Bend Over, America: Portrait of an Illegal Alien Criminal
Burt
> PORTRAIT OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL "WORKING THE SYSTEM" (I.E. SCREWING
> AMERICA):
>
> THIS CRIMINAL . . .
>
> - entered USA illegally on multiple occasions in 1986
>
> - after entering US gave Customs officials a false name (changed what he
> *claims* is his real name, "Antonio Miguel," to the scheming, tripartite "Raul
> Hernandez Reynosa")
>
> - obtained permanent US residency a mere two years after ILLEGALLY entering the
> US
>
> - convicted in a US court of carrying a concealed weapon
>
> - has multiple convictions in US criminal courts for dealing in stolen property
> (probably that of a US citizen derided as a "dumb gringo"); was arrested for
> dealing in stolen property AGAIN just a week after the first conviction
>
> - has three young US-born children (one has to consider the likelihood that
> their non-English-speaking mother is likewise an illegal alien like the father,
> which nonetheless does not prevent her from collecting monthly US Government
> checks/Food Stamps for her offspring), all of whom have had $$LIVER
> TRANSPLANTS$$ (guess who paid for these hugely expensive operations?) and who
> *ALL* require, as per the below newspaper report, "extensive medical attention"
>
> - liver transplants of all three children (one's an infant) are suposedly due
> to a genetic defect (in other words, guess it would have been TOO MUCH TO ASK
> for the criminal illegal alien to use birth control after having TWO MORE kids
> with the same genetic defect after the first, now age 12, was born)
>
> - the criminal's non-English-speaking wife doesn't work
>
> - the criminal's family lives in GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED housing in the US
>
> - the criminal is now getting three square meals a day, free health care,
> almost certainly free legal representation etc. etc.
>
> - the criminal's Anglo-sounding boss "has no problem" with his employee's
> criminal background
>
> and now to the sob story . . .
>
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5148529.htm?template=contentModules/p
> rintstory.jsp
>
> Mon, Feb. 10, 2003
>
> Guatemalan man with three ill children faces deporation
>
> BY CHARLES RABIN
>
> Antonio Miguel talks with his three children daily, but sees them only once
> every three months -- when guards escort him to a judge's chamber at Krome
> detention center.
>
> His three children, ages 10 months, seven years and 12 years, require
> extensive medical attention. Each has had a liver transplant, due to a genetic
> defect.
>
> The youngest, Antonio Jr., has been at Jackson Memorial Hospital the past two
> weeks fighting the rejection of his new liver.
>
> ''The children miss their papi,'' their mother, Candelaria Pascual, says in
> limited English.
>
> The government wants to deport Miguel, a permanent U.S. resident since 1988,
> to his native Guatemala.
>
> Prosecutors say he gave a false name when he crossed the border from Mexico
> to Arizona in 1986. They also point out that Miguel, 35, has been convicted of
> carrying a concealed weapon during a traffic stop in Homestead in 1990, and has
> convictions for dealing in stolen property in 1998 and 1999.
>
> The last two convictions landed him in the Miami-Dade County Jail for 364
> days. Federal laws revised in 1996 call for the deportation of any alien
> convicted of an aggravated felony as defined by immigration law which can apply
> to lesser crimes.
>
> ''You know he's going to be deported because he is poor,'' said Natalia Lasa,
> a volunteer at Miami Children's Hospital who has been with the family through
> all the transplants. ``He's been nothing short of an excellent father.''
>
> Miguel's journey began in 1986 when, after leaving Guatemala, he tried to
> cross the Mexican border into Arizona. Customs agents stopped him. To avoid
> being sent back to Guatemala, Miguel told authorities he was a Mexican named
> Raul Hernandez Reynosa.
>
> It worked. Miguel was returned to Mexico, and a week later managed to sneak
> into the U.S.
>
> Government lawyer Loren Coy brought up the fake name at a hearing before
> immigration Judge Neale Foster at Krome two weeks ago. ''When the man decided
> to lie to the immigration service, he fouled up his own nest,'' Coy said.
>
> Miguel eventually found his way to the south Dade County, picking vegetables
> on a farm. In 1988, Miguel was granted permanent residency. Not long after he
> married Pascual.
>
> Then he got into trouble. In August 1989, Homestead police found a concealed
> gun in Miguel's car during a traffic stop. Five months later he pleaded guilty.
> He served no jail time.
>
> Coy said Miguel was required to disclose the conviction on his application
> for residency. But Miguel's lawyer, Troy Harris, pointed out that the
> conviction came after his application. Coy then asked to continue the hearing
> on Tuesday.
>
> By then, Coy said, he would write a brief stating the government's case or he
> would drop the deportation effort.
>
> Miguel stayed clean until Oct. 21, 1998, when he was charged with dealing in
> stolen property. He was convicted a month later. A week after that conviction,
> Miguel was again arrested for dealing in stolen property.
>
> ''He's committed immigration violations which include obtaining an
> immigration benefit by possible fraud,'' said INS spokeswoman Ana Santiago.
> ``And due to his significant crime history, INS is required by law to keep him
> in custody.''
>
> Harris paraded character witnesses before Foster. Coy asked Miguel's boss at
> a fire safety company, James Hickman, if he was aware of Miguel's criminal
> past.
>
> Hickman said he wasn't: ``If I'd have known before I would have put him on
> probation. But now that I've met him, I have no problem with it.''
>
> Local immigration attorneys say a judge can take sick children into account
> when deciding whether to deport someone.
>
> ''You have to prove extreme hardship,'' said attorney John Pratt. ``You have
> to prove some of your family members will suffer if you leave.''
>
> Now, Pascual, 29, is left to care for her three American-born children alone.
> She has had to quit her job as a farmworker.
>
> She says if Miguel is deported, she will remain here, where her children have
> a brighter future.
>
> ''I go to church a lot. No matter what happens, I have to carry on for the
> children,'' she says.
>
> With friends and South Miami-Dade's Catholic Charities, the family is
> managing, but barely. Home is a small, government-subsidized apartment in
> Homestead. The charity supplies food and clothing for the children.
>
> In a borrowed old beat-up car, Pascual couriers her trio of kids back and
> forth from Jackson at least once a week. Whenever she can she takes them to
> Krome.
>
> Inside the tiny, wood-paneled courtroom at Krome, the kids run to and hug
> their father. He looks at his wife sitting stoically on a bench behind him.
>
> ''Imagine,'' says Lasa, the volunteer and family friend. ``how can these kids
> possibly do without their father?''
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people
> ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign
> influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
> --George Washington, 1796
And we have a "government" demanding our support on numerous projects
while it refuses to enforce the immigration laws. The pressure mounts
to use troops to assist the INS on our southern border. Will the
desire to capture latino votes overide the duty to protect American
citizens? Will the President continue his policy of looking the other
way?
Burt
Roy. Just Roy.
1) Troll sign #3: Crossposting to unrelated groups (milw.general AND
neworleans.general? This guy gets around)
2) I wonder how many criminals meander across the border with Canada.
Of course, they don't count, they're white.
Just another racist spew, wrapped up with the neat candy foil of
immigration reform.
Byron Canfield
news:d4a24bd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> fight...@aol.com1 (FightBack3) wrote in message
news:<20030211020036...@mb-fe.aol.com>...
> > PORTRAIT OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL "WORKING THE SYSTEM" (I.E.
SCREWING
> > AMERICA):
And if you and your ancestors are not Native American Indian, you don't
belong here either. So what's the point?
can...@yahoo.ca
Roy.) wrote:
>2) I wonder how many criminals meander across the border with Canada.
>Of course, they don't count, they're white.
Probably very few, due to low population and low crime rate (except in
those few cities with high latino & black populations, that is.)
r_o...@remove_this.hotmail.com
>Burtm...@hotmail.com (Burt) wrote in message news:<d4a24bd4.0302...@posting.google.com>...
>
>Just another racist spew, wrapped up with the neat candy foil of
>immigration reform.
Ah yes, good ol' LIBERAL COUNTER TATIC #1... tiresome, tried and true:
"anytime someone questions the insanity of this nation's immigration
policies ( or lack thereof ) ... or any social policy, for that matter
... call them a racist, nazi, extremist, anti-semitic, etc."
*yawn*
( modify address for return email )
r_o...@remove_this.hotmail.com
Hmmm ... let's see ... where does this one rank in terms of tired,
overused liberal cliches regarding illegal immigration. I'd put it
#2, after name calling.
1) My ancestors entered this country LEGALLY.
2) Where is it written that ... because a nation is comprised of
immigrants ... it can no longer exercise control of it's future?
And the massive, uncontrolled, ILLEGAL immigration inundating this
country is having effects on this country's future like none before it
Byron Canfield
news:8fij4vsiicg8sv4lm...@4ax.com...
> "Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
> >"Burt" <Burtm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:d4a24bd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> >> fight...@aol.com1 (FightBack3) wrote in message
> >news:<20030211020036...@mb-fe.aol.com>...
> >> > PORTRAIT OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL "WORKING THE SYSTEM" (I.E.
> >SCREWING
> >> > AMERICA):
> >
> >And if you and your ancestors are not Native American Indian, you don't
> >belong here either. So what's the point?
> >
>
> Hmmm ... let's see ... where does this one rank in terms of tired,
> overused liberal cliches regarding illegal immigration. I'd put it
> #2, after name calling.
And, of course, when you have no reasonable argument, exercise #2 --
demonize the opponent, right? And then reference your own declaration as
proof that the declaration is true, right?
Seems to be a lot of that going around.
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
Roy. Just Roy.
> Ah yes, good ol' LIBERAL COUNTER TATIC #1
Good ol' boy tactic #1 - anytime anyone uses common sense,
call them a liberal.
> anytime someone questions the insanity of this nation's immigration
> policies
I'll believe that you have a valid point of reference when you
show me the areas of Milwaukee that border Mexico.
What's a matter, Bob, somebody named Gonzalez got promoted ahead of you
on the job site? Maybe it's because he works harder and doesn't spend
good company time farting around in talk.environment.
> 2) Where is it written that ... because a nation is comprised of
> immigrants ... it can no longer exercise control of it's future?
The U.S. Constitution. Try reading it some time. Especially the part about
the inability of the army to act in civil matters. Or to conduct searches
against US citizens.
Due process. What a bummer.
Face it, Bobby, you don't like all dem brown skins tipping your white girls at
the local strip club, do a little border crossing of your own. I hear Canada
has a very low crime rate :)
Bart
Are you really THAT stupid? Oh... you forgot about the 9-11 terrorists
that crossed the border from Canada, or the truck filled with explosives
caught at the border in the Northwest. Yes, you are a racist f***.
James S. Prine
>the inability of the army to act in civil matters. Or to conduct searches
>against US citizens.
Kindly point out the portions of the U.S. Constitution where that is written,
please. My copy seems to be missing all that.
James S. Prine
".... nothing to live for but his memories, nothing to live with but his
gadgets, his cars, his guns, gimmicks..." from "THE OMEGA MAN".
Touch Avalanche
>>The U.S. Constitution. Try reading it some time. Especially the part about
>>the inability of the army to act in civil matters. Or to conduct searches
>>against US citizens.
>
> Kindly point out the portions of the U.S. Constitution where that is written,
> please. My copy seems to be missing all that.
Watch it Louie! You gonna have to change all your pics!
Lets Roll
"Roy. Just Roy." <soylent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6fca96.0302...@posting.google.com...
> r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com wrote in message
news:<qeij4v42tojbbh7lu...@4ax.com>...
>
> > Ah yes, good ol' LIBERAL COUNTER TATIC #1
>
> Good ol' boy tactic #1 - anytime anyone uses common sense,
> call them a liberal.
>
Common sense says none of these people should have been in this country in
the first place and that they should all be shipped back from whence they
came post-haste. The felonious father-figure will rejoin his family when his
prison time is served. If it was an American family whose father was going
behind bars there would be no bleeding hearts wailing for the consequences
to the rest of the criminal family. I see no reason to give these criminals
any special consideration or concessions.
> > anytime someone questions the insanity of this nation's immigration
> > policies
>
> I'll believe that you have a valid point of reference when you
> show me the areas of Milwaukee that border Mexico.
>
They're on their way and should arrive within less than 5 years, if some of
you twits don't realize that is exactly what is happening to your country.
> What's a matter, Bob, somebody named Gonzalez got promoted ahead of you
> on the job site? Maybe it's because he works harder and doesn't spend
> good company time farting around in talk.environment.
>
Maybe there are some felonious employers who need to join the scumbag of the
article in jail.
> > 2) Where is it written that ... because a nation is comprised of
> > immigrants ... it can no longer exercise control of it's future?
>
> The U.S. Constitution. Try reading it some time. Especially the part about
> the inability of the army to act in civil matters. Or to conduct searches
> against US citizens.
>
What a putz.
Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
> Due process. What a bummer.
>
Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first place.
They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
which is zero. If they thought so highly of due process they would have
used due process to get into the country. Due process only becomes
important to them and enablers like yourself when it suits their agendas.
> Face it, Bobby, you don't like all dem brown skins tipping your white
girls at
> the local strip club, do a little border crossing of your own. I hear
Canada
> has a very low crime rate :)
Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
Byron Canfield
news:3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com...
> Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
>
>
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary
numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
http://www.headsprout.com
Flash examples: http://www.canfieldstudios.com/flash5
[I do not respond to private emails regarding issues for which the
appropriate venue is this newsgroup, nor do I reply to posts by email.]
Lets Roll
"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
news:eOI2a.82852$2H6.861@sccrnsc04...
> "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
> news:3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com...
> > Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
> >
> >
> Burn any crosses lately?
>
Since when in your sick and twisted minds does calling for law enforcement
equate to burning crosses?
Why do you perverts want to make racial issues out of security issues? What
terrorist organization do you consort with who will keep easy access to our
country available?
--
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
Roy. Just Roy.
> the first place
No argument there.
> Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
"common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse Comitatus
> Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first place.
> They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
> which is zero.
Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any other
person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell an
illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their papers, mein
fuhrer?
Wordy Smith
> Posse Comitatus
Hakuna Matata
--
Wordy
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
James S. Prine
>
>> Posse Comitatus
>
>Hakuna Matata
Just for the record, 'Posse Comitatus' has been defanged, thanks to
presidential Executive Orders.
This was done to facilitate the 'war on drugs', and, of course, with the new
Patriot Act, the Constitution itself has been literally eviscerated.
Byron Canfield
>
> "Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
> news:eOI2a.82852$2H6.861@sccrnsc04...
> > "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com...
> > > Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
> > >
> > >
> > Burn any crosses lately?
> >
>
> Since when in your sick and twisted minds does calling for law enforcement
> equate to burning crosses?
> Why do you perverts want to make racial issues out of security issues?
What
> terrorist organization do you consort with who will keep easy access to
our
> country available?
Oh, so now I'm a terrorist for disagreeing with you. Are you sure your name
isn't Bush? Or Hitler? Or Stalin?
Again, burn any crosses lately? Gassed any civilians lately? Maybe a
lynching or two?
Gravity
"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary
>numbers and those who don't."
>-----------------------------
>Byron "Barn" Canfield
>
>
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message news:<3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com>...
>
>
>>Common sense says none of these people should have been in this country in
>>the first place
>
>
> No argument there.
>
>
>>Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
>
>
> "common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse Comitatus
>
>
>>Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first place.
>>They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
>>which is zero.
>
>
> Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any other
> person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell an
> illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
> Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their papers, mein
> fuhrer?
What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
Willielmus de Noers
favored us with:
> Patriot Act, the Constitution itself has been literally eviscerated.
Figuratively. Literally, the Constitution has no viscera.
But I know what you meant.
--
Bill
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dis . . . "
-- Union General John Sedgwick's final,
mistaken, opinion of the accuracy of
the Georgia Sharpshooters, 1864
Lets Roll
> "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
news:<3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com>...
>
> > Common sense says none of these people should have been in this country
in
> > the first place
>
> No argument there.
>
> > Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
>
> "common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse Comitatus
>
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
supress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
Art. 4 Sect. 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
What is coming across our border is _not_ civilian.
Heavily armed Mexican soldiers and police are crossing the U.S. border
repeatedly, provoking charges from Capitol Hill that they are providing
cover for drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. Last year, there were 23
incursions documented by the U.S. Border Patrol, prompting Rep. Tom Tancredo
to contact Mexican President Vicente Fox last week, asking for an end to
these incidents.
In March, four Mexican soldiers carrying submachine guns and automatic
rifles were detained when they ventured into the United States and
encountered a Border Patrol agent. In October 2000, 10 similarly armed
Mexican soldiers were reported to have fired on a Border Patrol air unit
after taking a position on the U.S. side near Copper Canyon in California.
In March 2000, Border Patrol agents in El Paso, Texas, said that two Mexican
army Humvees, reported by the Mexican government to be on an anti-drug
mission, crossed the U.S. border. Two shots were fired from one of the
Mexican vehicles, agents reported, but no one was hit. One vehicle retreated
into Mexico, but the nine soldiers riding in the second vehicle were
detained temporarily before being returned to their country.
