-Saxon illegals to stay, that would be racist. "Each and every" isn't racist. The mere fact that a policy prescription falls disproportionately upon a single racial group does not make the policy racist. Nor, contrary to popular opinion, is a policy that deliberately has a greater impact on one racial group versus another automatically morally deficient.QUOTE
Reasonable efforts to have them earn points towards citizenship or to gradually earn it through incentives is opposed by people who will never be happy.
Wow! There's a heck of an ad hominem there.
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes. The is an underlying premise by the open borders group that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. This thread's opening post appears to be a perfect example of the premise. Attributing such a motivitation to all opponents of illegal immigration serves to marginalize illegal immigration opponents as morally deficient, and therefore unworthy of a place at the table.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
The KKK has always been against non-European immigration. Since the great majority of the illegals are, in point of fact, non-European, there is a natural constituency. As the debate gets more heated, those voices that bear a sense of clarity become more attractive to some. Those who see the currently floating boondoggle as, at best, an pusinamulous compromise, at worst as a betrayal, will find the no-compromise stance of the KKK beckoning, perhaps enough so to overcome reservations they may have about the less savory aspects of the KKK. The KKK aren't the only radicals benefitting from this, there are those on the other side who are also benefitting.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No. Undoubtedly, there are some who are hostile because of racism, just as there are some open borders types who have come to their position as a result of their anti-Americanism. To say that such positions are "at its core" based on either racism or anti-Americanism are worse than useless generalizations.
**********************************************************************
QUOTE(Nebraska29)
What I think is racist is the notion that each and every illegal should be deported immediately
What's racist about it? If someone were to say that each and every Asian illegal should be deported immediately, but let's allow Anglo-Saxon illegals to stay, that would be racist. "Each and every" isn't racist. The mere fact that a policy prescription falls disproportionately upon a single racial group does not make the policy racist. Nor, contrary to popular opinion, is a policy that deliberately has a greater impact on one racial group versus another automatically morally deficient.QUOTE
Reasonable efforts to have them earn points towards citizenship or to gradually earn it through incentives is opposed by people who will never be happy.
Wow! There's a heck of an ad hominem there.
QUOTE
They don't like the plan not because it won't work or that it won't solve the problem, but rather, that "those people" that have brown skin, brown eyes, and don't speak english might just earn citizenship.
As noted, impute racism to the opponents so you can dismiss their arguments.
What, exactly, is the problem that we're attempting to solve? Perhaps if we can pin that down, we can make an assessment of whether or not this is likely to work?
*****************************************************************
QUOTE(Net2007)
Let me make it clear that this county apart from native Americans is nothing but immigrants, in turn immigration is what has built this country to what it is today, nearly all of us are immigrants.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with this. I am not an immigrant. Neither my mother nor my father were immigrants. My children are not immigrants. This is a great flaw in thinking that serves to buttress the open borders argument. While it is true that everybody in America today is a descendant of somebody who immigrated here sometime in the past, that does not make us immigrants.I am a native American, as are most on this board. (Moif and Julian being the most obvious exceptions
)What I meant to imply was most of us here are decedents of those who immigrated here, whether it be decedents of white Europeans like myself, decedents of black Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, or whatever. The only true native Americans would be Indians. The argument I was trying to make by saying that, is that Immigration is responsible for the America we see today, so I agree people should be able to move here but at the same time we need a system in place to keep the bad seeds out, and the only way to do this is by knowing who is coming into your country. When we tell thousands of illegal immigrants that you can break the law and get away with it that sends a message to countless others that there is no reason to respect the systems we have set in place to protect us.
QUOTE(net2007 @ May 23 2007, 04:00 PM)
What I meant to imply was most of us here are decedents of those who immigrated here, whether it be decedents of white Europeans like myself, decedents of black Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, or whatever. The only true native Americans would be Indians. The argument I was trying to make by saying that, is that Immigration is responsible for the America we see today, so I agree people should be able to move here but at the same time we need a system in place to keep the bad seeds out, and the only way to do this is by knowing who is coming into your country. When we tell thousands of illegal immigrants that you can break the law and get away with it that sends a message to countless others that there is no reason to respect the systems we have set in place to protect us.
Why are Indians "true native Americans"? Whether you want to believe the anthropologists or young earthers, they didn't originate here either. The rhetorical/emotional problem with the "we're all immigrants" argument is that its used by open border types as a fulcrum of moral relativism and to ignore the subject of illegality.
I agree with the rest of the position articulated above.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 23 2007, 11:18 PM)
QUOTE(net2007 @ May 23 2007, 04:00 PM)
What I meant to imply was most of us here are decedents of those who immigrated here, whether it be decedents of white Europeans like myself, decedents of black Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, or whatever. The only true native Americans would be Indians. The argument I was trying to make by saying that, is that Immigration is responsible for the America we see today, so I agree people should be able to move here but at the same time we need a system in place to keep the bad seeds out, and the only way to do this is by knowing who is coming into your country. When we tell thousands of illegal immigrants that you can break the law and get away with it that sends a message to countless others that there is no reason to respect the systems we have set in place to protect us.
Why are Indians "true native Americans"? Whether you want to believe the anthropologists or young earthers, they didn't originate here either. The rhetorical/emotional problem with the "we're all immigrants" argument is that its used by open border types as a fulcrum of moral relativism and to ignore the subject of illegality.
I agree with the rest of the position articulated above.
