May I see your papers, citizen?

I don't think it's at all racism, and not chauvinism or jingoism either, but does their status as illegal immigrants really factor into this concern?

If 25 million new immigrants from Mexico all legally entered the country tomorrow wouldn't your concern about cultural impact remain the same?

Maybe your concern is feasible and maybe it’s not, but it doesn't necessarily rise from hatred or disdain of Mexicans or their culture, or an exaggerated sense of the superiority of Americans or their culture, and this is what the folks who leap to accusations of racism refuse to acknowledge or even address in an intelligent manner.

Actually why would they? The intent is to use the accusations as a quick and aggressive strike. Raising them as simply possibilities or concerns would be counterproductive. By bluntly calling or even just insinuating you or your position racist they hope to hurt you, shut you up and place you in quarantine.

I use hurt in the sense of a slap to the face. Irrespective of whether or not they might be successful with it, there is definitely intent to intimidate. Most people don't enjoy being called racist, and if your new to this tactic, it can throw you off your game. It can surprise you and even anger you. By making you even slightly defensive it diverts you from your original argument. This is all the sorts of thing someone might hope to accomplish by literally slapping his or her opponent in the face.

Why they want to shut you up is obvious, but it's not only in the sense of rendering you silent. By classifying you or your position as racist the intent is reduce your argument, for those participating in the same forum, to a hateful rant. So while you may still be heard, no one will be listening to your words.

Quarantine is intended not only to reduce your influence, but to isolate you and even to serve as a warning to others.

All in all, accusations are much easier than constructing counter-arguments, and unfortunately they can be effective. They also have the added benefit of allowing the accuser to feel superior to the accused which, often times, is the primary goal all along.

In any case, it would be interesting to hear or see someone's argument why a concern about cultural dilution or whelming is a) not reasonable or rational and b) is inherently anti-social.

It would also be interesting to hear or see someone's suggestions for how this concern can be addressed fairly and effectively.

Whether or not it is a widespread concern in America today, it is becoming more of one in Europe and at one time or another has been a concern that people throughout the world have addressed...with and without success.

Just the sort of subject we should be discussing

Bush deliberately used the word crusade with regard to Iraq. The war was more to do with oil and the spread of American Hegemony more than anything else, they also made his dad look a bit of a fool.

You've got plenty of Koran burners and hate merchants in the Tea Party, all this rubbish about the World Trade Centre Mosque, shows the sickening levels of Islamaphobia and nlies spread by your right wing organs.



You lie quite easily don't you Finn? You accused those of us who support Palestinian self-determination as doing so purely to take a contrary position to the Conservatives. I told you my sympathy for their plight started when I watched an interview with Arafat as a child. That is very far from having him as a childhood hero.



Al-Megrahi is innocent, instead of just swallowing what your security forces tell you, try looking at the evidence. The real culprits are still out there. The truth will out eventually.



We're talking about right wing Christianity here, the sort of people who would nail Jesus up in a flash if he came back today. All that hippy bollocks about Camels and eyes of needles needs to be expunged.

History will write that it was a last gasp attempt by America to stay relevant in the Middle East, which turned ruinously expensive in dollars and prestige, and quickened both our departure from the Middle East and our decline as a super power. We are likely to also write that it quickened the gutting of the great American military might that had been built up over 70 years at fantastic expense, but this is a bit iffy still. There is an outside chance that we can keep the military strong for another 20 years, but based upon Washington budget talks this now seem very unlikely, given the likelihood that the military budget will be gutted by the end of the year.

This is one of those rare occasions where you and I agree.

Brandon wants to define the American culture. He talks about what "we" want, and how "his" country should be as if he and people like him own America. Of course in our diverse democracy this simply isn't reality.

The genius of America is that the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are equal in every way to Brandon. So are "libruls", homosexuals, Muslims, African-American and anyone else that Brandon doesn't think he wants to share a culture with.

America belongs to all Americans. We are all in this together and if we love our country we will figure out how to work together when it matters.

This idea that there is some static "American" culture to save is ridiculous. America will always reflect the values of the current generation of Americans (and I mean all of us). If American culture were static we would still own slaves and dance to fiddle music.

The America of today is more racially integrated and accepting than it was 100 years ago. Women can now vote and there is gay marriage in several states. All of this would have been inconceivable to earlier generations. Yet we are still America. It looks like in the future America will be browner and perhaps speak more Spanish. We will still be America because America belongs to Americans.

Brandon is a relic and the culture will inevitably change around him. It will frustrate him to no end, but that is how it has always been in America.

Gated communities.

I don't understand what all the fuzz is about. We all, including Brandon, are illegal immigrants into this land, which rightfully belongs to various Indian nations. Anyone who has a problem with illegal immigration, go back to Europe, or Africa, or wherever it is you came from!

As long as we are not committed to foreign wars, the "gutting" of defense spending won't endanger our military might--unless, of course, research and development funds are cut in favor of perquisites and big retirement packages for career officers.

"Holy War" and "Crusade"cover a lot of ground for you, don't they

Such silly talk. The US, like everyone else, has no need to be involved in "foreign wars". The last one ended in 1945. Since then the US has been involved in a large number of illegal invasions of sovereign nations, war crimes to be exact.

Of course, before WWII, the US had a long history of being involved in the rape and pillaging of many a country. But of course, you, pathfinder, the great cataloger of US "excesses", have covered all these, right?

I believe that you took part in one of those in Vietnam, while many of your more honest countrymen refused to involve themselves in those war crimes.

The Crusades have a particular resonance in the Middle East. Are you saying that Bush's team were so stupid they didn't realise that? You may not think that Holy War and Crusade are synonymous, but that's not what the dictionary says.