Art.1 Sect 8 (cont.)
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."
Farmers, ranchers, home owners and local residents in border regions are
_not_ receiving equal protection of laws. They are being deprived of their
liberty and property without any due process, watching super-highways for
criminals grow across their grazing lands, their back yards.
You are so loaded up on compassion, where's your compassion for the families
afraid to go anywhere unarmed, even on their own property and in their own
home?
> > Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first
place.
> > They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
> > which is zero.
>
> Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
other
> person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
an
> illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>
> Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their papers,
mein
> fuhrer?
Why do you idiots insist national secuirty is a racial issue? Are you such
a bona fide racists you honestly think it is only white people who live in
border regions and who are victims of criminal illegal aliens?
Get over it. It is not about race or ethnicity. It is about something much
more serious than your sensitivity training equipped you to handle.
Mrs K Morales lives on a ranch in Duvall County, Texas, nearly fifty miles
from the border, but still in the path of the hordes of criminals pouring
into our nation. She has been the victim of 2 home invasions by criminal
aliens:
P.S. There are these other things called private property rights and
trespassing on private property, not enforceable by the federal government,
and which require a land owner making no inquiry into ethnicity,
nationality, immigration status, nor any other type of value judgement.
Until such time as the federal government assumes the responsibility
mandated to it under the Constitution to repel invasions and enforce laws of
the Union, groups like Simcox and Ranch Rescue will continue to flourish in
guarding American properties.
James S. Prine
>
>Figuratively. Literally, the Constitution has no viscera.
>
>But I know what you meant.
>
I stand corrected, Bill; thanks again. Put it down to this Vidodin haze I'm
trying to cope with.
Byron Canfield
news:b2hjom$6l9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> x-no-archive: yes> news:da6fca96.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
news:<3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com>...
> >
> > > Common sense says none of these people should have been in this
country in
> > > the first place
> >
> > No argument there.
> >
> > > Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
> >
> > "common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse
Comitatus
>
>
> > > Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first
place.
> > > They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving
here -
> > > which is zero.
> >
> > Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
other
> > person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
an
> > illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>
>
> > Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their
papers, mein
> > fuhrer?
>
>
>
I think we should spot check for Fascists.
--
Byron Canfield
> > Again, burn any crosses lately? Gassed any civilians lately? Maybe a
> > lynching or two?
>
> of foreigners who engage in that behavior or who aspire to it.
Well, perhaps you're right. We don't really need anymore of those, since we
already have more in our country than any planet should have, and I number
you among them.
Byron Canfield
news:3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net...
> Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> > Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
other
> > person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
an
> > illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>
> The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
> know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
Ah, but the mind set being demonstrated here lynches first, based on skin
color or land of origin, THEN checks the ID.
Willielmus de Noers
favored us with:
> I stand corrected, Bill; thanks again. Put it down to this Vidodin haze I'm
> trying to cope with.
I just love Vicodin. Wonderful stuff. I almost look forward to tooth
extractions now.
Roy. Just Roy.
> What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
> crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
> just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
> and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
And there are spot checks all along I-10. Trucks are weighed and
reweighed for changes in load en route that may indicate human
smuggling.
However, what I will fight you to the DEATH on is the right of a US
Army private, with no training in law enforcement or civil rights, to
enter onto
PRIVATE property, be it ranch, estate, apartment or cardboard box -
and demand
that the owner of that property present ID to prove as such, sans
warrant or probable cause. Such a practice is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Furthermore, what of valid day labor? I personally have met farm hands
from Juarez working cotton in El Paso. They pay their 50 cents, they
cross the bridge, they do their work, they pay their 50 cents, and
they go back to Juarez, all without the US Army on their backs.
What these good ol' boy posters don't realize is that the economy of
these border towns absolutely RELIES on trade with Mexico. To close
the border would choke the survival of these towns.
We have an INS and a Border Patrol that does an excellent job despite
serious budget restraints. Stop trying to turn the effin' world into a
military state, give the boys that KNOW how to do the job more
funding, and leave them alone to do it.
Like I said, common sense.
Graphic Queen
Roy.) wrote:
>Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message news:<3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net>...
>
>> What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
>> crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
>> just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
>> and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
>
>And there are spot checks all along I-10. Trucks are weighed and
>reweighed for changes in load en route that may indicate human
>smuggling.
>
>However, what I will fight you to the DEATH on is the right of a US
>Army private, with no training in law enforcement or civil rights, to
>enter onto
>PRIVATE property, be it ranch, estate, apartment or cardboard box -
>and demand
>that the owner of that property present ID to prove as such, sans
>warrant or probable cause. Such a practice is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and
>UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>
>Furthermore, what of valid day labor? I personally have met farm hands
>from Juarez working cotton in El Paso. They pay their 50 cents, they
>cross the bridge, they do their work, they pay their 50 cents, and
>they go back to Juarez, all without the US Army on their backs.
Guess what? I live up in the Las Cruces area and plenty of those
people don't go back to Juarez. You are just another one of the
whining liberals who think that all Mexicans are such good people and
we owe them anything and everything. You are wrong and you need to
grow up and understand what is going on between these two countries.
>What these good ol' boy posters don't realize is that the economy of
>these border towns absolutely RELIES on trade with Mexico. To close
>the border would choke the survival of these towns.
>
We are also considered a border town and I can tell you that our
economy is not reliant on Mexico in the least. El Paso relies more
heavily on Mexico but they would get by if we were to close the
borders. The main problem that El Paso has and will continue to have
is NAFTA and all of the jobs that have left the city to go down to
Mexico.. That is what has hurt El Paso. You need to understand the
true economy of the border towns and you would understand more. The
small border towns are indeed reliant on Mexico for their economy, but
I am talking SMALL here.
>We have an INS and a Border Patrol that does an excellent job despite
>serious budget restraints. Stop trying to turn the effin' world into a
>military state, give the boys that KNOW how to do the job more
>funding, and leave them alone to do it.
We DO NOT have an INS or Border Patrol that do excellent jobs. You are
way out there on this fact. In fact many, not all I admit, take some
sort of bribery to keep allowing the illegals and drugs to flow right
into our country. You need to get you head out of your ass and learn
what it is like down here on the border and quit trying to act like
you know what is going on.
>
>Like I said, common sense.
Maybe it would help if you got some yourself.
Graphic Queen
Graphic Queen
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
>news:3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net...
>> Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>> > Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
>other
>> > person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
>an
>> > illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>>
>> The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
>> know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
>Ah, but the mind set being demonstrated here lynches first, based on skin
>color or land of origin, THEN checks the ID.
Not like the Mexicans don't do the same thing, heh? Get your head out
of your ass and maybe you would realize that it is an invasion down
here on the borders. Actually the Mexicans get treated better than any
damn white citizen does when it comes to all of this. You see mr. know
it all, the Hispanics are quite the racist people. I know because here
in the Las Cruces area a white person does not want to get stopped by
one of the Hispanics cops on a lonely road without witnesses around.
It could be very dangerous for the person, especially if that white
person happens to be a female. The cops and the jailers routinely
attack and rape the women behind bars or the ones they stop who are
alone. I do not go out at night alone at all and neither do any of my
friends because of this.
Graphic Queen
Touch Avalanche
> Not like the Mexicans don't do the same thing, heh? Get your head out
> of your ass and maybe you would realize that it is an invasion down
> here on the borders. Actually the Mexicans get treated better than any
> damn white citizen does when it comes to all of this. You see mr. know
> it all, the Hispanics are quite the racist people. I know because here
> in the Las Cruces area a white person does not want to get stopped by
> one of the Hispanics cops on a lonely road without witnesses around.
> It could be very dangerous for the person, especially if that white
> person happens to be a female. The cops and the jailers routinely
> attack and rape the women behind bars or the ones they stop who are
> alone. I do not go out at night alone at all and neither do any of my
> friends because of this.
>
Off subject, but related:
The Mexican government is bankrupting south Texas farmers by not living
up to the water deal made back in the 1940's. They owe Texas something
like 1.5 billion cubic feet of water. Texas farmers are having to apply
for aid because the Mexicans won't release the water they've promised.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> news:3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net...
>
>>Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>>
>>>Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
>>
> other
>
>>>person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
>>
> an
>
>>>illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>>
>>The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
>>know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
>
>
> Ah, but the mind set being demonstrated here lynches first, based on skin
> color or land of origin, THEN checks the ID.
That is your unsupported bald assertion, attempting to spread Fear
Uncertainty and Doubt.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message news:<3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net>...
>
>
>>What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
>>crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
>>just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
>>and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
>
>
> And there are spot checks all along I-10. Trucks are weighed and
> reweighed for changes in load en route that may indicate human
> smuggling.
>
> However, what I will fight you to the DEATH on is the right of a US
> Army private, with no training in law enforcement or civil rights, to
> enter onto
> PRIVATE property, be it ranch, estate, apartment or cardboard box -
> and demand
> that the owner of that property present ID to prove as such, sans
> warrant or probable cause. Such a practice is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Not if it's a martial law situation in a declared Emergency, but you know
that -- and otherwise I agree with you. The military could, within reason
and law, easily detain and question anyone entering or leaving said private
property.
>
> Furthermore, what of valid day labor? I personally have met farm hands
> from Juarez working cotton in El Paso. They pay their 50 cents, they
> cross the bridge, they do their work, they pay their 50 cents, and
> they go back to Juarez, all without the US Army on their backs.
How is this relevant? Those are legal border crossers, crossing legally at
the border crossing! We want the military to stop people who are _not_
crossing legally at legal border crossings.
>
> What these good ol' boy posters don't realize is that the economy of
> these border towns absolutely RELIES on trade with Mexico. To close
> the border would choke the survival of these towns.
Strawman, or maybe you don't understand? We're talking about controlling
illegal crossings. Legal trade will go on, of course.
>
> We have an INS and a Border Patrol that does an excellent job despite
> serious budget restraints.
Letting about one million illegal aliens per year to enter the country is
NOT doing a GOOD ENOUGH job.
> Stop trying to turn the effin' world into a
> military state, give the boys that KNOW how to do the job more
> funding, and leave them alone to do it.
>
> Like I said, common sense.
How about we give them more funding, and still have people help them.
For instance, the Ranch Rescue volunteers are almost all ex-military or
ex-law-enforcement. They aren't "good ol boys"; they're seasoned
professionals with not just training, but careers, behind them.
Lets Roll
Its not the valleys in life I dread so much as the dips.
Carol Lee Smith
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 can...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >2) I wonder how many criminals meander across the border with Canada.
> >Of course, they don't count, they're white.
> Probably very few, due to low population and low crime rate (except in
> those few cities with high latino & black populations, that is.)
Willielmus de Noers
The name "Hitler" having been mentioned, Godwin's Rule is now invoked
and this thread is declared officially over.
Rob
>Detroit has more murders inn one year than all of Canada.
>
5,000,000 people in Detroit in 139 sq. miles. Canada has 31,000,000
people in 3,559,294 square sq. miles. They're out of range of each other.
--
Rob
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Rob
>
>Art.1 Sect 8 (cont.)
>"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
>or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
>any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
>deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
>laws."
>
>
Steven Blackwood
--
Steven Blackwood
swbla...@worldnet.att.net
sbla...@execpc.com
"Rob" <rstei...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3E4F13A7...@mindspring.com...
Byron Canfield
news:6t2q4vcf8r3199rm4...@4ax.com...
> Not like the Mexicans don't do the same thing, heh? Get your head out
> of your ass and maybe you would realize that it is an invasion down
> here on the borders. Actually the Mexicans get treated better than any
> damn white citizen does when it comes to all of this. You see mr. know
> it all, the Hispanics are quite the racist people. I know because here
> in the Las Cruces area a white person does not want to get stopped by
> one of the Hispanics cops on a lonely road without witnesses around.
> It could be very dangerous for the person, especially if that white
> person happens to be a female. The cops and the jailers routinely
> attack and rape the women behind bars or the ones they stop who are
> alone. I do not go out at night alone at all and neither do any of my
> friends because of this.
So that is your justification for be racist? Where, then, will it end?
Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
evidence in this thread of the opposite.
--
Byron Canfield
Graphic Queen
Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
People like you will be the ruination of our country.
Graphic Queen
Carol Lee Smith
> Carol Lee Smith wrote:
> >Detroit has more murders inn one year than all of Canada.
> 5,000,000 people in Detroit in 139 sq. miles. Canada has 31,000,000
> people in 3,559,294 square sq. miles. They're out of range of each other.
'Zat so?
Michael Moore had some interesting ideas in "Bowling for Columbine."
Byron Canfield
> >Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
> >evidence in this thread of the opposite.
>
> Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
> causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
> moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
> isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
> People like you will be the ruination of our country.
And I repeat, so their racism is your justification for be racist? Where
does it end?
How do you propose to end that cycle? Are you proposing that the solution to
racism is to become a racist? Do you realize how silly that sounds?
--
Byron Canfield
Lead Flash Developer
Headsprout, Inc.
http://www.headsprout.com
"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tq025vcisatmb7m44...@4ax.com...
Graphic Queen
Oh I am sorry. I will go right out and kiss the asses of all of the
Mexicans that ruin the homes they live in and oh I forgot, we must not
forget the sons of bitches who can't even use the toilet properly. Go
to hell. You have no idea what it is like down here on the border. You
get what you give and they give racism, theft, lying, nastiness, and
utter laziness.
Graphic Queen
little_plantinga
> > >"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:6t2q4vcf8r3199rm4...@4ax.com...
> > >So that is your justification for be racist? Where, then, will it end?
> > >Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
> > >evidence in this thread of the opposite.
> >
> > Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
> > causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
> > moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
> > isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
> > People like you will be the ruination of our country.
>
> And I repeat, so their racism is your justification for be racist?
Define racist.
Tiny Human Ferret
>>>"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6t2q4vcf8r3199rm4...@4ax.com...
>>>So that is your justification for be racist? Where, then, will it end?
>>>Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
>>>evidence in this thread of the opposite.
>>
>>Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
>>causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
>>moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
>>isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
>>People like you will be the ruination of our country.
>
>
> And I repeat, so their racism is your justification for be racist? Where
> does it end?
> How do you propose to end that cycle? Are you proposing that the solution to
> racism is to become a racist? Do you realize how silly that sounds?
I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
warrior.
This is an Invasion and we had better fight it. Or else we will rightly be
scorned with the French.
Graphic Queen
People like him just use the term racist or racism because they have
no idea what they are talking about. We know that Mexican is a
nationality but all they are able to do is exactly what he does and
that is because they don't seriously understand the problem. I would
be willing to bet that he doesn't live on the border anywhere.
Graphic Queen
Bob LeChevalier
>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>
>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
are not in the same category as you. Thus considering "Mexicans" to
be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>Main Entry: rac·ism
>Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
>Function: noun
>Date: 1936
>1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
"community of characteristics"
>Main Entry: 3race
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
>Date: 1580
>1 : a breeding stock of animals
>2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
>3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>warrior.
There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
patterns. Migrations have never been controllable by law, and the
even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
inevitable flow of human migration, and fell trying to stop the
unstoppable "invasion".
>This is an Invasion and we had better fight it. Or else we will rightly be
>scorned with the French.
Why? Are the French scorned because of being invaded? They may be
scorned for other reasons, but not that one.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com...
>> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>> >I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>> >
>> >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>
>> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>> are not in the same category as you. Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>
>individual identity and a group identity.
Not as you use the two. Yes, I am an individual. I am also a member
a whole bunch of different groups, but I do not share traits with
everyone in those groups.
>While some dripping wet Mexicans might be sweet as pie, the collective, the group, share a common,
>obnoxious behavior.
No they don't. You do.
>And of course we judge them.
You do. Intelligent human beings don't, and instead judge others as
individuals and not as exemplars of a group.
>They come, the greatest number of them illegally,
Nope.
>to our country, they assert themselves and their ways rather than assimilate to ours,
Nope. You seem to think that assimilation takes a couple of weeks,
but EVERY group that has come to this country has taken 3 generations
to assimilate.
>and they're obnoxious to us.
No. You are obnoxious to them and to us.
>Certainly and rightly we judge them.
Certainly and wrongly, you mean.
>> >Main Entry: rac·ism
>> >Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
>> >Function: noun
>> >Date: 1936
>> >1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial
>differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>> >2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>> >- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
>>
>> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>> "community of characteristics"
>
> Actually, race is often an indication of culture,
"often" ain't good enough.
>and culture -- the
>values, attitudes, and behavior of a group -- is what those of
>other cultures might find offensive.
Then those cultures are racist.
>Racism is just a
>simpleton facile term to describe something that
>is actually relevant to the quality of life.
Only for the xenophobic. Human beings recognize that differences
between people are necessary and most enjoy them. Viva le difference.