You and I seem to feel the same way about immigration concerning the Mexican border. However we disagree on what defines an immigrant or descendant of an immigrant. The first to settle here in large numbers were Indians, but they had no unified political system in place. Its true that European settlers are most responsible for making America what it is today so thats a topic that is widely controversial because while Indians were here first, America wasn't even a country when we got here. It was scattered pockets of Indian tribes many of whom fought for land as well amongst themselves.
So I guess in any case if you were born in America then you are not a "true immigrant", however I think my point was that migration from various nations to this country is what built the America we now know. Therefore I'm not an advocate of closing our borders completely, not that that would work anyway, but im a strong advocate of enforcing our laws and cleaning up this god awful mess occurring today that allows drug dealers to get here with ease.
Also
I just heard someone just make the comment that they don't buy the fact that this is a security issue and all I have to say to that is whats to buy? Its not opinion, or theory that weak border laws and weak enforcement make this country less secure, its fact and thats all there is to it. The Mexican border has become a hub for drug dealers making money bringing there products into our country, and thats something else thats fact not opinion. Not to mention the fact that if a terrorist wanted an easy route into America they could easily come here through Mexico. At the very least anyone with a criminal record can waltz right into this country just like they are doing now and that makes us less secure, case and point.
QUOTE
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
No. It is based on an underlying premise of legality. The discussion of illegal aliens isn't really even part of the immigration debate itself...immigration is concerned with legal entry into the country, which makes it completely separate from the discussion of illegal entry into the country. Combining the two would be like equating those who legally withdraw money from their account in a bank with bank robbers...both are getting money from the bank--one group legally, the other illegally. Yet everyone would rightfully think it is ludicrous to consider the two as similar. What's the difference?
QUOTE
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Because groups always spin any situation to their advantage, regardless of the facts of the matter. It's called politics.
QUOTE
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
No, it is at its core a recognition of the illegal, hence criminal, nature of those affected, as well as an understanding that if you don't punish those who have come across illegally, then you are just incenting more to come. Ditto and magnified for all the help we provide them when they are here.
Every other country on earth has immigration policies, and hence immigration debate--are they all racist too? Or just us? Why or why not?
I know the temptation to start up our spin machines may be irresistible, but let's at least try folks.
I mean both Lesly and I have produced evidence that although we as individuals may not use race as a reson to base our immigration views on, our elected officials (such as Tancredo) may not be so saintly.
These blanket "no" responses smack of a need to convince one's self of a fact rather than deal with the situation as it is.
The facts are more complex.
Some of the immigration debate is based on race, that's a fact and we have to acknowledge it to deal with it.
I mean both Lesly and I have produced evidence that although we as individuals may not use race as a reson to base our immigration views on, our elected officials (such as Tancredo) may not be so saintly.
These blanket "no" responses smack of a need to convince one's self of a fact rather than deal with the situation as it is.
The facts are more complex.
Some of the immigration debate is based on race, that's a fact and we have to acknowledge it to deal with it.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Yes and no. For a large majority, the debate doesn't appear to have anything to do with racism. This is a question of borders, security, and legality. There are some honest arguments going on as to what place we have allowed illegal immigrants to take in our society and economics, and whether the fact that we've turned a blind eye to their presence allows the illegals some rights in terms of citizenship and legal status.
That said, some people definitely have a racist view on this. The topic of illegal immigration is a sensitive one and many people displace their anger at 'amnesty' toward Hispanics and Hispanic culture as a whole. The other side of the coin is that people who are against amnesty are often deemed racist, even if their position stems from non-racist arguments.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Well, the question answes itself. The KKK will exploit anything to further its agenda, much like most groups. I find myself terribly unconcerned what spin such a vile group puts on any issue.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
[/quote]
same answer as for number 1. For some people the hostility is gonig to be tied up in racism because they are angry at the idea that illegals will be given a near-pass on their crime. As a country, we tend to hold fast to the idea that our jobs and prosperity should go to Americans first before taking care of others, much less those who come into our country illegally. I find myself sharing that anger, though I don't subscribe to antipathy towards Hispanics or Latino culture as a whole. I belive that hostiltiy for this amnesty process can be rightfully aimed at the people who entered the country illegally in the first place, the employers who knowingly exploited them, and the government officials looknig to give the whole thing a pass.
Yes and no. For a large majority, the debate doesn't appear to have anything to do with racism. This is a question of borders, security, and legality. There are some honest arguments going on as to what place we have allowed illegal immigrants to take in our society and economics, and whether the fact that we've turned a blind eye to their presence allows the illegals some rights in terms of citizenship and legal status.
That said, some people definitely have a racist view on this. The topic of illegal immigration is a sensitive one and many people displace their anger at 'amnesty' toward Hispanics and Hispanic culture as a whole. The other side of the coin is that people who are against amnesty are often deemed racist, even if their position stems from non-racist arguments.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
Well, the question answes itself. The KKK will exploit anything to further its agenda, much like most groups. I find myself terribly unconcerned what spin such a vile group puts on any issue.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
[/quote]
same answer as for number 1. For some people the hostility is gonig to be tied up in racism because they are angry at the idea that illegals will be given a near-pass on their crime. As a country, we tend to hold fast to the idea that our jobs and prosperity should go to Americans first before taking care of others, much less those who come into our country illegally. I find myself sharing that anger, though I don't subscribe to antipathy towards Hispanics or Latino culture as a whole. I belive that hostiltiy for this amnesty process can be rightfully aimed at the people who entered the country illegally in the first place, the employers who knowingly exploited them, and the government officials looknig to give the whole thing a pass.