The joker who tried to assassinate the Pope claimed he wanted to kill the leader of the crusades. For many Muslims, the crusades never ended. A short book which i highly recommend is Amin Malouf's The Crusades through Arab Eyes. At the end of the book, he makes exactly the point that for the Muslim world, the crusades never ended.

With the idiots in the Bush administration its always hard to tell if they did something from invincible stupidity, or willful provocation. Them boys was not the brightest pennies at the bank.

I think you are ignoring concern for a very rapid and severe cultural transformation.

There is no snapshot of American culture that can be preserved, as is, over the years. What was American Culture 200 years ago is not American culture today and I doubt that Brandon

a) doesn't understand this, and
b) doesn't see it as unavoidable and even healthy, and
c) doesn't attribute it to the history of immigration in America

It is almost a cliché to refer to America as a melting pot, but I think it's not only been an appropriate metaphor for most of our history, it represents a state of national being for which we should strive. Melting pots suggest a rather slow and simmering process that builds on a foundation, rather than replacing or overwhelming one.

I'm sure that with each major wave of immigration in our history there were immediate and not insignificant tensions and particularly at the points where the new bumped up against the most recent. And although the newcomers may have had inherent disadvantages they were not always blameless when tensions arose. Eventually we got through them all though, and I'm pretty confident we will get through the ones we face today, however each wave was not identical to all others, and that past waves followed a certain course is no guarantee that future ones will follow that same one.

Condense the cultural change brought by immigration into a relatively short time span and allow for the perception that the extent of change is unbalanced and "in favor" of the newcomers, and the melting pot metaphor breaks down and fears of cultural domination will replace an appreciation for relatively slow and steady evolutionary changes.

Obviously there will be differing viewpoints on what constitutes a condensed time span or how unbalanced the shift needs to be, but it's just a matter of when fear and resentment kick in, not if.

This is obviously an extreme example, but I use it to make a point.

Imagine, for whatever reason, the Chinese feel it is urgent to vacate their homeland and take up new residence in foreign nations. Again for whatever reason, the US is seen as the premier destination and 100,000,000 Chinese (only 7.5% of their population) shows up on our shores.

Obviously, the immediate resource and infrastructure challenges would cause tension.

If it then became clear that the Chinese newcomers had no intention of any degree of assimilation, but instead intended to do everything they could to not only duplicate the culture of the old China within their new homeland, but to raise it up to the same or greater level of influence as that of whatever "American" culture existed when they arrived, it wouldn't take long for Americans to see this as wave of invasion, not immigration, and for tensions to climb even higher.

If we posit that the cause of the emigration from China was some sort of natural or manmade disaster we might more readily view it as a refugee problem rather a cultural invasion, but very few people indeed would be arguing that this is a good and normal thing, it's what made America great, and those of us who are not Chinese will just have stop resisting change and accept it!

Obviously this is an extreme scenario and is not intended to represent our situation with the current wave of Mexican immigration, but the closer one can draw parallels between the two, the better the current tension in some quarters can be understood.

To the extent that there are two sides of this issue, one will never accept a solution which involves throwing our borders open to any and all newcomers, and the other will never accept closing our borders to all future immigration and deporting all illegal immigrants currently living in the country.

If either side believes either of these "solutions" is possible and insists on remaining committed to them, there's really no place for them at the table. If they ever have sufficient power they will force their solution on the rest of us, but it's not only pointless to include them in discussions concerning a solution somewhere between the two extremes, it practically guarantees that no solution will ever be found.

Frankly, I would also exclude from the discussion any one or any group that cannot resist accusing the other side of racism.

Not only do such charges seriously handicap meaningful discussion, they signify the same intractable thinking that can only be satisfied with forcing their opinions on others.

We shouldn't be seeking a compromise we should be seeking a mutually agreeable solution. A compromise or horse-trade involves each side surrendering a point or position until both sides are satisfied that they have gained equally or lost equally. If you really believe that racism underlies your opponent's arguments are you going to be able to compromise on that? Are you going to be able to say, "OK I'll give you those racist practices, but you have to give me this...? If you are, then I would suggest the issue was never really that important to you in the first place and you were using it as a rhetorical weapon. You don't belong at the table either. Similarly, if self-professed racism is part of your argument, there's no seat for you at the table.

If a process like this achieved a solution, it would not be because one side has convinced the other that they are right. It would be because both sides have come to a better understanding of the positions of the other, and to some extent convince themselves the other is right.

No, Finn, there wasn't "not insignificant tensions", there was plain old ugly outright racism, the kind that Brandon is illustrating and you're trying to explain away.



"almost a cliche", jesus, it's been part of the big lie since day one.

Obviously both sides have their own connotations concerning the word "crusade," and yes Bush and his team made a stupid mistake using the term in that one speech. Unless I'm mistaken, it was never used in any others.

While sharing two of three definitions may not make two words precisely synonymous, a certain interchangeability is strongly implied. I certainly don’t see the definition of “crusade” covering:

Exploitation of oil, expansion of influence and sticking up for your Dad

There's also the defence industry, with the Cold War over, there needs to be a bogey man to justify the enormous amounts of money spent on defence. Our Defence Secretary Liam Fox is under scrutiny because of his best man's (at his wedding) involvement in UK arms missions.

Considering the efforts expended in the primaries and in the election to expose to view every characteristic of the candidates one might assume from that that American voters prefer such men.

Bright people have a distinct propensity to do what is necessary and that might be the very last thing voters want.

No, he did that as well, then again Bush has always worshipped Mammon more strongly than God.

Sheesh izzy!! Does that actually mean something to you?