>What
>you refer to as racist is really just behavior
>or attitude in response to seeing the quality
>of life diminished.
It isn't diminished. It is enhanced. YOU are the one who diminishes
it.
>> >Main Entry: 3race
>> >Function: noun
>> >Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
>> >Date: 1580
>> >1 : a breeding stock of animals
>> >2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of
>people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
>> >3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic
>category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing
>traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
>
>> >When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>> >racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>> >don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>> >warrior.
>>
>> There is no invasion.
>
> Hilarious.
>
>> There is simply normal human migration
>> patterns.
>
> Really hilarious, as those "human migration patterns" are
>across our southern border, involve hundreds of thousands
>of humans every year, and are doing all kinds of mischief
>and destruction on the border and inland.
I suggest you read about Attila the Hun, the Visigoths, and
innumerable other tribes that migrated across the borders of the Roman
empire, and all the power of Rome wasn't enough to stop them for more
than a decade or two at a time.
>> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>
> They tend to be controlled by force.
Nope. They NEVER in history have been controlled by force. The best
hope of dealing with migration is to try to assimilate the immigrants,
and that takes a couple of generations.
>> and the
>> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
>> inevitable flow of human migration,
>
> It could have.
No it couldn't. This was a constant problem throughout the era of the
Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
against the next wave).
> The Roman problem was political.
You are ignorant of history.
>> and fell trying to stop the
>> unstoppable "invasion".
>
> After it was too late to stop.
It was too late to stop before the start of the Roman empire. Julius
Caesar wiped out thousands - not just soldiers but women and children
at times to stop individual tribes, but they still kept coming
generation after generation.
lojbab
little_plantinga
> >I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
> >
> >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>
> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
> are not in the same category as you.
I take it you're opposed to Affirmative Action.
> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> make is "racism".
It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
and they have not done so. Instead, they are duplicating Mexican
civilization in the American southwest -- a civilization rife with the
ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan" -- translated to mean "For our race,
everything. For those outside our race, nothing"? MEChA has four
hundred chapters in the American southwest alone. Additionally, you
may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
his past during his campaign.
You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism, either because to
see it you would have to notice group differences, or because it is
only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
> The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
This is a very important mistake. You are tacitly conceding white
superiority, since whites are the only group to adhere to
color-blindness. Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
with their own ethnic interests. But again, to even see this you would
have to notice group differences, and since you refuse to do that, you
put your philosophy of color-blindness in jeopardy. For when whites
are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
white color-blindness will be supplanted by the racial consciousness
of non-whites. But like I said, maybe you only have a hissy fit at any
expression of _white_ ethnocentrism.
<snip>
>
> >When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
> >racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
> >don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
> >warrior.
>
> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
> patterns.
Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
normal.
> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
ethnic homogeneity. How did the US drastically reduce the number of
immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
americankernel
news:735d1e05.0302...@posting.google.com...
Nice work. I don't need to add a thing. This dude needs to go back to
school, or at least read some books or google on "the history of
immigration." He seems to be fairly intelligent, but seriously uninformed.
Doesn't his name, LeChevalier, sound kind of French? I'll bet if you asked
him, he'd tell you how DeGaulle liberated France at the end of WWII, when
all he really did was take a bunch of borrowed American tanks and drive down
the street.
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com>...
>> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> make is "racism".
>
>It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
>duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>and they have not done so.
Why should they? Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
>Instead, they are duplicating Mexican civilization in the American southwest
Nope.
>-- a civilization rife with the
>ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
Liar.
http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
> -- translated to mean "For our race,
>everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
Babelfish translates it as
>By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
>MEChA has four
>hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
Hispanic population in this country. So even if they were as radical
as you made them out to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot.
>Additionally, you
>may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
>for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
>chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
>support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
>his past during his campaign.
Why should he?
David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
Republican.
>You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism,
It isn't my concern. I am not Mexican. American ethnocentrism is my
concern, because I am an American.
>either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences. All
groups act like human beings.
>or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
object to. Especially in the United States of America, which is not
and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
>> The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>
>This is a very important mistake. You are tacitly conceding white
>superiority, since whites are the only group to adhere to
>color-blindness.
No they don't as a group. Many individuals do, but YOU do not.
>Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
>do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
>with their own ethnic interests.
How color-blind of you! Not!
>But again, to even see this you would
>have to notice group differences, and since you refuse to do that, you
>put your philosophy of color-blindness in jeopardy.
You talk nonsense.
>For when whites
>are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
>> patterns.
>
>Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
>normal.
If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
>> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>
>Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
>Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
>Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
>wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
>yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
>ethnic homogeneity.
You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
40 years is a blip in history. Meanwhile, part of what we've been
facing since the end of that 40 years is the backlash that we caused.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Nice work. I don't need to add a thing. This dude needs to go back to
>school, or at least read some books or google on "the history of
>immigration." He seems to be fairly intelligent, but seriously uninformed.
I've been a student of history for a few decades, which by your
manners is probably longer than you've been alive.
>Doesn't his name, LeChevalier, sound kind of French? I'll bet if you asked
>him, he'd tell you how DeGaulle liberated France at the end of WWII, when
>all he really did was take a bunch of borrowed American tanks and drive down
>the street.
This is the sort of silly racist judgement that your ilk would make,
presuming that surnames have real meaning as to ethnicity. Alas for
you, I am pure American melting pot.
lojbab
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>>
>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>
>
> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
> are not in the same category as you.
No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
"nationalism".
>
Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they are
not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's sovereign
borders, contrary to custom and law. I don't care if they're inferior or
not; I want the invasion stopped.
>
>
>>Main Entry: rac·ism
>>Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1936
>>1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>>2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>>- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
>
>
> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
> "community of characteristics"
Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>
>
>>Main Entry: 3race
>>Function: noun
>>Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
>>Date: 1580
>>1 : a breeding stock of animals
>>2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits,
or characteristics <the English race
>>3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
>
>
>
>
>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>>warrior.
>
>
> There is no invasion.
Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
Invade.
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
or plunder.
3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
See definition #3. But more specifically,
Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
Wade.
1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
Which becomes a body, and doth then invade The state
of life, out of the grisly shade. --Spenser.
2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
the king invaded the rights of the people.
4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
See definition #4.
Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
armed, with one Border Patrol officer being murdered recently, other Federal
agents being beaten and robbed by border crossers, etc.
That beating and robbing and murder come under definition #2.
Definition #1 applies in any case.
> There is simply normal human migration
> patterns. Migrations have never been controllable by law, and the
> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
> inevitable flow of human migration, and fell trying to stop the
> unstoppable "invasion".
Actually that is not why they fell; and you should be a bit more specific
about which part of the Roman empire you're discussing, and in which
timeframe, and geographic area. If you're talking about the Sack of Rome in
the fifth century, there is some slight truth to that if you don't take into
account a lot of other variables, including the cruelty of the
administration and the public disaffection or the ruling classes in Italy.
Furthermore I might add that Roma was quite able to control their borders at
one point in time, it's arguable when they stopped even trying to control
the borders that they are seen to have committed themselves to the
proverbial slippery slope.
In any case, we're a little more advanced that the Romans. Unfortunately, or
fortunately, we're a lot more lacking in the resolution to simply kill
anyone transgressing a line they knew to not cross.
>
>
>>This is an Invasion and we had better fight it. Or else we will rightly be
>>scorned with the French.
>
>
> Why? Are the French scorned because of being invaded? They may be
> scorned for other reasons, but not that one.
The French are scorned because when the Germans came, they would often find
the man of the house sitting in the kitchen saying "welcome to my house,
take what you need, my wife is upstairs in her bed, and I will be downstairs
in the wine-cellar".
The Germans didn't mind an easy victory, but I understand that the scorn for
people who wouldn't even consider "selling the farm dearly" was very great
indeed.
Then again, in the interest of fairness, most military historians are at
something of a loss to understand why there was no post-war Resistance
movement whatsoever in Germany.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
<snip snip including the proposition that Roma could not defend against
"migration">
>> It could have.
>
>
> No it couldn't. This was a constant problem throughout the era of the
> Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
> few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
> barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
> temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
> pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
> other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
> among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
> against the next wave).
That's part of the problem. Mexicans aren't assimilating in sufficient
numbers. Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte". That's not immigration,
that's colonization. The US should not and must not stand still for this.
little_plantinga
> max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com>...
> >> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> >> make is "racism".
> >
> >It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
> >duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
>
> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
I notice you didn't dispute my claim -- that Mexicans have failed to
create a *modest* version of the civilization millions of them yearn
for north of the border.
>
> >and they have not done so.
>
> Why should they?
So the United States will look less attractive to millions of Mexico's
inhabitants. This is reflected by the level of immigration we receive
from that country each year.
> Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
> of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
15 million prefer it to their ancestral homeland.
> >Instead, they are duplicating Mexican civilization in the American southwest
>
> Nope.
Yep. Bi-lingual education became so commonplace in southern
California's taxpayer-supported (and overwhelmingly Hispanic) public
schools that citizens got Proposition 227 on the ballot in 1998 to end
it; the small Texas town of El Cenizo declared Spanish its offical
language a few years ago and has also disallowed federal immigration
laws from being enforced; cars bearing signs exclaiming "Fuck you:
this is still Mexico" are frequently spotted on highways and roads in
southern California; the US soccer team was booed and spat on by
Hispanic fans when it played Mexico in Los Angeles several years ago
(American flags were also also regularly torn apart in the stands);
California governor Gray Davis has explored plans to make Cinquo De
Mayo a California holiday; government officals in Mexico, including
former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, openly brag about the
reconquista of the American southwest. I could go on, but it should be
obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that when a people emigrate
en mass from a different country, with a different culture, language
and history, and who are of a different race, into a country that
explicitly discourages new arrivals from discarding their customs,
language, folkways and traditions, the new arrivals tend to create
replicas of the culture from which they migrated.
> >-- a civilization rife with the
> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>
> Liar.
>
> http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
> http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
Did you bother to read the links you provided?
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud
historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our
territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the
northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming
the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our
people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power,
our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny."
What land do you reckon they intend on "reclaiming"?
"We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly
called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our
hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields,
and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not
recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent"
Can you put 2 and 2 together, Bob? Where do you think the "northern
land of Aztlan" resides? They offer a clue: the place where "those who
plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops" live
alongside "foreign Europeans."
http://www.panam.edu/orgs/MEChA/aztlan.html
> > -- translated to mean "For our race,
> >everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
>
> Babelfish translates it as
> >By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
>
> which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
> group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
The MEChA website, with its references to a "bronze people" who must
protect their "Raza" (race), make their intentions clear.
> >MEChA has four
> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>
> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
> Hispanic population in this country. So even if they were as radical
> as you made them out to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot.
How many Hispanic community leaders, politicians and celebrities have
publicly condemned this group, in contrast to the hysteria that
typically greets appearances by numerically smaller white supremacy
groups?
> >Additionally, you
> >may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
> >for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
> >chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
> >support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
> >his past during his campaign.
>
> Why should he?
> David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
> Republican.
This is beside the point. The fact that Villaraigosa had previously
chaired a racialist Hispanic student group that he failed to
repudiate, coupled with the fact that most of his votes came from
Hispanics who were well aware of his past connections with MEChA,
coupled with the fact that whites _and_ blacks (who traditionally vote
democrat) overwhelmingly rejected him, demonstrates a strong element
of ethnic tribalism in Hispanic Americans.
> >You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism,
>
> It isn't my concern. I am not Mexican. American ethnocentrism is my
> concern, because I am an American.
What is "American ethnocentrism," since the US is comprised of dozens
of ethnicities?
> >either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
>
> I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences.
Then you wouldn't notice "groups" either.
> All
> groups act like human beings.
So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between the
places the Chinese inhabit (Hong Kong, Vancouver BC, San Francisco,
etc) and the places blacks inhabit (sub-Saharan Africa, Gary Indiana,
Haiti, etc)?
> >or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
>
> Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
> I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
>
> And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
> object to.
You don't just object to supremacism, which presumably means rule over
others, you apparently object to groups just wanting to be left alone.
This is evidenced by your reference to the "racism" of the Japanese,
who refuse to be flooded with Polynesians and Cambodians.
> Especially in the United States of America, which is not
> and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
It was created by whites, and was nearly 90 percent white until the
late 1960s.
> >> The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> >> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
> >
> >This is a very important mistake. You are tacitly conceding white
> >superiority, since whites are the only group to adhere to
> >color-blindness.
>
> No they don't as a group.
Yes they do. The notion that people should treat each other as
individuals, and ignore collective group identities, is something only
espoused by whites in societies that remain predominately white. This
notion does not exist in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East or
Central America. Furthermore, liberalism (and the refusal to recognize
group identities that flows from it) only flourishes in Western Europe
and her former colonies. Feminism, gay rights, pluralism,
egalitarianism, environmentalism and inclusiveness do not exist in
Central America, the Middle East (sans Israel), Asia or sub-Saharan
Africa. And as these groups continue to emigrate en mass to America --
a society which embraces the philosophy of "multiculturalism," which
encourages new arrivals to retain their customs and folkways, even if
they're antithetical to liberalism -- not only will color-blindness be
supplanted, but so will liberalism.
> Many individuals do, but YOU do not.
> >Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
> >do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
> >with their own ethnic interests.
>
> How color-blind of you! Not!
Nice cop-out. You didn't dispute my claim because you know it's true.
> >But again, to even see this you would
> >have to notice group differences, and since you refuse to do that, you
> >put your philosophy of color-blindness in jeopardy.
>
> You talk nonsense.
You should recognize your native tongue.
> >For when whites
> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>
> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
You snipped the rest of my sentence. When whites are consigned to
minority status by 2050, the groups displacing them will continue to
assert their racial identities, which you don't object to because
they're not white.
> >> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
> >> patterns.
> >
> >Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
> >normal.
>
> If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
> compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
> essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
This is simply ahistorical. The first naturalization act authored in
1790 reserved immigration solely to white Europeans. It was hardly
"unlimited" for the next hundred years. Aside from some heavy Irish
migration during the mid-19th century, the amount of immigration to
the US until 1890 was relatively mild.
> >> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
> >
> >Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
> >Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
> >Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
> >wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
> >yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
> >ethnic homogeneity.
>
> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
by law," yet the Japanese have done just that, which explicitly
contradicts your claim.
> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>
> 40 years is a blip in history.
Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
by law," yet the US did just that (more than once, in fact), which
explicitly contradicts your claim.
little_plantinga
Thanks. I was initially hesitant to reply to Mr LeChevalier. His
woeful misconstrual of the basic issues, his
arrows-flying-in-every-direction comments, and his suggestion of bad
faith or bad motives on my part -- i.e., calling me a "Liar" -- when
all added together, make it somewhat frustrating to converse with him.
But I enjoy putting liberals in their place.
Bob LeChevalier
>> "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>> >news:iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com...
>> >> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>> >> >I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>> >>
>> >> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>> >> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>> >> are not in the same category as you. Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> >> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> >> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>> >
>> > You ignore the fact that people have at least two identities, an
>> >individual identity and a group identity.
>>
>> Not as you use the two. Yes, I am an individual. I am also a member
>> a whole bunch of different groups, but I do not share traits with
>> everyone in those groups.
>
>certainly do share traits with everyone of that culture.
I am not a nationality. I am a human being, an individual. I
practice my own personal culture, not that of anyone else in the
world. I share no traits with anyone of any particular culture other
than that of being a human being.
>> >While some dripping wet Mexicans might be sweet as pie, the collective, the group, share a
>common,
>> >obnoxious behavior.
>>
>> No they don't. You do.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not a Mexican.
You have the obnoxious behavior down.
>> >And of course we judge them.
>>
>> You do. Intelligent human beings don't, and instead judge others as
>> individuals and not as exemplars of a group.
>
> Intelligent human beings acknowledge reality
Reality is that no two human beings are alike, and attempts to treat
them as if they were, while "convenient" to racists, is unintelligent.
>> >They come, the greatest number of them illegally,
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Sorry, but about 80% of all Mexicans in this country
>arrived here either illegally or as a result of another
>Mexican's illegal arrival. That's just a fact.
Whether someone arrived as the result of another illegal arrival, they
are here legally, so tough cookies. We don't punish A because of the
crimes of B if we can avoid it.
>> >to our country, they assert themselves and their ways rather than assimilate to ours,
>>
>> Nope. You seem to think that assimilation takes a couple of weeks,
>> but EVERY group that has come to this country has taken 3 generations
>> to assimilate.
>
> And no group, other than Mexicans, has arrived from a neighboring
>country with a history of antagonism toward us,
Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>and no group, other than Mexicans,
>insists on imposing their language, their holidays, and other aspects
>of their *culture* upon us.
Baloney. Go to any Chinatown around Chinese New Year. For that
matter, go anywhere at Yule, and observe what kind of language,
holidays, and culture Europeans imposed on the natives who lived here
before us.