Turnea- I think you have it backwards- it is very racist to allow industry to exploit poor uneducated workers for cheap labor and criminal to pocket those taxes and social security payments instead of allowing them to go into the appropriate places.
My significant other is hispanic, and her step dad is illegal. He is a highly skilled labor (refrigerator repair)- so they pay him 3 bucks an hour less than a "legal" and pockets the taxes and soc sec. On top of that- there is a great deal of employers that DON'T pay at all- what are they going to do- complain about non-payment?
Turnea- I think the corporations and lobbyists have done a very good job of turning this around- if the US were to address TRUE reasons for illegal immigration- we could dry it up in a month.
I am not for arresting the illegals and deporting them in any kind of "sweep"- instead, I am all for rounding up, oh, say, 100 illegals at a plant,getting proof positive that they are illegal- and then arresting all the managers of the plant or farm or whatever. Felony conviction, hard time in federal prison, say 10-15 years, and redefine the hiring of "undocumented workers" to "slave trading"- and call it what it is - an exploitation of folks that are here illegally to feed thier families.
Once again- jobs dry up, if we still have a labor shortage- then we can simply up the quota of allowed legal trasient workers.
Pretty much will also ensure that those caught sneaking across the boarder is up to no good- instead of just a job seeker,
The dirty fact is that we are a racist nation BECAUSE we allow illegal immigration- NOT the other way around.
My significant other is hispanic, and her step dad is illegal. He is a highly skilled labor (refrigerator repair)- so they pay him 3 bucks an hour less than a "legal" and pockets the taxes and soc sec. On top of that- there is a great deal of employers that DON'T pay at all- what are they going to do- complain about non-payment?
Turnea- I think the corporations and lobbyists have done a very good job of turning this around- if the US were to address TRUE reasons for illegal immigration- we could dry it up in a month.
I am not for arresting the illegals and deporting them in any kind of "sweep"- instead, I am all for rounding up, oh, say, 100 illegals at a plant,getting proof positive that they are illegal- and then arresting all the managers of the plant or farm or whatever. Felony conviction, hard time in federal prison, say 10-15 years, and redefine the hiring of "undocumented workers" to "slave trading"- and call it what it is - an exploitation of folks that are here illegally to feed thier families.
Once again- jobs dry up, if we still have a labor shortage- then we can simply up the quota of allowed legal trasient workers.
Pretty much will also ensure that those caught sneaking across the boarder is up to no good- instead of just a job seeker,
The dirty fact is that we are a racist nation BECAUSE we allow illegal immigration- NOT the other way around.
CR that could of course be addressed simply by giving said illegals legal status but most of the opposition to illegal immigration also opposes amnesty.
Again, personal views are one thing, but surely you don't believe that the opposition to illegal immigration is preoccupation with the compassionate treatment of labor.
If it weren't such a serious issue that'd give me a serious case of the giggles
...
Again, personal views are one thing, but surely you don't believe that the opposition to illegal immigration is preoccupation with the compassionate treatment of labor.
If it weren't such a serious issue that'd give me a serious case of the giggles
...
QUOTE(turnea @ May 24 2007, 10:15 AM)
Again, personal views are one thing, but surely you don't believe that the opposition to illegal immigration is preoccupation with the compassionate treatment of labor.
No, but CR is right and this has been a big issue for me with regards to illegal immigrant workers for a long time. No one should be working for less than a living wage, be it an illegal or not, citizen or not. As a country, we should be ashamed to countenance such practices and yes, I am willing to pay more for things to ensure that people work for a decent wage.
That said, no my opposition to amnesty has nothing to do with labor practices. I do favor large fines and jail time for employers who exploit their workers though.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 24 2007, 09:15 AM)
CR that could of course be addressed simply by giving said illegals legal status but most of the opposition to illegal immigration also opposes amnesty.
Again, personal views are one thing, but surely you don't believe that the opposition to illegal immigration is preoccupation with the compassionate treatment of labor.
If it weren't such a serious issue that'd give me a serious case of the giggles ...
Again, personal views are one thing, but surely you don't believe that the opposition to illegal immigration is preoccupation with the compassionate treatment of labor.
If it weren't such a serious issue that'd give me a serious case of the giggles
...Actually- I do think it is a type of racism- that is why we don't do anything serious about it- like punishing the employer.
Though I think it goes deeper than that- it is a bit of a war of the "haves" against the rest- it works for corporations in many ways- by the artificle lowering of wages in the US, and it also weakens labor unions-
"we can hire 10 ignain't mesicans instead of these uppity labor unions telling us how to pay them"
Turnea- I am all for documented day or transient workers AFTER the employers have had thier junk whapped-
- But why would we need documented workers if we employers have been forced to stop hiring illegals? 
-Seriously Turnea- why hire a foriegn national if you have to pay him/her the same as a US citizen?
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
What's racist about it? If someone were to say that each and every Asian illegal should be deported immediately, but let's allow Anglo-Saxon illegals to stay, that would be racist.
The fact that the debate questions were in the COLORS of the Mexican flag might have been a clue.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Unfortunately, yes, because any time the word “immigration” comes up, 9 times out of 10, it refers to Mexico. I don’t see too many threads decrying all the Canadians crossing the border illegally.
