When I lived in CA my garbage collector was a black guy named John.
Almost all of the mail carriers were asian.
Call me naive, but if I was serious about gaining sympathy and acceptance as an illegal in another country, I don't think thumbing my nose at my employer or his/her customers would be the way to go.
I really like this conclusion (from an interesting report in the
Guardian/Observer):
Quote:It is strange though that the fiercest critics of the migration - those who panic most about a supposed loss of identity - often paint themselves in the most patriotic terms. Yet for patriots, they don't seem to have much confidence in their own country's ability to influence those who travel to its shores.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Yet for patriots, they don't seem to have much confidence in their own country's ability to influence those who travel to its shores.
Not when their value system is incompatible with your own (muslims), or they come so fast and in such numbers (aka Mexicans) that they feel no need to assimilate.
You obviously didn't read the link.
Not yet, but you paraphrased it to meet your needs, so I responded to that.
cjhsa wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Yet for patriots, they don't seem to have much confidence in their own country's ability to influence those who travel to its shores.
Not when their value system is incompatible with your own (muslims), or they come so fast and in such numbers (aka Mexicans) that they feel no need to assimilate.
Hmmm - no muslims or Mexicans, eh? How about some Haitians? Cubans?
Scandinavians?
Haitians were certainly an issue for some time and those here illegally should be deported. Cubans are a totally different story because they may be being persecuted for their anti-Castro beliefs.
I don't see a great number of illegals named Sven. Are you telling me the Swedish Chef from the muppets was an illegal?
cjhsa wrote:I don't see a great number of illegals named Sven. Are you telling me the Swedish Chef from the muppets was an illegal?
He certainly doesn't speak English like you require him to do.
cjhsa wrote:Haitians were certainly an issue for some time and those here illegally should be deported. Cubans are a totally different story because they may be being persecuted for their anti-Castro beliefs.
I don't see a great number of illegals named Sven. Are you telling me the Swedish Chef from the muppets was an illegal?
Whew! Good thing you don't take yourself too seriously, and see yourself as unassailably qualified to judge who's allowed to stay in America, or anything like that.
For me it is not negotiable who is allowed to obey our laws and who is not no matter how they pronounce their syllables. I believe that the law should be obeyed and, if it is a bad law, then we change the law, not our attitude about keeping it.
So I think the issue at this time is neither the original nationality of the immigrants nor what is their first language, but the issue is what the law should be toward their coming, their treatment when they get here, what we expect of them when they are invited, and what, if any, penalty shall be imposed for those who decide to sidestep the law and/or expectations.
A really interesting report in the Chicago Tribune:
How immigration roils tiny Georgian town
Quoting a passage from page 8 of the print version:
Quote:Since 1990, the Hispanic population in Gordon County has rocketed from 1 percent to 12 percent. Crowder, like many residents, believes that those who are in the country illegally should be sent back to where they came from. They mean Mexico, though Calhoun has almost as many Central Americans, including people from Guatemala and El Salvador.
[...]
History of intolerance
For many residents in Calhoun, founded after the government forced the Cherokee Indians off the land in 1835 to travel a Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, the so-called browning of America is frightening. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, many people have become wary of immigrants. Residents insist that crime has risen along with the influx of immigrants. Latino advocates said police routinely set up roadblocks in the city targeting Hispanics.
"There is a history here of racial intolerance, beginning with the Trail of Tears," said Pastor Stephen Edwards, coordinator of ethnic ministries for the Gordon County and Memorial Baptist Associations in Calhoun. "We have a lot of well-meaning people who are in a moral dilemma right now, and let's not pretend, we've got some out-andout racism going on too."
On Wednesday, Griselda, 23, a Guatemalan immigrant, sat in a grocery store with a small restaurant in the back. She and Ramona, 36, a Mexican who opened the restaurant last year after selling tacos at her house, talked about fear in the community, especially among illegal immigrants. Both asked that their last names not be used.
"What is the problem with the white people?" Griselda asked in Spanish, speaking through an interpreter. "There are so many of us, are they afraid we are going to do to them what they did to the Indians? We look like the Native Americans. Is that why they want us to leave?"
That's a crock. Typical of what happens when you send a big city liberal down to write a story about rural Georgia.
So you have opposite sources as those quoted in that report? Talked to the named people and they told you different?
Walter Hinteler wrote:So you have opposite sources as those quoted in that report? Talked to the named people and they told you different?
Although it seems to be the favorite argument of the A2K liberals for this issue, the fact is that most of the people who oppose illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants, do not do so because of racism. For me and the people I hear from, it's a matter of (a) the idea that the law should be respected and those who break it should not be rewarded, and (b) the right of the country to determine how many and which individuals it will accept each year as immigrants. I suppose that if you admitted that for most of us its not a matter of racism, then you'd have to argue the real issues, which you are apparently loath to do. It's clearly easier for you to accuse anyone who feels this way of racism, regardless of anything he might have to say.
You knew they were illegal when they came to the USA to work since decades.
But nothing was said when they were hired at your low-paying jobs.
And now obviously just the Mexiacans are the lawbreakers and must leave.
That's what I don't get at all - even after reading lots of pages here and in various papers and magazines.
Walter Hinteler wrote:You knew they were illegal when they came to the USA to work since decades.
But nothing was said when they were hired at your low-paying jobs.
And now obviously just the Mexiacans are the lawbreakers and must leave.
That's what I don't get at all - even after reading lots of pages here and in various papers and magazines.
So, because it was ignored before, we should continue to ignore it Walt?
Walter Hinteler wrote:You knew they were illegal when they came to the USA to work since decades.
But nothing was said when they were hired at your low-paying jobs.
And now obviously just the Mexiacans are the lawbreakers and must leave.
That's what I don't get at all - even after reading lots of pages here and in various papers and magazines.
Little was said when the number of people in this country illegally was not as high as it is today. Now there are millions of people here illegally. Yes, people who break the law are lawbreakers. We have a perfect right to determine the conditions of immigration into our country, something that most countries do. Breaking the law should not be rewarded. I welcome immigrants who have applied for and been granted permission to enter.
Thanks, but your response doesn't give a hint at all to more understanding why "little was said when the number of people in this country illegally was not as high as it is today".
There are thousands of illegals crossing the border daily. It didn't use to be that way. Whole towns south of the border have disappeared.