>In comparison to other groups, Mexicans
>aren't even taking small steps toward assimilation.
You wouldn't know.
>> >and they're obnoxious to us.
>>
>> No. You are obnoxious to them and to us.
>
> A couple of hundred million Americans would disagree.
Nope. If that were the case you'd have had your isolationist
immigration policy ages ago. The problem is that a huge chunk of
Americans are either immigrants or children of immigrants, and don't
buy your garbage.
>> >Certainly and rightly we judge them.
>
>> Certainly and wrongly, you mean.
>
> No, not it all. I judge them according to my values.
Who other than you gives a flying f*** about YOUR values, such that
anyone should care how YOU judges them by those values.
If people are to be judged, they should be judged by values which all
people share and by no others.
>I believe in law and justice and fairness and good will, among other virtues.
As long as it is YOUR law, and YOUR justice and everything is fair to
YOU, and YOU don't have to show "good will" to any "mud races", in
other words.
>Mexicans seem to care for none of that.
They just don't care about YOU. They want law and justice and
fairness and good will for THEM.
>They arrive here illegally.
Some. Many others arrive perfectly legally, but then don't leave as
legally required.
>They abuse our health, education, and welfare systems.
Nope. They follow the laws regarding those systems.
>I care more about Americans
Only if they share your color and language.
>as well as people in other countries willing
>to arrive here legally than I care about a pack of parasitic,
>colonizing, illegal alien Mexicans. According to my values,
>I judge Mexicans rightly.
Who gives a flying f*** about your values?
>> > Actually, race is often an indication of culture,
>>
>> "often" ain't good enough.
>
> It's perfectly suited to this discussion.
Proof by assertion.
>> >and culture -- the
>> >values, attitudes, and behavior of a group -- is what those of
>> >other cultures might find offensive.
>>
>> Then those cultures are racist.
>
> Really? So in Thailand, for example, if you touch the head
>of a child and his father is offended, the father is racist?
Why are you touching another person, especially a minor without
permission? You are violating their rights.
Meanwhile, if they are offended, they are offended because of your
individual behavior, not because you are a member of a group. If the
father were to discriminate against all Americans because one touched
his child's head, that would be racist.
>If in Japan, you cross your leg and aim the sole of your
>shoe in another person's direction and the person is
>offended, than he's racist?
Nope. But if he is offended at me because you did so, that would be
racist.
>> >What
>> >you refer to as racist is really just behavior
>> >or attitude in response to seeing the quality
>> >of life diminished.
>>
>> It isn't diminished. It is enhanced. YOU are the one who diminishes
>> it.
>
> Would you consider female circumcision to be an enhancement?
>How about ritual animal sacrifice? Or the killing of widows when
>their husbands die, or the killing of female infants merely because
>they're female?
Regardless of how I feel about any of those things, I judge
individuals for what they do, not for what their culture purportedly
does.
>> >> There is simply normal human migration
>> >> patterns.
>> >
>> > Really hilarious, as those "human migration patterns" are
>> >across our southern border, involve hundreds of thousands
>> >of humans every year, and are doing all kinds of mischief
>> >and destruction on the border and inland.
>>
>> I suggest you read about Attila the Hun, the Visigoths, and
>> innumerable other tribes that migrated across the borders of the Roman
>> empire, and all the power of Rome wasn't enough to stop them for more
>> than a decade or two at a time.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about, do you. Furthermore,
>we could stop the Mexicans from invading.
Nope (ignoring the fact that they aren't "invading" so there is
nothing to stop).
1. It would take militarizing the border, which would be frightfully
expensive and would merely cut down on what you call "invasion", not
stop it. There would simply come to be more use of alternative
methods. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>If you've ever visited
>the 38th Parallel in Korea, you'd know what I mean.
And how long is the border, and how much does it cost, and how free is
the society on the south side of that border compared to ours?
Hint - South Korea has almost 700,000 troops to defend that short
stretch of border, almost as many as the entire US active duty
military.
>We also
>managed to keep the Russians from invading Western Europe
>for several decades. Our southern border could be secured
>in a week.
Nope. We couldn't afford the troops (and we couldn't move them that
quickly - look how long it is taking to build up 150,000 troops to
handle Iraq.
>> The best
>> hope of dealing with migration is to try to assimilate the immigrants,
>> and that takes a couple of generations.
>
> Nonsense.
Something you are full of.
>> >> and the
>> >> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
>> >> inevitable flow of human migration,
>> >
>> > It could have.
>>
>> No it couldn't. This was a constant problem throughout the era of the
>> Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
>> few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
>> barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
>> temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
>> pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
>> other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
>> among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
>> against the next wave).
>
> Maybe if you did more reading ... In any event, Rome failed to
>resist because it had citizens with your mentality and it gave out
>citizenship to just about anyone who wanted it.
Guess why? Because they had no choice. Not enough citizens willing
to serve in the military for low wages merely to keep people out. If
we cut out immigration, we'd probably need to reinstate the draft in
order to keep the current level of military (which is a fraction the
size it was the last time we tried to control immigration).
Meanwhile, their economy (like ours) became top-heavy - not enough
people willing to work at low wages to support their "betters", so
they had to keep taking in new workers, and then once they were in,
had to keep them happy with the promise of eventual citizenship.
>> >> and fell trying to stop the
>> >> unstoppable "invasion".
>> >
>> > After it was too late to stop.
>>
>> It was too late to stop before the start of the Roman empire. Julius
>> Caesar wiped out thousands - not just soldiers but women and children
>> at times to stop individual tribes, but they still kept coming
>> generation after generation.
>
> And the Romans stopped killing them and instead awarded
>them citizenship,
They couldn't kill them. We couldn't either, unless we wanted to go
in for genocide.
>so that when the real ugly nasty military invasion came,
There was never an ugly nasty military invasion. None of the
barbarian invasions were particularly militaristic. Just displaced
peoples looking for some new turf on which to settle.
>And after Rome fell, after the invaders -- who arrived to
>plunder rather than to become members of a cohesive,
>cooperative society (remind you of any particular invading
>horde from our south?)
The bulk of the barbarians that entered the Roman empire did not do so
as "attackers", and did not do so in order to plunder. And most of
the "plundering" attacks that DID occur were raids rather than
invasions.
>overtook Rome, a thousand years of Dark Ages began.
I see you are full of even more ignorance. Rome itself was completely
irrelevant to the start of what are called the "Dark Ages" (which
weren't all that Dark)
The eastern Roman Empire, which became the Byzantine Empire, persisted
until the Renaissance, when it was done in by the Turks primarily
because it had been weakened over a couple of centuries by the
European invaders known as the "Crusaders" (who did far more damage
than the Turks ever managed).
>Rome actually regressed into a
>collection of contentious city states, various countries,
Some might have called that an advance, not a regression, if indeed
you had the story straight.
>and not a shred of enlightened progress was made for a thousand years.
Rome wasn't known for making enlightened progress. That was the
Greeks.
>We are now accepting the
>lawless barbarians, are making them citizens, and
>people such as you -- few as they are
If you were in the majority, the laws would reflect your wishes. You
aren't.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
>> few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
>> barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
>> temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
>> pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
>> other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
>> among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
>> against the next wave).
>
>That's part of the problem. Mexicans aren't assimilating in sufficient
>numbers.
Yes they are. Unfortunately, assimilation takes generations (and
always has). Immigrants themselves rarely assimilate fully - they
can't because of the language barrier. Their children partially
assimilate, and their grandchildren fully assimilate. Sometimes, when
the immigrant is highly educated, this can be cut down to two
generations, but this is rare.
>Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
>to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte".
You may think so, but you are wrong.
>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
Nope.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
>> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>
> Not exactly ... it was *claimed* by Mexico, but Mexicans
>neither inhabited or controlled it.
It had been territorially part of Spain, in the Viceroyalty of Mexico
prior to independence. Legally it was part of Mexico just as the
Louisiana Territory was legally part of the US, and the American
government recognized that legal status, as evidence of the fact that
we required Mexico to cede it to us after the Mexican War, and the
PAID for the Gadsden Purchase. Meanwhile Alta California was
certainly inhabited.
In any event, the US had no legal right to be there. We invaded
Texas, and then Mexico, because of southern slaveholders who wanted to
expand the territory in which slavery was permitted, so as to allow
the Missouri Compromise to continue to balance slave and free states.
>The Comanches, Apaches, and other tribes pretty much had their way.
So?
>> >and they have not done so.
>>
>> Why should they? Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
>> of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
>
> It's closer to them than most. Have you ever seen Haiti?
>Or Mexico? Or the Philippines? Or a hundred other less
>than garden spots around the world?
By our standards we are superior. By their standards, we are merely
rich.
>> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>>
>> Liar.
>
> No society is as stratified along lines of color
>than Mexican society.
What does this have to do with Aztlan?
>> http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
>> http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
I notice that you ignored my actual cites, and could not produce
anything better.
>> > -- translated to mean "For our race,
>> >everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
>>
>> Babelfish translates it as
>> >By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
>>
>> which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
>> group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
>
> Actually, *por* can be translated into by, for, through,
>in, and other prepositions. The statement in question,
>however, certainly isn't racially benign.
Quite benign to me. Another minority seeking strength through unity.
MLK led a similarly spiritual movement - and you probably thought "We
shall overcome" meant that he wanted to overthrow the American
government.
>> >MEChA has four
>> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>>
>> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
>> Hispanic population in this country.
>
> That's what King George said about the American revolutionaries.
Who wouldn't have had a prayer of success without help and the threat
of war from Europe and a 3000 mile supply line. Even so, it was a
near thing.
>> >Additionally, you
>> >may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
>> >for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
>> >chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
>> >support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
>> >his past during his campaign.
>>
>> Why should he?
>
> Because MEChA is a subversive, anti-American organization.
Proof by assertion.
>> David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
>> Republican.
>
> The KKK doesn't call for the overthrow of American government.
Neither have you proven that MEChA done so.
>> >either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
>>
>> I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences. All
>> groups act like human beings.
>
> And certain groups of them have values, attitudes, and behaviors
>that are incompatible with the values, attitudes, and behavior
>of other groups.
Only because you choose to adopt values which are inherently hostile
and xenophobic. That is YOUR problem.
>> >or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
>>
>> Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
>> I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
>>
>> And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
>> object to. Especially in the United States of America, which is not
>> and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
>
> But you're will to tolerate the likes of MEChA.
You haven't convinced me that there is anything unusual to tolerate.
I'm a lot more afraid of John Ashcroft than I am of MEChA.
>> >For when whites
>> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>>
>> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>
> Subsitute the term *whites* for the descendants of those
>who invented and built this country
The DAR and the SAR are a tiny minority of this country. Meanwhile
you of course are probably willing to ignore all those dark-skinned
peoples whose ancestors were brought here in the 1600s and who built
most of the South.
Most American are descendants of immigrants who came here between 1840
and 1920 (many of whom had to deal with just the same sort of shit you
are handing out when they got here).
>and as the carriers of the values, attitudes, and behavior of those inventors and
>builders,
Certainly YOU don't carry any such values or attitudes. I'm not aware
of how you "behave", but relatively few 20th/21st century Americans
abide by 18th century behavioral standards.
>and you have your right and your reason. Or
>do you expect the US to continue as a progressive
>society
I don't think you have a "progressive" thought in your head.
>after people whose values, attitudes, and
>behavior carry no notion or familiarity with that
>progressiveness?
Hint: "progressive" is the opposite of "reactionary". Most
progressives are classified as "liberals" by the obnoxious right. I
myself am not "progressive" or "liberal" but I at least know what the
words mean.
>If we filled Oregon, for example,
>with Japanese, don't you think that Oregon would
>become an approximation of Japan?
Nope. No more than South Boston is an approximation of Ireland,
Detroit is an approximation of Poland, or for that matter, Chinatown
is an approximation of China.
Even when there was nothing to assimilate into, those people who came
from Britain to what is now this country quickly made this place into
something that wasn't an imitation of Britain (and they WERE
"colonists"), why would we expect anyone immigrating from another
country to do differently.
>What do you
>think happens if we fill up much of the country
>with Mexicans?
They'll intermingle and assimilate.
>> >> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
>> >> patterns.
>> >
>> >Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
>> >normal.
>>
>> If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
>> compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
>> essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
>
> Factually inaccurate.
Lets see your facts. The first significant constraint on immigration
was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1885, and it affected only one group
that wasn't a large portion of those who were immigrating. It wasn't
until the 1920s, after 300 years of immigration, that significant
controls were imposed.
>> >> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>> >
>> >Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
>> >wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
>> >yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
>> >ethnic homogeneity.
>>
>> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>
> What is admirable is that they value their culture
>and are smart enough to know how to preserve it.
Actually they are having trouble in that regard. Considering that
they didn't have any significant elements of progressivism in their
society until 1945, they've changed quite rapidly.
>> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>>
>> 40 years is a blip in history. Meanwhile, part of what we've been
>> facing since the end of that 40 years is the backlash that we caused.
>
> Given certain realites, backlash is inevitable and a sign
>of good national health.
Umm, you do realize that you just said that the immigration wave since
the 1970s, which is the backlash I was referring to, was inevitable
and healthy, don't you?
Your racist attitudes are hardly a backlash. They were present when I
was a kid in California in the 60s.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<kv0a5v440649pu2io...@4ax.com>...
>> max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga) wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com>...
>> >> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> >> make is "racism".
>> >
>> >It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
>> >duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
>>
>> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
>> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>
>I notice you didn't dispute my claim -- that Mexicans have failed to
>create a *modest* version of the civilization millions of them yearn
>for north of the border.
Make up your mind. If they "yearn for" our civilization, why do you
claim that they are trying to change our civilization into theirs?
I suspect that the ones who stay in Mexico are perfectly fine with
their civilization, while the ones who come here want something else.
>> >and they have not done so.
>>
>> Why should they?
>
>So the United States will look less attractive to millions of Mexico's
>inhabitants.
Why would Mexico want to make itself more attractive to people who
want to leave?
>> >Instead, they are duplicating Mexican civilization in the American southwest
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep. Bi-lingual education became so commonplace in southern
>California's taxpayer-supported (and overwhelmingly Hispanic) public
>schools that citizens got Proposition 227 on the ballot in 1998 to end
>it;
So what? Bilingual education isn't Mexican civilization.
>the small Texas town of El Cenizo declared Spanish its offical
>language a few years ago
So what's wrong with that? English is not the official language of
the US, and we've had many local groups that spoke no English for
generations in our history. Ever heard of the Pennsylvania Deutsch?
>and has also disallowed federal immigration laws from being enforced;
Misrepresentation. They passed an ordinance against cooperating with
the Border Patrol (which ordinance has little effect).
Takoma Park MD and many other localities passed laws making their
locale a "nuclear-free zone" with equally lack of effect.
>cars bearing signs exclaiming "Fuck you:
>this is still Mexico" are frequently spotted on highways and roads in
>southern California;
Thank God for the 1st Amendment, eh? (O upholder of the values of the
people who founded this country)
>the US soccer team was booed and spat on by
>Hispanic fans when it played Mexico in Los Angeles several years ago
The Yankees were booed and spat on in Brooklyn 50 years ago. So what?
>(American flags were also also regularly torn apart in the stands);
Sometimes they're burned on the Capitol steps too. Thank God for the
1st Amendment, eh?
>California governor Gray Davis has explored plans to make Cinquo De
>Mayo a California holiday; government officals in Mexico, including
>former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, openly brag about the
>reconquista of the American southwest.
So? Politicians do all sorts of things.
>I could go on, but it should be
>obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that when a people emigrate
>en mass from a different country, with a different culture, language
>and history,
You mean like the people who came here in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s?
>and who are of a different race,
All members of the human race, so far as I can tell. You on the other
hand are showing evidence of being something else.
>into a country that
>explicitly discourages new arrivals from discarding their customs,
>language, folkways and traditions,
We do? Those bilingual education laws were repealed - such
encouragement!
>the new arrivals tend to create
>replicas of the culture from which they migrated.
Nope.
>> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
>> http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
>
>Did you bother to read the links you provided?
Yep.
>"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud
>historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our
>territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the
>northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming
>the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our
>people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power,
>our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny."
I don't see that text on either of the two pages I cited. It is on a
subsidiary page and in context is nothing especially threatening.
from the first
>A synopsis of El Plan stipulates: 1) We are Chicanos and Chicanas of
> Aztl?reclaiming the land of out birth (Chicano and Chicana Nation);
> 2) Aztl?belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not
> subject to a foreign culture; 3) We are a union of free pueblos
> forming a bronze nation; 4) Chicano and Chicana nationalism, as the
> key in mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to
> bring consensus to the Chicano and Chicana Movement; 5) Cultural
> values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and 6)
> EPEDA, as a basic plan of Chicano and Chicana liberation, sought the
> formation of am independent national political party that would
> represent the sentiments of the Chicano and Chicana community.