What the immigration debate in this country is about is keeping Mexicans out. That’s fact. (Of course, in Florida, it’s more likely to be Haitian immigrants being complained about, while Cubans are allowed in, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)That being said, the number of immigrants pouring across our southern border creates a lot of angst and posturing on the part of politicians, but it also creates a huge strain on our infrastructure. I would like to see illegal immigration stopped, but I’m also realistic enough to know that the likelihood of that ever happening is slim and none, and slim has left town. So, the politicians posture and pander to their base, telling them what they think is most likely to please their electorate, whether it be white faces or brown, and nothing ever really changes.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
I’d have to say yes because even though I am against illegal immigration, I have no problem with granting illegals already here with a process to become citizens. After reading all the hoops an immigrant has to jump through in order to take advantage of that process, I doubt that it will be popular (heavy fines, tons of paperwork, an extended period of time). Keeping criminals from south of the border out is darned near impossible; even if they were immediately deported, there's no guarantee Mexico would keep them in jail, and they'd just head north again. Our borders are porous, and there is no practical way to secure them. I wish I knew the secret of improving Mexico's economy to the point where none of its citizens would want to emigrate, but to me, that is where the root of the problem is. As long as Mexico's economy sucks, and employers in El Norte employ Mexican illegals, there will be illegal aliens.
Questions for debate;
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Surely it bears some on the debate.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
KKK trades on fear; fear of being taken over by people who will change the language, culture and power structure of the nation is a very real fear. While the KKK's legacy and tactics do not make them a legitimate entity, organizing to combat illegal immigration makes a lot of sense.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
[/quote]
For some reason, people seem to skip over the fact that illegals are here ILLEGALLY; for that reason, they are owed nothing. The fact that they've had kids here who can choose to be citizens should mean nothing. They are heirs to a crime.
The only immigration that should be permitted is that which benefits citizens of this nation; we owe non-citizens who wish to come here nothing, not even the chance to become citizens. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that some businessmen and economists argue we need below minimum wage labor for the economy, this issue would not even be debated. No one would argue that despite someone's having robbed a bank or murdered a man on the street, we should ignore that crime and give them a scholarship to college. The crime IS the thing.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Surely it bears some on the debate.
2.)If illegal immigration is not based on racist roots, then how can groups such as the KKK exploit it to their advantage?
KKK trades on fear; fear of being taken over by people who will change the language, culture and power structure of the nation is a very real fear. While the KKK's legacy and tactics do not make them a legitimate entity, organizing to combat illegal immigration makes a lot of sense.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
[/quote]
For some reason, people seem to skip over the fact that illegals are here ILLEGALLY; for that reason, they are owed nothing. The fact that they've had kids here who can choose to be citizens should mean nothing. They are heirs to a crime.
The only immigration that should be permitted is that which benefits citizens of this nation; we owe non-citizens who wish to come here nothing, not even the chance to become citizens. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that some businessmen and economists argue we need below minimum wage labor for the economy, this issue would not even be debated. No one would argue that despite someone's having robbed a bank or murdered a man on the street, we should ignore that crime and give them a scholarship to college. The crime IS the thing.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 24 2007, 05:58 PM)
QUOTE(Net2007)
What's racist about it? If someone were to say that each and every Asian illegal should be deported immediately, but let's allow Anglo-Saxon illegals to stay, that would be racist.
The fact that the debate questions were in the COLORS of the Mexican flag might have been a clue.
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
Unfortunately, yes, because any time the word “immigration” comes up, 9 times out of 10, it refers to Mexico. I don’t see too many threads decrying all the Canadians crossing the border illegally.
What the immigration debate in this country is about is keeping Mexicans out. That’s fact. (Of course, in Florida, it’s more likely to be Haitian immigrants being complained about, while Cubans are allowed in, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)That being said, the number of immigrants pouring across our southern border creates a lot of angst and posturing on the part of politicians, but it also creates a huge strain on our infrastructure. I would like to see illegal immigration stopped, but I’m also realistic enough to know that the likelihood of that ever happening is slim and none, and slim has left town. So, the politicians posture and pander to their base, telling them what they think is most likely to please their electorate, whether it be white faces or brown, and nothing ever really changes.
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
I’d have to say yes because even though I am against illegal immigration, I have no problem with granting illegals already here with a process to become citizens. After reading all the hoops an immigrant has to jump through in order to take advantage of that process, I doubt that it will be popular (heavy fines, tons of paperwork, an extended period of time). Keeping criminals from south of the border out is darned near impossible; even if they were immediately deported, there's no guarantee Mexico would keep them in jail, and they'd just head north again. Our borders are porous, and there is no practical way to secure them. I wish I knew the secret of improving Mexico's economy to the point where none of its citizens would want to emigrate, but to me, that is where the root of the problem is. As long as Mexico's economy sucks, and employers in El Norte employ Mexican illegals, there will be illegal aliens.
Well that may be a point I agree with but you just quoted the wrong person there daffy gal, DOH!
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 24 2007, 12:58 PM)
3.)Is hostility towards amnesty or a process for illegals to gradually earn citizenship at its core, racist? Why or why not?