>Both EPDSB and EPEDA served as the historical foundation for the
> establishment of a viable Chicano and Chicana Movimiento, and are
> therefore, fundamental to the M.E.Ch.A. philosophy.
>
>M.E.Ch.A.'S PHILOSOPHY
>
>The Chicano and Chicana student movement has been plagued by
> opportunists that have sought to rechannel the energies of our people
> and divert us from our struggle for self-determination. The
> educational plight of Chicana and Chicano students continues to be
> ignored by insensitive administrators. Overall, Chicano and Chicana
> junior high, high school and college push-out rates have risen since
> 1969, forcing many Chicanos and Chicanas to a life of poverty. These
> factors along with a growing right wing trend in the nation are
> combing to work greater hardships on Chicanos and Chicanas. New
> repressive and racist immigration laws are continuously directed at
> our Gente. The Federal government is campaigning to pacify and
> assimilate our Gente by labeling us "Hispanic." The term "Hispanic"
> seeks to anglicize and deny our indigenous heritage by ignoring our
> unique socioeconomic and historical aspect of our Gente. These
> factors have made it necessary for Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de
> Aztl?to affirm our philosophy of liberation (i.e. educational,
> socioeconomic, and political empowerment) for our Chicano and Chicana
> nation.
>Joining with other community-based Chicano and Chicana nationalist
> organizations, M.E.Ch.A. is committed to ending the cultural tyranny
> suffered at the hands of institutional and systematic discrimination
> that holds our Gente captive. We seek an end to oppression and
> exploitation of the Chicano and Chicana Community
From the second:
>Aztlan as a 1960s political idea sought to reclaim the original
> homeland of the indigenous Mexica or Mexican/Chicano people. Thirty
> years ago, Aztlan was symbolically represented by the lands lost by
> Mexico when the United States warred on its neighbor in 1846.
>
>A generation later, a new idea of Aztlan is emerging, particularly
>among the young members, that they're part of a pan-indigenous spiritual nation, not necessarily part of a geopolitical entity. As an
> anonymous Xicana from Michigan wrote to us last year: "Aztlan is
> everywhere I've ever walked."
>
>While some still cling to the 1960s expression of Aztlan, its new
> adherents are not nationalist, nor do they support patriarchal ideas
> that relegate women to supporting roles. Many are women who spell
> Chicana with an X, symbolizing their indigenous roots. Theirs is not
> a separatist movement. Aztlan has re-emerged in response to this
> population, Mexican/Latinos, being dehumanized to the point where
> today many of this country's problems are attributed to them. This
> feeling of being under siege has created a spirit of unity and a
> spiritual kinship with people from all of the Americas.
>
>To some, the idea of Aztlan indeed sounds like Quebec's separatist
> movement. Yet, this population did not elect to be designated and
> treated by the government as a permanent lower caste of minorities
> and aliens. Nor have they chosen to be segregated by corporations as
> the "Hispanic market." Interestingly, this "segmentation," because it
> involves hundreds of billions of dollars, is not seen by mainstream
> society as separation, but rather as part of the American way.
>
>For those who have been marginalized, viewing themselves as part of a
> spiritual nation is both dignified and liberating. Many view
> themselves as partaking in a process of self-identity, not bound by
> government or corporate definitions, which they see as contributing
> to the systematic eradication of their culture. Many consider the
> U.S. Census Bureau's designation of this population as "white" a
> throwback to an era of shame and a continued effort to obliterate the
> Indian or African within them.
>What land do you reckon they intend on "reclaiming"?
That which they feel belonged to their ancestors. The American Indian
Movement probably has a similar statement of principle.
>"We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly
>called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our
>hearts.
Sounds like something the Cato Institute would support.
>Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields,
>and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans.
Whereas that sounds more like Marx (though he was of course one of
those Europeans).
>We do not
>recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent"
They reject the concept of national borders dividing peoples.
>Can you put 2 and 2 together, Bob?
Yep. I get 22.
>Where do you think the "northern land of Aztlan" resides?
Land doesn't reside. People reside.
>They offer a clue: the place where "those who
>plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops" live
>alongside "foreign Europeans."
Actually per the text, the "foreign Europeans" don't necessarily live
there, they just claim to own the land. That is just anti-capitalism.
>> > -- translated to mean "For our race,
>> >everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
>>
>> Babelfish translates it as
>> >By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
>>
>> which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
>> group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
>
>The MEChA website, with its references to a "bronze people" who must
>protect their "Raza" (race), make their intentions clear.
I dunno. You use the same language about "white people" and
protecting your "race". Why are you any better?
>> >MEChA has four
>> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>>
>> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
>> Hispanic population in this country. So even if they were as radical
>> as you made them out to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot.
>
>How many Hispanic community leaders, politicians and celebrities have
>publicly condemned this group, in contrast to the hysteria that
>typically greets appearances by numerically smaller white supremacy
>groups?
Why should I care? I don't much care for racism of any kind, but
minority racism is usually a response to majority racism.
>> >Additionally, you
>> >may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
>> >for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
>> >chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
>> >support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
>> >his past during his campaign.
>>
>> Why should he?
>> David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
>> Republican.
>
>This is beside the point.
No it isn't.
>The fact that Villaraigosa had previously
>chaired a racialist Hispanic student group that he failed to
>repudiate, coupled with the fact that most of his votes came from
>Hispanics who were well aware of his past connections with MEChA,
>coupled with the fact that whites _and_ blacks (who traditionally vote
>democrat) overwhelmingly rejected him, demonstrates a strong element
>of ethnic tribalism in Hispanic Americans.
So? Whites don't often vote for black politicians either. And as
recently as 43 years ago, Kennedy was rejected by people for being
Catholic.
>> >You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism,
>>
>> It isn't my concern. I am not Mexican. American ethnocentrism is my
>> concern, because I am an American.
>
>What is "American ethnocentrism," since the US is comprised of dozens
>of ethnicities?
Anything that attempts to exclude one of those ethnicities, as you do,
usually claiming it is inferior, as you do.
>> All
>> groups act like human beings.
>
>So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between the
>places the Chinese inhabit (Hong Kong, Vancouver BC, San Francisco,
>etc) and the places blacks inhabit (sub-Saharan Africa, Gary Indiana,
>Haiti, etc)?
I think there are more similarities between San Francisco and Gary
Indiana, than either locale has similarities to sub-Saharan Africa or
Hong Kong.
>> >or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
>>
>> Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
>> I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
>>
>> And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
>> object to.
>
>You don't just object to supremacism, which presumably means rule over
>others,
No. It means thinking you are superior to others.
>you apparently object to groups just wanting to be left alone.
That is xenophobia.
>> Especially in the United States of America, which is not
>> and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
>
>It was created by whites,
Nope. Much of the labor was done by blacks. The whites were however
pretty good at industrial espionage, doing to Britain in the
Industrial Revolution what the Japanese did to us this past century.
It wasn't till the Civil War caused the North to become inventive in
the ways of war that "American ingenuity" came into its own. Of
course a huge chunk of those northerners were recent immigrants.
>and was nearly 90 percent white until the late 1960s.
Nope. It was 20% black in the 1790 census. With the cutoff of the
slave trade, coupled with European immigration, this percentage fell
slowly, hitting a low of 11% in 1930 and then starting to rise again.
Even so, in several southern states, blacks were half the population
until well into this century.
And that matters only if you consider "white" a single race. Most of
you racists are perfectly happy to exclude "Hispanics" (who were
considered "white" until the last few decades) and "Jews" when it
suits you. 150 years ago, the "Irish" were considered a 'lesser
race', and the immigration laws of the 1920s were intended to keep out
those dark skinned Italians and Greeks. The Mexicans were still
welcome as long as they only came to pick our crops and then went home
(who did the *work* of building the country, again? The
Transcontinental Railroad was largely built by the Chinese, who were
promptly rewarded by the Exclusion Act).
>> Many individuals do, but YOU do not.
>> >Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
>> >do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
>> >with their own ethnic interests.
>>
>> How color-blind of you! Not!
>
>Nice cop-out. You didn't dispute my claim because you know it's true.
Since I recognize that "judgement" is an act of individuals, not
groups, I reject your claim.
>> >For when whites
>> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>>
>> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>
>You snipped the rest of my sentence. When whites are consigned to
>minority status by 2050, the groups displacing them will continue to
>assert their racial identities, which you don't object to because
>they're not white.
I make no statement about how I will feel in 2050, except probably
rather dead.
>> >> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
>> >> patterns.
>> >
>> >Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
>> >normal.
>>
>> If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
>> compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
>> essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
>
>This is simply ahistorical. The first naturalization act authored in
>1790 reserved immigration solely to white Europeans.
"Naturalization" is not the same as "immigration".
>It was hardly "unlimited" for the next hundred years. Aside from some heavy Irish
>migration during the mid-19th century, the amount of immigration to
>the US until 1890 was relatively mild.
I have the data right here in front of me, and as usual, you are
wrong. Here is population, # of immigrants, and new immigrants as a
percent of the population
1820 population 9.6 million. immigrants 8,385 .1%
1830 12.9 23,322 .2%
1840 17.1 84,066 .5%
1850 23.2 369,980 1.6% (1.0% non-Irish)
1860 31.4 153,640 .5%
1870 39.8 387,203 1.0%
1880 50.2 457,257 .9%
1890 62.9 455,302 .7%
1900 76.0 448,572 .6%
1910 92.0 1,041,570 1.1%
1920 105.7 430,001 .4%
...
2000 281.4 849,807 .3%
The first couple of decades for which there is data represented the
pre-steam era, when transoceanic travel was both very dangerous and
expensive.
The 1.6% in 1850 would be represented in 2000 by allowing 4.5 million
legal immigrants. Even the lowest percentage immigration (1920) would
correspond to 1.1 million legal immigrants.
If the US had continued immigration at the .4% rate after 1920, there
would have been 4.5 million immigrants in the 1920s, 5 million in the
30s, 5.5 million in the 40s, 6.5 million in the 50s, 8 million in the
60s for a total of 29.5 million in 50 years. Actual immigration was
less than half of that. Using the HIGHEST estimates, ALL OF THE
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TOGETHER don't bring the immigration rate of the
last 80 years up to the .4% per year rate that was the non-wartime low
for 1828 to 1924. The INS official estimate for 2000 of around 7
million illegals amounts to less than 2 years immigration at the 1850
rate.
>> >> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>> >
>> >Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
>> >wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
>> >yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
>> >ethnic homogeneity.
>>
>> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>
>Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
>by law," yet the Japanese have done just that, which explicitly
>contradicts your claim.
Actually, they haven't controlled it "by law". For much of the first
half of the 20th century they controlled it by genocide. Be that as
it may, however, Japan has the opposite attitude from you:
http://www.migrationint.com.au/news/gibraltar/jul_2000-17mn.html
They need 21 million immigrants over the next 45 years in order to
maintain constant population. That is a half million immigrants a
year - oops - there's that .4% figure again.
>> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>>
>> 40 years is a blip in history.
>
>Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
>by law," yet the US did just that (more than once, in fact), which
>explicitly contradicts your claim.
40 years is a blip in history, we changed that policy because it was
failing, and current illegal immigration is the blowback from that
policy.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>>>
>>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>
>>
>> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>> are not in the same category as you.
>
>No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
>"nationalism".
Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>
>Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
>don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they are
>not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's sovereign
>borders, contrary to custom and law.
Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
unenforceable.
>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
ancestry.
>> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>> "community of characteristics"
>
>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>>>warrior.
>>
>> There is no invasion.
>
>Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
> Invade.
> 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
> rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
>
> 2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
> domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
> or plunder.
>
> 3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
> pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
>
>See definition #3.
which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
obviously disagree about.
>But more specifically,
>
>Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
> n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
> to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
> Wade.
> 1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
> enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
Obs. = obsolete
> 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
> conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
> as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
hostile intent
> Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
>
> 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
> the king invaded the rights of the people.
There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
that bends over backwards to protect rights.
> 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
> progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
>
> Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
>
>See definition #4.
Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
falsely that there is injury.
>Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
>armed,
Proof that this is "increasing"? Pancho Villa was armed 100 years
ago.
>with one Border Patrol officer being murdered recently, other Federal
>agents being beaten and robbed by border crossers, etc.
>
>That beating and robbing and murder come under definition #2.
That MIGHT present a case that those who committed such acts are
invaders, but says nothing about those who do not, and have no intent
to do so.
>Definition #1 applies in any case.
And is obsolete. Learn to read a dictionary.
>> There is simply normal human migration
>> patterns. Migrations have never been controllable by law, and the
>> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
>> inevitable flow of human migration, and fell trying to stop the
>> unstoppable "invasion".
>
>Actually that is not why they fell; and you should be a bit more specific
>about which part of the Roman empire you're discussing, and in which
>timeframe, and geographic area.
I was talking about the entirety of the Roman Empire throughout its
existence. It NEVER really controlled immigration/invasion, merely
stemmed it in places where they left a standing army. Even Hadrian's
Wall had gates to allow traders in. Not all of them left.
http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/enemies/art17.htm
discusses the later empire. Note that Tacitus said of Germans pretty
much what you say about Mexicans.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sshi/empires/hopkins.pdf
>The City of Rome
>The city of Rome was by far the largest city in the Roman world. By the end of the
>first century BCE, it had a population of about one miliion people. It was as large as
>London in 1800, when London was the largest city in the world. Rome could be so
>large, because it was the capital not just of Italy (population c. 7 million) but of a
>Mediterranean empire. Rome’s population had grown rapidly by more than six times
>from an estimated 150,000 in 225 BCE.19 The capital's growth was fed by three
>streams of immigrants: a) free citizen and allied rural emigrants from Italy (small
>peasant families were displaced by fewer slaves working on larger farms); b) the
>forced and continual immigration of particularly adult male slaves as victims of Rome's
>conquest of the Mediterranean basin in the last two centuries BCE; c) free craftsmen
>and traders, particularly from coastal towns in the Mediterranean.20 The city of Rome
>grew and its huge size was maintained only by a steady stream of immigrants.
Lest this not ring true, consider that Claudius expelled the Jews from
Rome in 48AD - this required of course that the Jews came to Rome in
the first place, which they had done in quantity after Rome conquered
the Holy Land.
The illusion of immigration control was largely because the efforts to
control immigration led to expansion of the empire, such as the
annexation of Gaul, and the wars against Germania. But expansion of
the empire itself was a means of immigration - each new territory
brought many new foreigners into the empire, some of whom eventually
became citizens and some went to Rome itself. In the later empire,
when expansion ceased, there were labor shortages and besides the
barbarian invasions, Rome relied on immigration for its economic
survival:
http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/germanic_invasions.html
>Furthermore I might add that Roma was quite able to control their borders at
>one point in time, it's arguable when they stopped even trying to control
>the borders that they are seen to have committed themselves to the
>proverbial slippery slope.
Actually, it is when immigration ceased to be sufficient to maintain
the population that Rome declined. That reduced immigration came
about because Constantine moved his capital, thereby making Rome no
longer a political magnet for immigrants. Constantinople of course
continued to draw in immigrants in its stead.
>In any case, we're a little more advanced that the Romans. Unfortunately, or
>fortunately, we're a lot more lacking in the resolution to simply kill
>anyone transgressing a line they knew to not cross.
They didn't kill them. They enslaved them, but slaves were still
immigrants, and their descendants became Roman citizens.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>aren't mutally exclusive.
Yes they are. Nationalities are collectives. Human beings are
individuals.
>In fact, being an individual, a
>human being, is pretty much a prerequisite for having
>a nationality.
The pandas in the national zoo have no nationality?
>> You have the obnoxious behavior down.
>
> Certainly to you I'm probably obnoxious, but then few
>people enjoy having their believes contradicted by facts.
I haven't seen a lot of facts out of you. Just opinions.
>> Reality is that no two human beings are alike,
>
> Neither are two snowflakes, Bob, but snow does
>have a kind of collective identity when it's piled
>around the landscape.
And the snowflakes are not the collective.
>> Whether someone arrived as the result of another illegal arrival, they
>> are here legally, so tough cookies. We don't punish A because of the
>> crimes of B if we can avoid it.
>
> When are system and our good will are exploited,
You haven't shown the least bit of "good will".
>> Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
>> unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>
> If any border screamed to be militarized, it is our
>southern border. And it was militarized well into
>the 20th Century.
Not in the sense it would have to be in order to control immigration.
>> For that
>> matter, go anywhere at Yule, and observe what kind of language,
>> holidays, and culture Europeans imposed on the natives who lived here
>> before us.
>
> Yule? You mean Christmas time?
I said Yule. Those "invaders" from Rome took over a perfectly good
pagan holiday and bastardized it.
> And by your comment,
>do you mean that since Europeans imposed a culture on the
>Indians, then it's okay for Mexicans to impose their
>culture here?
No. It means that you have no cause to complain about people doing to
you what your ancestors did to others.
>> Nope. If that were the case you'd have had your isolationist
>> immigration policy ages ago.
>
> The politicians aren't listening to the people on the
>immigration issue.
The aren't getting voted out either. Indeed, Hispanics seem to be
elected with increasing frequency.
>> The problem is that a huge chunk of
>> Americans are either immigrants or children of immigrants, and don't
>> buy your garbage.
>
> Actually, according to every poll done in the past 10
>or so years, my views are in line with the views of
>most Americans.
And you of course believe polls, so long as those polls confirm your
prejudices. If the polls don't agree with you then they are
worthless.
>> >I believe in law and justice and fairness and good will, among other virtues.
>>
>> As long as it is YOUR law, and YOUR justice and everything is fair to
>> YOU, and YOU don't have to show "good will" to any "mud races", in
>> other words.
>
> Actually, my difficulty is with people who abuse our
>system and our altruism
Altruism? You?
>> They just don't care about YOU. They want law and justice and
>> fairness and good will for THEM.
>
> At the expense of Americans.
Why yes. Of course they consider themselves Americans too.
>> >They abuse our health, education, and welfare systems.
>>
>> Nope. They follow the laws regarding those systems.
>
> Actually, no. Or do you believe that the big market
>in false documents if some kind of benign exercise?
False documents aren't an abuse of those systems.
>> >I care more about Americans
>>
>> Only if they share your color and language.
>
> By definition, an American is someone who speaks English.
Show me any dictionary with that definition.
Your definition is bullshit.
>And I really have no problem with color; only with culture.
Yeah, right.
>> >as well as people in other countries willing
>> >to arrive here legally than I care about a pack of parasitic,
>> >colonizing, illegal alien Mexicans. According to my values,
>> >I judge Mexicans rightly.
>>
>> Who gives a flying f*** about your values?
>
> Gosh. I do, Bob.
Sorry. What HUMAN BEING cares? You deny being a human being instead
of a nationality.
>> >> > Actually, race is often an indication of culture,
>> >>
>> >> "often" ain't good enough.
>> >
>> > It's perfectly suited to this discussion.
>>
>> Proof by assertion.
>
> Oh, you're asking for "proof." I'm a white American, Bob.
Which proves?
>Your posts indicate that because I'm a white American, I
>have certain values, attitudes, and behavior
I'm a "white American" too, and I rather doubt that we have the same
values, attitudes, and behavior.
>> > Really? So in Thailand, for example, if you touch the head
>> >of a child and his father is offended, the father is racist?
>>
>> Why are you touching another person, especially a minor without
>> permission? You are violating their rights.
>
> How racist of you.
For insisting that human rights be respected?
>> Meanwhile, if they are offended, they are offended because of your
>> individual behavior, not because you are a member of a group.
>
> Americans touch children's heads.
Not the head of someone else's kid, you better not.
>Thais never do because
>the spirit resides in the head and to touch it is highly offensive.
"Thais" don't believe this. People with certain religious beliefs may
believe this.
>Americans don't share the Thai's beliefs about touching the
>head.
But we do have beliefs about the sanctity of the human body. No
touching without permission. A strange man touches a little kid in
this country, and they are taught to make lots of noise, and the man
can get arrested.
>> >If in Japan, you cross your leg and aim the sole of your
>> >shoe in another person's direction and the person is
>> >offended, than he's racist?
>>
>> Nope. But if he is offended at me because you did so, that would be
>> racist.
>
> You've really drifted from your own point, Bob. Do some
>rereading and figure it out, will you. We're talking about what
>cultures find offensive, that some cultures are in conflict, and
>your claiming that people of one culture who are offended by
>other cultures are racist.
No. They are people who happen to be of one culture, who are offended
by individuals who happen to be of a different culture. It is the
individual behavior transgressing the individual belief that leads to
offense, and that isn't racist.
>> 1. It would take militarizing the border, which would be frightfully
>> expensive and would merely cut down on what you call "invasion", not
>> stop it. There would simply come to be more use of alternative
>> methods. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>
> So the Mexican will and way is ... what? ... more effective
>than the American will and way to keep the Mexicans out?
There is no "American will".
>> >If you've ever visited
>> >the 38th Parallel in Korea, you'd know what I mean.
>>
>> And how long is the border, and how much does it cost, and how free is
>> the society on the south side of that border compared to ours?
>
> Is that your way of claiming that a border can't be protected?
>Try again.
Expenditure of huge amounts of manpower on a tiny border has limited
border crossing, but even so there are agents of the North who get
into Korea. And that border protection is a blip in history that
won't last.
>> Hint - South Korea has almost 700,000 troops to defend that short
>> stretch of border, almost as many as the entire US active duty
>> military.
>
> Your point? You wouldn't be claiming that protecting our
>country is just too darn expensive, would you, Bob?
In our case it is beyond "expensive". Our borders are several times
as long, the terrain is less hospitable to protection, and the rights
guaranteed by our constitution make some aspects of that protection
impossible. Koreans, North or South don't share those rights.
>> Nope. We couldn't afford the troops (and we couldn't move them that
>> quickly - look how long it is taking to build up 150,000 troops to
>> handle Iraq.
>
> Fort Hood and Fort Bliss are equipped to do the job, and
>their getting to the border would involve a short drive.
Hilarious. They could protect a few miles of the border each, if
their troops weren't en route to Iraq.
> >> The best
>> >> hope of dealing with migration is to try to assimilate the immigrants,
>> >> and that takes a couple of generations.
>> >
>> > Nonsense.
>>
>> Something you are full of.
>
> Nonsense.
Yep.
>> > Maybe if you did more reading ... In any event, Rome failed to
>> >resist because it had citizens with your mentality and it gave out
>> >citizenship to just about anyone who wanted it.
>>
>> Guess why? Because they had no choice. Not enough citizens willing
>> to serve in the military for low wages merely to keep people out. If
>> we cut out immigration, we'd probably need to reinstate the draft in
>> order to keep the current level of military (which is a fraction the
>> size it was the last time we tried to control immigration).
>>
>> Meanwhile, their economy (like ours) became top-heavy - not enough
>> people willing to work at low wages to support their "betters", so
>> they had to keep taking in new workers, and then once they were in,
>> had to keep them happy with the promise of eventual citizenship.
>
> You don't know what you'r talking about.
I've been reading history as an avocation for more than 30 years,
probably longer than you've been around.
>> >We are now accepting the
>> >lawless barbarians, are making them citizens, and
>> >people such as you -- few as they are
>>
>> If you were in the majority, the laws would reflect your wishes. You
>> aren't.
>
> Apparently you aren't familiar with the issue and with
>how the government works to keep the will of the
>people from becoming policy.
The magic word is "elections". If people really cared, they'd vote
the bums out of office.
lojbab
Tiny Human Ferret
Care to support this assertion?
In many places which have become concentrations of illegal aliens, we see
the duplication of all of the conditions in Mexico. We see institutionalized
poverty, corruption, poor health, indigence, etc. These are all institutions
more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. In the US, we have prided
ourselves on generation of wealth, rooting out corruption, improving public
health, and being as self-reliant as possible.
>>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
>
>
> Nope.
Try supporting your disagreement.
americankernel
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
> >>>
> >>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
> >>
> >>
> >> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
> >> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
> >> are not in the same category as you.
> >
> >No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
> >"nationalism".
>
> Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
> born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
More and more it seems like you operate from a sch"ism" in your cerebral
cortex.
> > Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> >> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> >> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
> >
> >Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
> >don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they
are
> >not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's
sovereign
> >borders, contrary to custom and law.
>
> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
> unenforceable.
Absurd. There is no legitimate comparison between the two concepts.
> >I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>
> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
> income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
> native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
> illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
> than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
> ancestry.
1) If we made it economically impossible for illegals to survive here by
making the penalties for hiring them more onerous, border enforcement would
be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a blatantly
uninformed assertion.
3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work at
an artificially deflated wage. In technology, we have myriad instances in
which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
visa-bearing replacements.
4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize. Thus, we have laws that
ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not citizens,
but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can be
prevented by legislation...and they should be.
> >> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
> >> "community of characteristics"
> >
> >Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is
racist,
> >at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity
as
> >the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>
> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
see today, regardless of their origin. Thus, we risk the subversion or
subjugation of the very things,
the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
greatness.
> >>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to
become a
> >>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
> >>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by
becoming a
> >>>warrior.
> >>
> >> There is no invasion.
> >
> >Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
> > Invade.
> > 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
> > rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
> >
> > 2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
> > domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
> > or plunder.
> >
> > 3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
> > pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
> >
> >See definition #3.
>
> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
> obviously disagree about.
It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
real.
> >But more specifically,
> >
> >Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
> > n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
> > to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
> > Wade.
> > 1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
> > enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
>
> Obs. = obsolete
>
> > 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
> > conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
> > as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
>
> hostile intent
>
> > Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
> >
> > 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
> > the king invaded the rights of the people.
>
> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
Are you an ACLU shill? You stated a portion of their
reverse-discriminatory, socialist
perspective perfectly. These days, we spend far too much time bending over
backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
of the majority. You've gone Orwellian: "Diversity is strength!"
> > 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
> > progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
> >
> > Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
> >
> >See definition #4.
>
>
> Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
> falsely that there is injury.
Really? Wow. Do you come out of your hole and look around often?
> >Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
> >armed,
>
> Proof that this is "increasing"? Pancho Villa was armed 100 years
> ago.
They don't deliver current newspapers to your hole either, do they?
--
The American Kernel
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>>>>
>>>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>>
>>>
>>>But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>>>treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>>>are not in the same category as you.
>>
>>No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
>>"nationalism".
>
>
> Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
> born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
I think you have just revealed that you are incapable of rational discussion
on the subject, since you are using a different dictionary and different
interpretations of that dictionary than most people.
>
>>> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>>>be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>>>make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>>>an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>>
>>Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
>>don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they are
>>not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's sovereign
>>borders, contrary to custom and law.
>
>
> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
> unenforceable.
Actually, both are quite enforceable. Ask husbands convicted of raping their
wives whether or not laws governing what happens in a bedroom are enforceable.
>
>
>>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>
>
> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet.
I insist on it.
> We might
> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
> income tax to pay for militarizing the border,
Nice presumption. Would you care to provide details as to how a
"militarization" of the border would double the income tax, or would you
care to try to show that militarization of the border would even be required?
> and accepted the lower
> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
> native population),
You are (I suspect intentionally, nobody can be that stupid anymore) mixing
categories. We do get quite a lot of benefits from Legal Immigration,
especially from the intellegentsia. However, we don't get any of these
"benefits" from the uneducated rurals that are the vast majority of the
people sneaking across the borders in the dead of night.
> the elimination of the tourism industry since most
> illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
> than border crossers.
Cites, please.
> Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
> ancestry.
Where they hell did you get _this_ ridiculous idea? "Treated differently
because of their _perceived_ ancestry"? Are you NUTS?
Any one born in the USA is a citizen. That is all. I _do_ favor legal
changes that would give the citizen birthright only to children whose
mothers were legally present in the US at the time of birth. However,
declaring US citizens "illegal" on the basis of race is something I would
not tolerate. Nor would the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think
anyone is going to think that would proceed from increasing border security
and increasing the rate of apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens?
>
>
>>>see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>>>"community of characteristics"
>>
>>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>
>
> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
There's no "ethnicity" to it. Basically they have a birth-certificate or
certificate of naturalization that says they're a citizen, or they show an
unexpired visa, or "green card", or they get sent back home.
We don't care what their "ethnicity" is, we care what their "nationality"
is, and also their citizenship or immigration status.
>
>
>>>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>>>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>>>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>>>>warrior.
>>>
>>>There is no invasion.
>>
>>Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
>> Invade.
>> 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
>> rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
>>
>> 2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
>> domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
>> or plunder.
>>
>> 3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
>> pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
>>
>>See definition #3.
>
>
> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
> obviously disagree about.
We're NOT talking about Legal Immigrants -- which is what you seek to imply
when you use the word "immigration" -- we are talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Don't try to fuzz the issue, I will call you on it _every_ time.
>
>
>
>>But more specifically,
>>
>>Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
>> n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
>> to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
>> Wade.
>> 1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
>> enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
>
>
> Obs. = obsolete
>
>
>> 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
>> conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
>> as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
>
>
> hostile intent
>
>
>> Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
>>
>> 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
>> the king invaded the rights of the people.
>
>
> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
>
>
>> 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
>> progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
>>
>> Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
>>
>>See definition #4.
>
>
>
> Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
> falsely that there is injury.
See http://www.bordercounties.org/ for the "Border Counties Coalition". They
have some excellent documentation there, facts, figures, footnotes -- and
all of it Federal -- which amply demonstrated the HUGE financial injuries
borne by the taxpayers of the counties along or near the border with Mexico.
>
>
>>Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
>>armed,
>
>
> Proof that this is "increasing"? Pancho Villa was armed 100 years
> ago.
Yes, and they sent the army after him, didn't they. They should do it again!
>
>
>>with one Border Patrol officer being murdered recently, other Federal
>>agents being beaten and robbed by border crossers, etc.
>>
>>That beating and robbing and murder come under definition #2.
>
>
> That MIGHT present a case that those who committed such acts are
> invaders, but says nothing about those who do not, and have no intent
> to do so.
We cannot measure intent. We can, however, measure the illegality of
presence in the USA, and deport those who astisfy the criteria of being "out
of status" or "entered without inspection".
>
>
>>Definition #1 applies in any case.
>
>
> And is obsolete. Learn to read a dictionary.
It's not at all obsolete; it's the precise usage we see in the newspapers
everytime we read about "home invasions".
Get a grip.
<interesting references on Rome, snipped, thanks for digging them up, I'll
read them later>
Bob LeChevalier
>>>Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
>>>to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte".
>>
>>
>> You may think so, but you are wrong.
>
>Care to support this assertion?
>
>In many places which have become concentrations of illegal aliens, we see
>the duplication of all of the conditions in Mexico. We see institutionalized
>poverty, corruption, poor health, indigence, etc.
That is called economics. You concentrate poor people in a locale,
and sure enough, conditions of poverty will abound. We have (and will
have) poverty in this country whether or not we have illegal aliens.
It might be that we will have LESS poverty because of them; so the
economists think.
>These are all institutions
>more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. In the US, we have prided
>ourselves on generation of wealth,
Tromping on the poor both in this country and other countries in order
to do it.
>rooting out corruption,
And generating ten times as much to replace it. Look at the campaign
finance laws.
>improving public health,
Check out infant mortality in the inner cities. Third world levels if
you don't have health insurance.
>and being as self-reliant as possible.
That rates a LOL. Reliant on our ability to screw our neighbor.
>>>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Try supporting your disagreement.
It's all opinion on both sides.
lojbab
LeBob Liercheva
<3E57D8B...@earthops.net>...
> I think you have just revealed that you are incapable of rational discussion
> on the subject, since you are using a different dictionary and different
> interpretations of that dictionary than most people.
That's what I keep telling people in misc.education, however, this newsgroup
seems to be infested with non-readers and non-counters just LIKE him!!
> You are (I suspect intentionally, nobody can be that stupid anymore)
Nope. He is.
> Where they hell did you get _this_ ridiculous idea? "Treated differently
> because of their _perceived_ ancestry"? Are you NUTS?
Yes, he is.
> Don't try to fuzz the issue, I will call you on it _every_ time.
He won't admit to it.
Bob LeChevalier
>> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
>> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
>> unenforceable.
>
>Absurd. There is no legitimate comparison between the two concepts.
Difficulty of enforcing without destroying our constitutional rights,
and a general disconnect between law and custom are things they both
have in common.
>> >I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>>
>> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
>> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
>> income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
>> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
>> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
>> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
>> native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
>> illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
>> than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
>> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
>> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
>> ancestry.
>
>1) If we made it economically impossible for illegals to survive here by
>making the penalties for hiring them more onerous,
Such as? Prisons, whether for illegals or people who hire illegals,
are overflowing, and they cost more do build and maintain than people
want to pay, not to mention that no one wants a prison in their
neighborhood. And of course you have to enforce these penalties,
which means more cops at $100K a year including bennies, and more
courts at even higher costs. And they still have to PROVE a violation
of law without violating constitutional rights, which is hard.
The only people we'd make it economically impossible for would be the
American people.
>border enforcement would
>be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
Nonsense.
>2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a blatantly
>uninformed assertion.
I didn't say that. I said that a substantial percentage comes from
people who enter the country legally via tourism, student visas, and
other means, but who decide not to go home.
>3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
>work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work at
>an artificially deflated wage.
If the wage is higher, then SOMEONE will pay that higher wage. That
person will be the American consumer. Or if the American consumer
doesn't want to pay that amount, then the business goes bankrupt.
>In technology, we have myriad instances in
>which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
>visa-bearing replacements.