I’d have to say yes because even though I am against illegal immigration, I have no problem with granting illegals already here with a process to become citizens. After reading all the hoops an immigrant has to jump through in order to take advantage of that process, I doubt that it will be popular (heavy fines, tons of paperwork, an extended period of time). Keeping criminals from south of the border out is darned near impossible; even if they were immediately deported, there's no guarantee Mexico would keep them in jail, and they'd just head north again. Our borders are porous, and there is no practical way to secure them. I wish I knew the secret of improving Mexico's economy to the point where none of its citizens would want to emigrate, but to me, that is where the root of the problem is. As long as Mexico's economy sucks, and employers in El Norte employ Mexican illegals, there will be illegal aliens.
I’d have to say yes because even though I am against illegal immigration, I have no problem with granting illegals already here with a process to become citizens. After reading all the hoops an immigrant has to jump through in order to take advantage of that process, I doubt that it will be popular (heavy fines, tons of paperwork, an extended period of time). Keeping criminals from south of the border out is darned near impossible; even if they were immediately deported, there's no guarantee Mexico would keep them in jail, and they'd just head north again. Our borders are porous, and there is no practical way to secure them. I wish I knew the secret of improving Mexico's economy to the point where none of its citizens would want to emigrate, but to me, that is where the root of the problem is. As long as Mexico's economy sucks, and employers in El Norte employ Mexican illegals, there will be illegal aliens.
I'm earnestly confused. What on earth does their situation in the US have to do with Race? How is the fact that some Americans would rather not have illegal immigrants in the US racist? It's just coincidence that they come in droves, often times in non-tax paying jobs, etc. They can be expensive on a community, and have a number of concerns that some Americans are up in arms about.
If they were white, would it matter? Of course not. The fact that no one gripes about illegal Canadian immigration revolves solely upon the notion that they aren't a sincere issue. It's probably very small in numbers.
Illegal Mexican immigration is an issue predominantly due to its scope. It has an impact on many communities and our economy. It's surely not racist. If they were white, black, pink, or purple, the problems would be the same.
QUOTE(net2007 @ May 23 2007, 05:00 PM)
What I meant to imply was most of us here are decedents of those who immigrated here, whether it be decedents of white Europeans like myself, decedents of black Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, or whatever. The only true native Americans would be Indians. The argument I was trying to make by saying that, is that Immigration is responsible for the America we see today, so I agree people should be able to move here but at the same time we need a system in place to keep the bad seeds out, and the only way to do this is by knowing who is coming into your country. When we tell thousands of illegal immigrants that you can break the law and get away with it that sends a message to countless others that there is no reason to respect the systems we have set in place to protect us.
Since you clearly want to be technical about it... American Indians weren't indigenous either. They walked down here from what we now call Russia across the Bering Strait and probably a few boaters too. Now I suppose they were legal what with there not being any America and therefore by proxy American Laws forbidding such an immigration. However, it's an immigration none-the-less.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ May 24 2007, 06:20 PM)
QUOTE(net2007 @ May 23 2007, 05:00 PM)
What I meant to imply was most of us here are decedents of those who immigrated here, whether it be decedents of white Europeans like myself, decedents of black Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, or whatever. The only true native Americans would be Indians. The argument I was trying to make by saying that, is that Immigration is responsible for the America we see today, so I agree people should be able to move here but at the same time we need a system in place to keep the bad seeds out, and the only way to do this is by knowing who is coming into your country. When we tell thousands of illegal immigrants that you can break the law and get away with it that sends a message to countless others that there is no reason to respect the systems we have set in place to protect us.
Since you clearly want to be technical about it... American Indians weren't indigenous either. They walked down here from what we now call Russia across the Bering Strait and probably a few boaters too. Now I suppose they were legal what with there not being any America and therefore by proxy American Laws forbidding such an immigration. However, it's an immigration none-the-less.
Right they migrated here, I mean this really is a controversial topic. I don't know if being here first makes you true Native Americans or not but technically they were the first to get here and that lead me to say that since they were the first to settle here, if anyone fits the description of a true Native American it would be the first ones who managed to start making babies here, resulting in your first generation of people born on this land and arguably the first Natives. However like I mentioned they had no unified political system in place, many tribes went one way while others went another way. Some fought for territory amongst themselves just like white Europeans did with Indians in general. Who was right or wrong in this debacle is anybodies guess, but immigration was essential to the development of the America we see today. This is my primary defending point for legal immigration. Illegal immigration I don't think we can afford to tolerate. I realize that scientist say man originated in Africa, but discussing it this far is a little deep and off topic, but I hear your points, it really is an open topic full of opinions.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 24 2007, 12:42 PM)
I mean both Lesly and I have produced evidence that although we as individuals may not use race as a reason to base our immigration views on, our elected officials (such as Tancredo) may not be so saintly.
It's probably no secret that I cannot stand Tancredo for comparing Miami to a third world country. Somehow I doubt the pudgy little bastard knows what it's like to see your mother weep after watching you squirrel away airline sandwiches in case there was nothing to eat in America on the flight from Jamaica to Miami. I will not forgive that smug, entitled prick if he gets on his knees and kisses Calle Ocho's sidewalk. Speaking of dum-dums:
QUOTE(Chicago Sun-Times)
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, while probing for the compromise's weak spots in Senate debate Tuesday, warned of "cultural" change resulting from a flood of low-income immigrants. That recalls the 1911 report of the U.S. Immigration Commission asserting that the "proportion of the more serious crimes of homicide, blackmail and robbery ... is greater among the foreign born," who also refuse to learn the English language.
Waves of cultural change is what led to modern America. The only difference is in a world of 24/7 news you can't exploit unskilled laborers as easily as before. Turnea, I'm glad to be on your side but I can't agree with you on "legalizing" illegal immigrants. Amendments are being added and removed as we speak, so I admit it's speculation on my part to suggest (1) any "teeth" written into this act, such as mandating newly documented workers return to their home of origin at specific intervals, will be unenforceable, and (2) the bill will not address why millions of Mexicans are here in the first place and both parties will once again avoid tackling the issue head on for purely political reasons:
QUOTE(Washington Post)
The clearest reason why Mexico has not prospered under NAFTA is found on the farm, the workplace for about one-fourth of the population. From 1993 to 2003, exports of American agriculture to Mexico more than doubled, climbing from $3.6 billion to $7.9 billion, according to Gary C. Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott in their book, "NAFTA Revisited." Over a similar period, Mexico lost nearly 2 million agricultural jobs, according to Mexico's National Employment Survey.
Mexico's agricultural exports to the United States also surged, climbing from $2.7 billion in 1993 to $6.3 billion in 2003. Huge farms have been developed to grow artichokes, tomatoes and other produce for the U.S. market. But those farms, many launched with American investment, typically pay about $13 a day. That's not enough to keep workers from leaving: They can make three to four times as much in even the lowliest U.S. jobs.Two hours south, in the village of Ejido Modelo Emiliano Zapata, Ruben Rivera sat on a bench in a forlorn plaza, rather than working on his seven-acre farm. He used to grow tomatoes and onions, hiring 150 workers to help at harvest. Now he doesn't even bother to plant. He can buy onions in the supermarket more cheaply than he can grow them. A crop of tomatoes yields less than the taxes. He lives off the $800 sent home monthly by his three sons, who run a yardwork business in Macon, Ga. [...]
Feed amounts to nearly 60 percent of the cost of raising a chicken. For the American poultry industry, the cost has been held down, historically, by subsidies for corn production. In 2005, American cropland for corn received a range of subsidies worth more than $10 billion, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Mexico's agricultural exports to the United States also surged, climbing from $2.7 billion in 1993 to $6.3 billion in 2003. Huge farms have been developed to grow artichokes, tomatoes and other produce for the U.S. market. But those farms, many launched with American investment, typically pay about $13 a day. That's not enough to keep workers from leaving: They can make three to four times as much in even the lowliest U.S. jobs.Two hours south, in the village of Ejido Modelo Emiliano Zapata, Ruben Rivera sat on a bench in a forlorn plaza, rather than working on his seven-acre farm. He used to grow tomatoes and onions, hiring 150 workers to help at harvest. Now he doesn't even bother to plant. He can buy onions in the supermarket more cheaply than he can grow them. A crop of tomatoes yields less than the taxes. He lives off the $800 sent home monthly by his three sons, who run a yardwork business in Macon, Ga. [...]
Feed amounts to nearly 60 percent of the cost of raising a chicken. For the American poultry industry, the cost has been held down, historically, by subsidies for corn production. In 2005, American cropland for corn received a range of subsidies worth more than $10 billion, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Before civilization adopted and enforced the artificial borders of the state, there was no reason to negatively regard migrant workers looking for better paying jobs. Borders are here to stay in the meantime, and it makes absolutely no sense—no sense at all—to pass a trade or immigration bill that does not address the negative impact U.S. subsidies and tariffs have on foreign markets. We can support and pass this immigration bill today without addressing the USDA and the Department of Agriculture's role. Then we will have this discussion again in ten years because I doubt Mexico's mechanized industries will sufficiently advance in a decade to have a decent shot at competing with us in the global market without tariffs/subsidies of their own. If you really want to help the migrant worker, stop giving "2.1 million American farm households", or >1% of the legal U.S. population, an unfair advantage costing taxpayers $176 billion in 2002. If you're looking for modern racism and nativism, start looking in economic policies.
QUOTE(net2007)
Well that may be a point I agree with but you just quoted the wrong person there daffy gal, DOH!
Stuff happens. I've corrected the quote attributation.
QUOTE(aevans176)
Illegal Mexican immigration is an issue predominantly due to its scope. It has an impact on many communities and our economy. It's surely not racist. If they were white, black, pink, or purple, the problems would be the same.
Uh-huh, right. Has nothing to do with them looking different and speaking a different language.
If you want to worry about immigrants, worry about H1B visa workers who never go home.
QUOTE(Lesely)
Turnea, I'm glad to be on your side but I can't agree with you on "legalizing" illegal immigrants.
..and I understand that there are plenty of reason to oppose amnesty that have absolutely nothing to do with race.
Even if I disagree I have no intention of demonizing those who disagree, and I think that's true of most people.
Despite the indignation of some on the right (mostly), no one is running around calling everyone against amnesty racist.
I am fully intent on registering my shame in naming Jeff Sessions my senator, living in Alabama can be tough sometimes. Seriously these may be the most intelligent, thoughtful, fellows on earth but Sessions and Shelby reinforce the worst stereotypes about the state every time they are seen or heard. Shelby even has the lip curl thing going, but I digress..
Anywhoo...
We are debating motivations here and I glad to see that we at least acknowledge that race plays a significant role in this debate, that's good enough for me.