And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
>4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
>drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize.
I doubt that such was anticipated, given the explicit wording.
>Thus, we have laws that
>ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not citizens,
Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
> citizens of the United States;
Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
>but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
>MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can be
>prevented by legislation...and they should be.
I doubt that it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny, given the
unambiguous wording of the 14th.
>> >Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>> >at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>> >the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>>
>> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>
>OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
>to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
>see today, regardless of their origin.
That argument is unsupported, since I posted immigration statistics to
show that current immigration as a percentage of the population, even
including illegals, is low by the standards of most of the 19th
century.
>Thus, we risk the subversion or
>subjugation of the very things,
>the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
>greatness.
This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
>> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
>> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
>> obviously disagree about.
>
>It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
>real.
At the moment it is rather gray here.
But you haven't proven that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, and
you can't given the number of countries that seek immigrants in order
to keep their economies working.
>> > 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
>> > the king invaded the rights of the people.
>>
>> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
>> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
>
>Are you an ACLU shill?
No.
>These days, we spend far too much time bending over
>backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
>of the majority.
Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
trampling on the rights of political minorities.
> You've gone Orwellian: "Diversity is strength!"
It is (whether Orwell said it or not).
lojbab
americankernel
Watch what happens to Tyson. That will be a benchmark to determine if the
government is serious. It didn't take any extra cops to get Tyson. You're
out in La-la land on this issue.
> The only people we'd make it economically impossible for would be the
> American people.
>
> >border enforcement would
> >be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
>
> Nonsense.
You really the kind of loon others have suggested you are, aren't you?
> >2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a
blatantly
> >uninformed assertion.
>
> I didn't say that. I said that a substantial percentage comes from
> people who enter the country legally via tourism, student visas, and
> other means, but who decide not to go home.
Sure. Right. Nonsense.
> >3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
> >work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work
at
> >an artificially deflated wage.
>
> If the wage is higher, then SOMEONE will pay that higher wage. That
> person will be the American consumer. Or if the American consumer
> doesn't want to pay that amount, then the business goes bankrupt.
Like I said before, you don't get out much, do you?
> >In technology, we have myriad instances in
> >which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
> >visa-bearing replacements.
>
> And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
Google it yourself, idiot. There's information about the issue all over the
place.
> >4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
> >drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize.
>
> I doubt that such was anticipated, given the explicit wording.
Again, it isn't hard to find the debate and the commentary that occurred
immediately after Congress put it up if you know how to search. I'm not
going to be your schoolmarm. If you wish to remain ignorant, so be it.
Amen.
> >Thus, we have laws that
> >ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not
citizens,
>
> Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
> >Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
> > citizens of the United States;
>
> Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
> nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
You're also sorely lacking in knowledge of the concept of "legislative
intent."
> >but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
> >MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can
be
> >prevented by legislation...and they should be.
>
> I doubt that it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny, given the
> unambiguous wording of the 14th.
Again, you don't understand the concept of legislative intent. Have you
ever worked on legislation? Have you worked in Congress? Have you worked
as a lobbyist? I can tell the answer. I can also guarantee that my answers
to these very questions differ 180 degrees from yours.
> >> >Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is
racist,
> >> >at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same
ethnicity as
> >> >the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
> >>
> >> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
> >
> >OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
> >to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
> >see today, regardless of their origin.
>
> That argument is unsupported, since I posted immigration statistics to
> show that current immigration as a percentage of the population, even
> including illegals, is low by the standards of most of the 19th
> century.
Oh really? Can I have some of that stuff you've been smoking? You are so
loony, you're almost headed for Plonkville. What a moron.
> >Thus, we risk the subversion or
> >subjugation of the very things,
> >the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
> >greatness.
>
> This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
> immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
> international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
> by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
> stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
> opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
> the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
> of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
If it was so great, how come the voters basically kicked out Congress, or
flipped them on the issue of immigration, and closed the borders for 40
years after 1924? Many more people consider the 50's to be our greatest
decade...you know...when we had a 4% foreign born population? Today we're
at 11% and headed for 15%.
I don't even know why I bother with you. You are plainly an idiot with
preconceptions that are not backed by study, reading or fact. I feel a
plonk coming.
> >> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
> >> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
> >> obviously disagree about.
> >
> >It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
> >real.
>
> At the moment it is rather gray here.
Gray sky above. No gray matter in the noggin. A pity.
>
> But you haven't proven that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, and
> you can't given the number of countries that seek immigrants in order
> to keep their economies working.
>
> >> > 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
> >> > the king invaded the rights of the people.
> >>
> >> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
> >> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
> >
> >Are you an ACLU shill?
>
> No.
>
> >These days, we spend far too much time bending over
> >backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the
"rights"
> >of the majority.
>
> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
I keep my copy of the Constitution on my desk next to me, along with the
Federalist Papers. There's a copy of Washington's Farewell Address on my
hard-drive. You ought to read that, too. But you won't. It would conflict
with the silly notions already crammed into that error crowded space between
your ears. Sheesh.
> > You've gone Orwellian: "Diversity is strength!"
>
> It is (whether Orwell said it or not).
Yeah, right. Thank GOD there aren't many who think like you in this nation.
We'd be doomed. Now, don't come back and tell me that there are more like
you because I've been clued in...you're alone with your thoughts and
concepts in just about every post you make, no matter which group you
infest.
My guess is, you're about as relevant as Esperanto in just about everything
you do. And that comment meant EXACTLY what you think it might have. I
take the time to do research. I can see from your posts that you generally
don't.
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:obnf5vcnnbt95umuc...@4ax.com...
>> >which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
>> >visa-bearing replacements.
>>
>> And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
>
>Google it yourself, idiot. There's information about the issue all over the
>place.
...
>> >Thus, we have laws that
>> >ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not
>citizens,
>>
>> Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
>> >Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>> ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
>> > citizens of the United States;
>>
>> Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
>> nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
>
>You're also sorely lacking in knowledge of the concept of "legislative
>intent."
I'm not lacking in the concept of "read the words". The literal
reading of the words themselves override any "legislative intent".
>> This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
>> immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
>> international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
>> by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
>> stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
>> opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
>> the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
>> of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
>
>If it was so great, how come the voters basically kicked out Congress, or
>flipped them on the issue of immigration, and closed the borders for 40
>years after 1924?
xenophobic racism
>Many more people consider the 50's to be our greatest decade...
Fans of McCarthy perhaps.
>I don't even know why I bother with you. You are plainly an idiot with
>preconceptions that are not backed by study, reading or fact. I feel a
>plonk coming.
I could say the same for you. Feel free to plonk. If you hadn't
cross-posted to misc.education, I would neither have seen nor
responded to you.
>My guess is, you're about as relevant as Esperanto in just about everything
>you do. And that comment meant EXACTLY what you think it might have.
If that is the case, then thank you for the compliment. I daresay
that we could have little ambition to be more relevant than Esperanto
in the next generation or so, unless something unexpected happens.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>>>>treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>>>>are not in the same category as you.
>>>
>>>No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
>>>"nationalism".
>>
>> Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
>> born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
>
>I think you have just revealed that you are incapable of rational discussion
>on the subject, since you are using a different dictionary and different
>interpretations of that dictionary than most people.
I cited the definition from Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary.
They are the largest publisher of dictionaries these days. My usage
falls strictly within the definitions. Racism is considering one race
superior to another or discriminating against a race. Any of several
definitions of race support my understanding:
>a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
>b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
>3c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
If you discriminate on the basis of any of these, or consider your own
race superior according to any of these definitions of "race", then
you are a racist.
>> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
>> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
>> unenforceable.
>
>Actually, both are quite enforceable. Ask husbands convicted of raping their
>wives whether or not laws governing what happens in a bedroom are enforceable.
How many such convictions have there been compared to the rate at
which men have forced their wives to have sex?
But I was referring to adultery and sodomy laws.
>>>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>>
>> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet.
>
>I insist on it.
You have one vote. I have one vote. You don't win.
>> We might
>> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
>> income tax to pay for militarizing the border,
>
>Nice presumption. Would you care to provide details as to how a
>"militarization" of the border would double the income tax, or would you
>care to try to show that militarization of the border would even be required?
No. You'd just disagree with all my assumptions anyway. You or
someone cited Korea as an example of successful border defense. It is
the most militarized frontier in the world, with 750,000 troops
defending a much shorter border than the US/Mexican border. And it
only prevent armed troops. North Korea still gets spies into the
country.
> > and accepted the lower
>> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
>> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
>> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
>> native population),
>
>You are (I suspect intentionally, nobody can be that stupid anymore) mixing
>categories. We do get quite a lot of benefits from Legal Immigration,
>especially from the intellegentsia. However, we don't get any of these
>"benefits" from the uneducated rurals that are the vast majority of the
>people sneaking across the borders in the dead of night.
Actually we do. They do the work that keeps our economy afloat.
>> Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
>> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
>> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
>> ancestry.
>
>Where they hell did you get _this_ ridiculous idea? "Treated differently
>because of their _perceived_ ancestry"? Are you NUTS?
>
>Any one born in the USA is a citizen. That is all. I _do_ favor legal
>changes that would give the citizen birthright only to children whose
>mothers were legally present in the US at the time of birth. However,
>declaring US citizens "illegal" on the basis of race is something I would
>not tolerate. Nor would the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think
>anyone is going to think that would proceed from increasing border security
>and increasing the rate of apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens?
Reality is that people would use skin color as a basis for the level
of scrutiny applied to a person crossing the border.
>>>>see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>>>>"community of characteristics"
>>>
>>>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>>>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>>>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>>
>> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>
>There's no "ethnicity" to it. Basically they have a birth-certificate or
>certificate of naturalization that says they're a citizen, or they show an
>unexpired visa, or "green card", or they get sent back home.
When do they get checked? If only at the borders, you fail to stop
the non-exiting visitors.
Will all citizens be required to carry around their proof of
citizenship, so that the cops can randomly check people, or in fact
will the cops profile people by skin color so that only those of
certain skin shades will need to carry proof?
>We don't care what their "ethnicity" is, we care what their "nationality"
>is, and also their citizenship or immigration status.
Current reality is that citizens aren't required to carry proof of
citizenship. If that doesn't change, then you have no way to prove
that a person X is not a citizen who isn't carrying documentation. If
it does change, then we will have adopted Soviet style Big Brotherism.
The public won't accept that.
>> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
>> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
>> obviously disagree about.
>
>We're NOT talking about Legal Immigrants -- which is what you seek to imply
>when you use the word "immigration" -- we are talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS.
We do not agree that illegal immigration is hurtful or pernicious.
>> Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
>> falsely that there is injury.
>
>See http://www.bordercounties.org/ for the "Border Counties Coalition". They
>have some excellent documentation there, facts, figures, footnotes -- and
>all of it Federal -- which amply demonstrated the HUGE financial injuries
>borne by the taxpayers of the counties along or near the border with Mexico.
But I'll bet they don't document the even larger financial gains from
the taxpayers who happen to be illegal aliens. Nor do they document
the contribution to GNP of their labor.
>>>Definition #1 applies in any case.
>>
>>
>> And is obsolete. Learn to read a dictionary.
>
>It's not at all obsolete; it's the precise usage we see in the newspapers
>everytime we read about "home invasions".
I'll believe the dictionary, not you.
lojbab
lisieux
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Rob wrote:
>
> > Carol Lee Smith wrote:
> > >Detroit has more murders inn one year than all of Canada.
>
> > 5,000,000 people in Detroit in 139 sq. miles. Canada has 31,000,000
> > people in 3,559,294 square sq. miles. They're out of range of each other.
>
>
> 'Zat so?
>
> Michael Moore had some interesting ideas in "Bowling for Columbine."
I've been to Bosnia, Belfast and Beirut, I had to go to the USA to
hear about a kid getting a G3 Assault rifle for Christmas. About two
dozen Americans got plugged at the Battle of Yorktown, that would be a
very quiet night in Detroit.
Columbine was a factor of liberal parenting, heavy metal music and the
inability of the school board to hand out flak jackets to its pupils.
The idea of blaming the gun lobby is merely an Al Qaeda plot to disarm
the United States of America. Lax immigration controls from Canada
might also be part of the problem. Canadians could be brain-washing
American kids for all the FBI cares.
lisieux
> Detroit has more murders in one year than all of Canada.
Take those statistics from my cold dead hands. However if Canada
invades Michigan then Governor Engler will be able to throw in a few
Detroit SWAT teams at them. In Detroit the SWAT teams have updated
their glass windows on some of their police vehicles to survive a
direct hit from a thermo-nuclear missile.
They have steel bearings inserted by medical experts into their
arm-pits to prevent deflection shots in case the 12 inches of kevlar
lets them down. You are just a girl, you probably think Kevlar is a
cosmetic. Ooops - I think Stephanie Kwolek invented the stuff so I
take that last comment back.
James S. Prine
>hear about a kid getting a G3 Assault rifle for Christmas
Really? Are you certain it was a G3, or an HK-91? I'm curious, because if it
were legal to buy a G3 'round here, I'd like to get the paperwork started <g>.
The Genuine, Original James S. Prine...accept no substitutes.
Carol Lee Smith
> The idea of blaming the gun lobby is merely an Al Qaeda plot to disarm
> the United States of America.
Armed Americans will not be able to intercept such suicide bombers as were
involved in 9/11.
Or do you propose to arm all airline passengers?
James S. Prine
>involved in 9/11.
No, armed passengers with the training and the will to survive would have
ensured that those planes would not have been turned into missiles.
>Or do you propose to arm all airline passengers?
Nope. Just the ones with the courage to fight for their own survival...and
perhaps the survival of those on the ground.
An armed citizenry can, by definition, take care of their own problems.
Unarmed people are what terrorists go after. Have you seen any terrorists
taking on the residents of Fort Bragg lately?
John Gault
A lesson you obviously missed Carol (which isn't surprising) is that
Americans really don't need guns on planes to deal with hijackers and
suicide bombers. Take a good look at how Richard Reid looked when he was
taken off the plane in Boston. The passengers beat the holy shit out of the
asshole. If I was the judge, I'd sentence him to being put back on that
plane with those same passengers and telling them that whatever they did to
him would be legal.
I don't think I would want to be a hijacker on any American aircraft ever
again. But then it seems some of those terrorists aren't real long on the
brains department.
Bob LeChevalier
>> >> Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
>> >> unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>> >
>> > If any border screamed to be militarized, it is our
>> >southern border. And it was militarized well into
>> >the 20th Century.
>>
>> Not in the sense it would have to be in order to control immigration.
>
>Mexicans every year a hundred years ago.
They were Southern and Eastern Europeans instead, generally even
poorer when they got here (transatlantic transportation wasn't cheap),
and coming in larger numbers (*much* larger in proportion to the
native population).
>> > Yule? You mean Christmas time?
>>
>> I said Yule. Those "invaders" from Rome took over a perfectly good
>> pagan holiday and bastardized it.
>
> You are confused, aren't you.
You are aware, I hope, that the biblical account of Christ's birth
doesn't support a midwinter event (shepherds with their flocks in the
night)? The date of Christmas celebration came about when the Roman
church tried to appropriate the pagan holy days (Saturnalia in Rome
proper, Yule in the Celtic lands, and Mithras in the Eastern lands) in
an effort to win pagans over to Christianity.
>> >> Nope. If that were the case you'd have had your isolationist
>> >> immigration policy ages ago.
>> >
>> > The politicians aren't listening to the people on the
>> >immigration issue.
>>
>> The aren't getting voted out either. Indeed, Hispanics seem to be
>> elected with increasing frequency.
>
> And still, politicians aren't listening to Americans on the
>issue of immigration.
Americans have different answers on immigration depending on how the
question is phrased.
>> > Actually, according to every poll done in the past 10
>> >or so years, my views are in line with the views of
>> >most Americans.
>>
>> And you of course believe polls, so long as those polls confirm your
>> prejudices. If the polls don't agree with you then they are
>> worthless.
>
> Please provide a poll that disagrees with my position. Thanks.
One of the cites I posted yesterday - I think it was one of the NAS
reports, analyzed poll results and showed how they varied
significantly with the form of the question.
>> >> They just don't care about YOU. They want law and justice and
>> >> fairness and good will for THEM.
>> >
>> > At the expense of Americans.
>>
>> Why yes. Of course they consider themselves Americans too.
>
> No, actually, they tend not to. Assimilation seems no longer to be
>an aspiration among immigrants, particularly among Mexicans.
Really? Then why was there any support for Prop 187 in California
among the Hispanic community? How did it pass in a state where whites
are a minority?
Assimilation is a 3 generation process, and has been since time
immemorial. Assimilation has actually been slightly quicker for
modern immigrants, possibly because of television and universal public
education, so that immigrants learn the language a little quicker and
their kids learn English even when it isn't spoken at home.
There is little difference between California today and New York City
a century ago, though New York City supported more different languages
and cultures, having multiple separate ghettos instead of just one
large barrio.