Turnea- at this point, I am a net imorter of legal immigrants, 
-- I am all for some cultural change in the US- our culture could use some clorox or, rather, maybe some browning- either way- I don't care- the US culture NEEDs to change- and nothing about legal immigration of even in the numbers that are currently being thrown about as how many ILLEGALS are entering the county- I don't think it will harm a thing- IN fact- I think it would be very good- if they are paying taxes and the business has to legally employ them- what is the net harm? Population growth in the US very well mean some economic growth, who knows? Hispanics are no more monolithic in politics than whites or blacks are, so, if you were talking about a better bill which allowed documentation of every illegal currently here, and a short amnesty for businesses without having to pay back taxes or soc sec or whatever- but very, very strong penalties for those after- INCLUDNG those now illegals that don't register during the time period- I am all for it.
Everyone needs to be documented- and as far as that portion of the GW and Dem plan- I undertstand it, and it is cool- but every biz that hires someone under the table has to come clean RIGHT NOW- or face the consequences, in say, one year to have every employer documented. Any biz with more than, say, 2% of thier employees turn up undocumened- then the CEO is arrested, and so is the hiring manager, thrown in jail for slave trading.
That would certainly get thie attention!
The punishment to the business has to be ruination- or no matter what the law- you will have no change in reality, none at all.
Because it just turns out to be "the cost of doing business" with any lesser punishment.
-- I am all for some cultural change in the US- our culture could use some clorox or, rather, maybe some browning- either way- I don't care- the US culture NEEDs to change- and nothing about legal immigration of even in the numbers that are currently being thrown about as how many ILLEGALS are entering the county- I don't think it will harm a thing- IN fact- I think it would be very good- if they are paying taxes and the business has to legally employ them- what is the net harm? Population growth in the US very well mean some economic growth, who knows? Hispanics are no more monolithic in politics than whites or blacks are, so, if you were talking about a better bill which allowed documentation of every illegal currently here, and a short amnesty for businesses without having to pay back taxes or soc sec or whatever- but very, very strong penalties for those after- INCLUDNG those now illegals that don't register during the time period- I am all for it.Everyone needs to be documented- and as far as that portion of the GW and Dem plan- I undertstand it, and it is cool- but every biz that hires someone under the table has to come clean RIGHT NOW- or face the consequences, in say, one year to have every employer documented. Any biz with more than, say, 2% of thier employees turn up undocumened- then the CEO is arrested, and so is the hiring manager, thrown in jail for slave trading.
That would certainly get thie attention!
The punishment to the business has to be ruination- or no matter what the law- you will have no change in reality, none at all.
Because it just turns out to be "the cost of doing business" with any lesser punishment.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 24 2007, 11:42 AM)
I know the temptation to start up our spin machines may be irresistible, but let's at least try folks.
I mean both Lesly and I have produced evidence that although we as individuals may not use race as a reson to base our immigration views on, our elected officials (such as Tancredo) may not be so saintly.
These blanket "no" responses smack of a need to convince one's self of a fact rather than deal with the situation as it is.
...
Some of the immigration debate is based on race, that's a fact and we have to acknowledge it to deal with it.
I mean both Lesly and I have produced evidence that although we as individuals may not use race as a reson to base our immigration views on, our elected officials (such as Tancredo) may not be so saintly.
These blanket "no" responses smack of a need to convince one's self of a fact rather than deal with the situation as it is.
...
Some of the immigration debate is based on race, that's a fact and we have to acknowledge it to deal with it.
But the debate question doesn't ask if some of the issue is based on race, it asks
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
This implies that race is the primary factor, which you seem to disagree with yourself, both in your quote above "some of the immigration debate"), and also previously:
QUOTE(Turnea)
It my not be the prime motive, only those involved can really know, but it plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate.
QUOTE
The facts are more complex.
No, the facts are fairly simple. It is the politics that become complex. You say race plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate. This is separate and distinct from the facts surrounding any subject, and goes straight to the spin that various groups put on the issue. Take the emotion out of it, and this is a very simple issue. Is there really anyone in this thread, or anyone of national political prominence, who is a strong advocate of illegal immigration? No, of course not. THAT is precisely why various groups are spinning this as a racial issue, because when the base issue is looked at impartially, there really is nothing to debate or discuss at all. If you doubt this, try and make a case for allowing illegal immigration--if we were to get into such a discussion, it would almost assuredly be a short and one-sided affair, something I think you will readily agree with. But politics is based on spin and emotion, so we are embroiled in a completely needless controversy over the issue. Take the politics out of it, and this would be (and in fact is) a very very simple issue requiring little if any discussion.
There is a more in depth discussion in the domestic debate forum which I think would run counter to your assertion of the simplicity of the matter.
A brief description of the complicating factor would be:
Illegal and wrong are two very different things.
A brief description of the complicating factor would be:
Illegal and wrong are two very different things.
QUOTE
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
I would imagine for that to be true, Americans would have to be against all forms of immigration, not just illegal immigration.
The illegality of the immigration is the only thing that differentiates immigrants, not race.
This issue has already been raised. The problem with that is that illegal immigration involves far higher numbers of immigrants which triggers the racist "cultural" concerns.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 25 2007, 11:55 AM)
Illegal and wrong are two very different things.
Really? I would strongly disagree with that statement. This goes back to my assertion that I don't think there are any advocates of illegal immigration. What makes illegal immigration right?
QUOTE
The problem with that is that illegal immigration involves far higher numbers of immigrants which triggers the racist "cultural" concerns.
The fact that there are such high numbers of illegal immigrants is precisely what causes the problem, irregardless of their race. While I understand that there are a fair number of people out there touting 'cultural' concerns...the issue goes away if these people were legal immigrants, not illegal. Hence, it is their illegal status that is the issue, not their race.
I'll be nice and post it in the thread quick made as an edit to my previous post
QUOTE(turnea @ May 25 2007, 11:57 AM)
This issue has already been raised. The problem with that is that illegal immigration involves far higher numbers of immigrants which triggers the racist "cultural" concerns.
Its up to you to show that the size of the number, rather than the race itself, is triggering racist concerns, as opposed to any other concerns such as job concerns, law-abiding concerns, gravity concerns, etc.
That too has been pointed out in statements by men like Newt Gingrich, and senators Tom Tancredo and Jeff Sessions.
Sitting senators don't spout this kind of claptrap if they don't have constituents who feel the same way or worse.
Spanish as a "language of the ghetto", Miami as a "third-world country," the picture of foreign-born persons as likely murders and bank-robbers.
Not commentators, elected officials.
It's all in the thread.
Sitting senators don't spout this kind of claptrap if they don't have constituents who feel the same way or worse.
Spanish as a "language of the ghetto", Miami as a "third-world country," the picture of foreign-born persons as likely murders and bank-robbers.
Not commentators, elected officials.
It's all in the thread.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 25 2007, 03:39 PM)
That too has been pointed out in statements by men like Newt Gingrich, and senators Tom Tancredo and Jeff Sessions.
Sitting senators don't spout this kind of claptrap if they don't have constituents who feel the same way or worse.
Spanish as a "language of the ghetto", Miami as a "third-world country," the picture of foreign-born persons as likely murders and bank-robbers.
Not commentators, elected officials.
It's all in the thread.
Sitting senators don't spout this kind of claptrap if they don't have constituents who feel the same way or worse.
Spanish as a "language of the ghetto", Miami as a "third-world country," the picture of foreign-born persons as likely murders and bank-robbers.
Not commentators, elected officials.
It's all in the thread.
I'm not sure what in my post has been said by Gingrich, if it was even my post you were responding (vagueness).
So let me break down my understanding, or our common misinterpretation of events.
The question of the debate was:
QUOTE
1.)Is the immigration debate based on an underlying premise of racism?
To which several of us responded: "No, because if it were about race, the immigration controversy would be about both legal and illegal immigration." This makes sense under the assumption that race becomes a non-controversy when one enters the country legally.
Now, your response is that its not the race, but the number of the race (immigration) that ignites the racism.
So, I ask for evidence that, due to the number of immigrants, a controversy is spawned with a racial premise. The two main unproven variables being:
1. Is it due to the number of immigrants
and
2. It has a racial premise
Edit: Gross Typo's, I said illegal immigration was a non-controversy. Ugh
I was trying to avoid rehashing debate that has already been held in the thread. The quotes by Gingrich, Tancredo, and Sessions were all brought as evidence of the fears among many opponents of illegal immigration that is will somehow "degrade" American culture.
The racist assumption is the "ghetto" nature of Hispanic culture, the third-world nature of Miami, or the criminal tendencies of "foreigners" all referenced by elected officials as quoted in this thread.
This concern comes to the forefront in illegal immigration because only immigration of a mass level could substantially affect culture and Tancredo referenced it directly lamenting the great number of foreign influences in Miami.
In other words we've discussed both points earlier in this thread.
Lesly supplied the words of Tancredo and Sessions, I threw in Gingrich.
The racist assumption is the "ghetto" nature of Hispanic culture, the third-world nature of Miami, or the criminal tendencies of "foreigners" all referenced by elected officials as quoted in this thread.
This concern comes to the forefront in illegal immigration because only immigration of a mass level could substantially affect culture and Tancredo referenced it directly lamenting the great number of foreign influences in Miami.
In other words we've discussed both points earlier in this thread.
Lesly supplied the words of Tancredo and Sessions, I threw in Gingrich.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 25 2007, 05:24 PM)
I was trying to avoid rehashing debate that has already been held in the thread. The quotes by Gingrich, Tancredo, and Sessions were all brought as evidence of the fears among many opponents of illegal immigration that is will somehow "degrade" American culture.
The racist assumption is the "ghetto" nature of Hispanic culture, the third-world nature of Miami, or the criminal tendencies of "foreigners" all referenced by elected officials as quoted in this thread.
This concern comes to the forefront in illegal immigration because only immigration of a mass level could substantially affect culture and Tancredo referenced it directly lamenting the great number of foreign influences in Miami.
In other words we've discussed both points earlier in this thread.
Lesly supplied the words of Tancredo and Sessions, I threw in Gingrich.
The racist assumption is the "ghetto" nature of Hispanic culture, the third-world nature of Miami, or the criminal tendencies of "foreigners" all referenced by elected officials as quoted in this thread.
This concern comes to the forefront in illegal immigration because only immigration of a mass level could substantially affect culture and Tancredo referenced it directly lamenting the great number of foreign influences in Miami.
In other words we've discussed both points earlier in this thread.
Lesly supplied the words of Tancredo and Sessions, I threw in Gingrich.
As CR has pointed out, your quotes fail to prove race as the underlying premise in the immigration debate. Your concession to this point, given in CR's post:
QUOTE(Turnea)
It my not be the prime motive, only those involved can really know, but it plays a solid part in the emotion surrounding the debate.
as well as your insistence on the complexity of the issue suggest even you agree the answer to the initial question is "no." As this debate is continued in the domestic policy forum, I will continue there.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.