>And
>what they want and what they get tend to be at the expense
>of Americans.
They *are* Americans once they get here. And they and their children
contribute to the welfare of this country (their children will be the
ones supporting you in your old age with their social security
payments).
>> >> >They abuse our health, education, and welfare systems.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. They follow the laws regarding those systems.
>> >
>> > Actually, no. Or do you believe that the big market
>> >in false documents if some kind of benign exercise?
>>
>> False documents aren't an abuse of those systems.
>
> Apparently, connecting some simple dots of logic
>is beyond you, isn't it, Bob.
I can connect the dots. But you aren't making any case - just waving
your arms and making accusations without support.
>> >> >I care more about Americans
>> >>
>> >> Only if they share your color and language.
>> >
>> > By definition, an American is someone who speaks English.
>>
>> Show me any dictionary with that definition.
>
> Show me an American who doesn't speak English.
About 10% of American citizens do not speak English as their native
tongue. Some don't speak it at all (though this isn't common)
This is not merely an artifact of recent immigration. Along the
Southeast coast, communities of former black slaves speak Gullah and
have done so for centuries. A large chunk of New York Jews spoke
Yiddish. Go to any Chinatown (they've been around for 150 years) and
people speak Chinese. In the Pennsylvania Deutsch country, they spoke
German (and there were entire brigades of Union soldiers in the Civil
War that spoke only German, a fact that cause no small amount of
problems for the generals).
And then there are the native Americans. You know - the REAL
"Americans".
>> > Oh, you're asking for "proof." I'm a white American, Bob.
>>
>> Which proves?
>
> That I don't practice Zulu or Mexican or Chinese culture.
>That, being white in America pretty much suggests my culture.
Maybe to you it does. I guess you are unaware of the factionalism
between those of Irish descent in Boston and everyone else, the
centuries of strife between Catholics and Protestants. You ignore or
denigrate the difference in culture between a Bible Belt "fundie" and
a Boston "liberal". And you, a western (probably Californian) "white"
haven't a clue how weird the "whites" of the east think Californians
are (since I grew up in California and have lived 20 years in
Virginia, I can't escape knowing).
Historically this was even more so, and still has its remnants today.
The cultural differences between North and South led to the Civil War
and hardly went away when slavery was abolished. Go 100 miles from
Richmond to Baltimore and the cultural change is startling. Go 300
miles from Roanoke to New Jersey and except for language, the
differences are just as much as the differences between you and the
Mexican immigrants you denigrate.
>> >Your posts indicate that because I'm a white American, I
>> >have certain values, attitudes, and behavior
>>
>> I'm a "white American" too, and I rather doubt that we have the same
>> values, attitudes, and behavior.
>
> We certainly do, Bob.
Nope.
>And when you become informed and
>thoughtful on the issue of massive immigration, we'll have even
>more in common.
>
>> >> > Really? So in Thailand, for example, if you touch the head
>> >> >of a child and his father is offended, the father is racist?
>> >>
>> >> Why are you touching another person, especially a minor without
>> >> permission? You are violating their rights.
>> >
>> > How racist of you.
>>
>> For insisting that human rights be respected?
>
> For claiming that the father has every right to be offended.
>You claimed in another post that only racists were offended
>by cultural differences.
The father is justifiably offended under both cultures. Unlike
Thailand, in this country, I might call the cops if you didn't stop
touching my kid.
>> >> Meanwhile, if they are offended, they are offended because of your
>> >> individual behavior, not because you are a member of a group.
>> >
>> > Americans touch children's heads.
>>
>> Not the head of someone else's kid, you better not.
>
> Under certain common circumstances, touches a kid's head
>is perfectly normal and acceptable. You're a pretty uptight
>guy, aren't you, Bob.
I just don't trust racist perverts.
Meanwhile if a European gentleman came up and kissed you and hugged
you, YOU would be offended no matter how "white" he was.
>> > You've really drifted from your own point, Bob. Do some
>> >rereading and figure it out, will you. We're talking about what
>> >cultures find offensive, that some cultures are in conflict, and
>> >your claiming that people of one culture who are offended by
>> >other cultures are racist.
>>
>> No. They are people who happen to be of one culture, who are offended
>> by individuals who happen to be of a different culture.
>
> Right, Bob, and they're offended by behavior that is perfectly
>normal and acceptable in one culture, because in their own
>culture such behavior is unacceptable.
In this country, if it isn't against the law, it is to be tolerated.
You have no right to say that my behavior is "unacceptable" as long as
it is legal. They call this "freedom", as American a fundamental
value as they come.
>> >> 1. It would take militarizing the border, which would be frightfully
>> >> expensive and would merely cut down on what you call "invasion", not
>> >> stop it. There would simply come to be more use of alternative
>> >> methods. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>> >
>> > So the Mexican will and way is ... what? ... more effective
>> >than the American will and way to keep the Mexicans out?
>>
>> There is no "American will".
>
> What?
If there was a single "American will" we wouldn't have all those
immigrants - SOMEONE lets them is and SOMEONE hires them. We also
wouldn't have such high stress debates over so many topics from
abortion to gun control to religion in schools to homosexuality and
other sexual freedom. There wouldn't be any debate over going to war
with Iraq; we'd all think as one and the mindless Borg of America
would rule the world.
>> Expenditure of huge amounts of manpower on a tiny border has limited
>> border crossing, but even so there are agents of the North who get
>> into Korea. And that border protection is a blip in history that
>> won't last.
>
> And still, we could protect our southern border. Furthermore,
>is we prosecute those who employ illegals and provide jail time
>and heavy fines, guess what? No illegals.
Prosecution and jail time cost a lot more than the fines would bring
in. Shutting down businesses that use illegals, or even fining them
too heavily, would kill our economy - look at how the tobacco industry
has gotten off for their illegal activities: the states and the
Federal government know that fining the companies in accordance with
the damages they caused as defined by law would shut them down and
devastate huge chunks of the economy, and probably gain less money
from them that slowly milking them over time.
>> In our case it is beyond "expensive". Our borders are several times
>> as long, the terrain is less hospitable to protection, and the rights
>> guaranteed by our constitution make some aspects of that protection
>> impossible. Koreans, North or South don't share those rights.
>
> What rights? Invaders have no "rights?"
"Persons" in this country have country have rights under the
constitution.
Meanwhile read the Geneva conventions and you'll find that even real
military invaders have rights that must be respected.
>> I've been reading history as an avocation for more than 30 years,
>> probably longer than you've been around.
>
> I earned a degree in History longer ago than that.
You seem to have forgotten most of it.
>> > Apparently you aren't familiar with the issue and with
>> >how the government works to keep the will of the
>> >people from becoming policy.
>>
>> The magic word is "elections". If people really cared, they'd vote
>> the bums out of office.
>
> If only it were that simple ...
Well, if you are so virtuous and sure that the public agrees with you,
let's see YOU get elected.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>by Spaniards and the descendants of Spaniards -- the
>Californios never considered themselves Mexicans,
After 1822 they did. They weren't Spaniards any more.
but
>most of the state was empty or inhabited by Indians.
>In 1846, the Spanish-speaking population amounted
>to about 10,000, which is fewer than now inhabit
>any given square mile of San Francisco.
>
>> In any event, the US had no legal right to be there.
>
> Legal right. What law did we violate?
We were "illegal immigrants" into Texas and into California.
>> We invaded
>> Texas,
>
> Actually, the Mexican government recruited American
>agents such as Austin to recruit American settlers in Texas.
>So what are you talking about?
When we sent troops into Texas to take it away from the Mexicans. Not
all of those in the Alamo were Texas residents (the infamous Davy
Crockett was Tennessean).
>> and then Mexico, because of southern slaveholders who wanted to
>> expand the territory in which slavery was permitted, so as to allow
>> the Missouri Compromise to continue to balance slave and free states.
>
> Bob, you're an excellent example of the danger of having
>a little knowledge.
Just especially well read on the Civil War and the events leading up
to that war.
>> >The Comanches, Apaches, and other tribes pretty much had their way.
>>
>> So?
>
> So the Mexicans didn't *own* the territory; they claimed it.
International treaty had given that land to the Spanish, which passed
to the Mexicans when Monroe recognized their government. We legally
recognized that ownership, and negotiated its transfer by treaty when
we ended the war, and PAID FOR the Gadsden Purchase (not to mention
the earlier Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Florida, and the
purchase of Alaska and the Russian coastal colonies). Every single
one of these purchases recognized that the land belonged to another
country, and that ownership did not require enormous amounts of
settlement (most of Louisiana was far less settled by the French than
California by the Spanish/Mexicans).
It was recognized at the time that we were breaking international law
to invade Mexico, and we played games for more than a year to come up
with a pretext to cross the Rio Grande. That war, and the
simultaneous eruption of the first wave of anti-immigration sentiment
led to the destruction of the Whig party which enabled the birth of
the Republican party.
They called your ilk "Know-Nothings" back then.
>> >> >and they have not done so.
>> >>
>> >> Why should they? Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
>> >> of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
>> >
>> > It's closer to them than most. Have you ever seen Haiti?
>> >Or Mexico? Or the Philippines? Or a hundred other less
>> >than garden spots around the world?
>>
>> By our standards we are superior. By their standards, we are merely
>> rich.
>
> Apparently you don't believe that meeting the material needs
>of a population are important.
I rather think that most in this country think this is an individual
responsibility. In any event, most of our wealth isn't individual
"needs". We squander our wealth, and most of what we have is a luxury
by the standards of all other nations.
>> >> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>> >>
>> >> Liar.
>> >
>> > No society is as stratified along lines of color
>> >than Mexican society.
>>
>> What does this have to do with Aztlan?
>
> The poster claimed that Mexican culture is rife with
>ethnocentrism. You called him a liar.
That is not what he said, and not what I called a lie. Learn to read.
The lie is "the popular hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is
to merge California with Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan""
There is in fact nothing in there about political unity with Mexico,
and indeed it is clear that the unity they are talking about is the
unity of a culturally-based political party.
>> > Actually, *por* can be translated into by, for, through,
>> >in, and other prepositions. The statement in question,
>> >however, certainly isn't racially benign.
>>
>> Quite benign to me. Another minority seeking strength through unity.
>> MLK led a similarly spiritual movement - and you probably thought "We
>> shall overcome" meant that he wanted to overthrow the American
>> government.
>
> And any of that suggests to you ... what? ... that La Raza, that
>the people in the Aztlan Movement, that MEChA aren't
>ethnocentric? Hilarious.
Of course they are ethnocentric. They are even "racist". So what?
They are the minority out of power, and "racism" by minorities is
commonly used to acquire an equal share of power in the face of
opposing racism by others.
>> >> >MEChA has four
>> >> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>> >>
>> >> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
>> >> Hispanic population in this country.
>> >
>> > That's what King George said about the American revolutionaries.
>>
>> Who wouldn't have had a prayer of success without help and the threat
>> of war from Europe and a 3000 mile supply line. Even so, it was a
>> near thing.
>
> Relevance?
I assume you thought that the American revolutionaries were relevant.
Why'd you bring them up? MEChA has less chance of reuniting with
Mexico (even if they really wanted to do so) than the American
revolutionaries had of getting independence, and our chances were
rather based on the luck of world circumstances at the time.
>> >> Why should he?
>> >
>> > Because MEChA is a subversive, anti-American organization.
>>
>> Proof by assertion.
>
> Actually, proof exists only in mathematics. The weight of evidence
>in the case of MEChA indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that
>it's a subversive, anti-American organization.
It's a nascent political party. Parties in power always consider
opposition parties to be "subversive anti-American organizations".
Just listen to the Republicans talk about the Democrats (and vice
versa).
>> >> >either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
>> >>
>> >> I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences. All
>> >> groups act like human beings.
>> >
>> > And certain groups of them have values, attitudes, and behaviors
>> >that are incompatible with the values, attitudes, and behavior
>> >of other groups.
>>
>> Only because you choose to adopt values which are inherently hostile
>> and xenophobic. That is YOUR problem.
>
> I don't adopt values. I simply have them, owing to upbringing,
>education, ability to comprehend and evaluate ...
In other words, you claim not to have chosen them, but rather that
they were chosen by your parents who raised you in them. Hardly a
self-compliment that you don't think for yourself on such matters.
The values of most Americans change in the course of their lives.
>> >> >For when whites
>> >> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>> >>
>> >> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>> >
>> > Subsitute the term *whites* for the descendants of those
>> >who invented and built this country
>>
>> The DAR and the SAR are a tiny minority of this country. Meanwhile
>> you of course are probably willing to ignore all those dark-skinned
>> peoples whose ancestors were brought here in the 1600s and who built
>> most of the South.
>
> Are you claiming that whites didn't build this country?
Not as "whites" they didn't. And in the South it was blacks that did
most of the building.
Of course the anti-Semites will say that the Jews did it all since
they funded all those who acquired power with their secret cabals.
>> Most American are descendants of immigrants who came here between 1840
>> and 1920 (many of whom had to deal with just the same sort of shit you
>> are handing out when they got here).
>
> And many Americans opposed that immigration because it
>did change their society in ways they didn't approve of.
We're stronger and better for it.
In any event, many reactionaries oppose change in their society that
they don't approve of, but if you really have studied history, you
should be aware that change is inevitable.
>> >and as the carriers of the values, attitudes, and behavior of those inventors and
>> >builders,
>>
>> Certainly YOU don't carry any such values or attitudes.
>
> Sure I do.
You want to tear down and destroy businesses if they happen to employ
someone you don't approve of. You want to keep inventive foreigners
from coming to our shores and enriching our country instead of their
native country with their new ideas.
>> I'm not aware
>> of how you "behave", but relatively few 20th/21st century Americans
>> abide by 18th century behavioral standards.
>
> Your narrowness is pretty stunning, Bob.
I'm generally considered broad-minded. But most people have little
understanding of 18th century mores.
>> >and you have your right and your reason. Or
>> >do you expect the US to continue as a progressive
>> >society
>>
>> I don't think you have a "progressive" thought in your head.
>
> I know that filling the country with Mexicans isn't progressive.
It certainly is.
>> >after people whose values, attitudes, and
>> >behavior carry no notion or familiarity with that
>> >progressiveness?
>>
>> Hint: "progressive" is the opposite of "reactionary". Most
>> progressives are classified as "liberals" by the obnoxious right. I
>> myself am not "progressive" or "liberal" but I at least know what the
>> words mean.
>
> You continue to avoid the point.
Actually it is precisely the point of my disagreement with you of what
constitutes a "progressive society".
>> No more than South Boston is an approximation of Ireland,
>> Detroit is an approximation of Poland, or for that matter, Chinatown
>> is an approximation of China.
>
> I've never been to South Boston or Detroit, but I have spent
>lots of time over many years in and around Chinatown in San
>Francisco, and I promise you, having been to China, Chinatown
>*is* an approximation of a Chinese city.
But I thought you were saying that "real Americans" all assimilate.
Chinatown has been there a lot longer than you have.
>> Even when there was nothing to assimilate into, those people who came
>> from Britain to what is now this country quickly made this place into
>> something that wasn't an imitation of Britain (and they WERE
>> "colonists"), why would we expect anyone immigrating from another
>> country to do differently.
>
> Read *Democracy In America* by de Tocqueville. You don't
>know what you're talking about.
De Tocqueville was a Frenchman who got a perverted sense of the way
this country worked, mostly because he focused on its differences from
France (and America WAS different from France, but then so was
Britain).
But I was referring to the period from 1607 to 1789, when we made and
evolved this country into something so different from Britain that we
ceased to consider ourselves to be British. Most of those changes
took place in the last 40 years before 1789, and those changes were
far more drastic than anything you or I are likely to see.
>> >What do you
>> >think happens if we fill up much of the country
>> >with Mexicans?
>>
>> They'll intermingle and assimilate.
>
> They aren't.
Nonsense. You even said that many Mexicans from earlier generations
have assimilated enough to denigrate the current generation. And that
is what it is - the older generation always considers that the newer
one is inferior - you just think that it is because it has a higher
minority component, that it is the minority aspect that drives those
offensive behaviors. Here in the east where there is no dominant
minority, "we" recognize that "all Gen-Xers are obnoxious destroyers
of all the values we hold dear", and the teenagers will be even worse.
Of course then as we look back at history, we notice that every
generation has said this about the next, and yet we generally perceive
society as having progressed positively.
>> and it affected only one group
>> that wasn't a large portion of those who were immigrating. It wasn't
>> until the 1920s, after 300 years of immigration, that significant
>> controls were imposed.
>
> The first immigration act was passed by Congress in
>1790.
Naturalization, not immigration. There were no controls on
immigration (how could there be, with no means to enforce any
controls). The government did not even keep statistics on immigrants
until 1820, so we don't in fact know what immigration rates were prior
to that time; we can only look at evidence.
>It was significant. And not until the 1840s did
>we have anything that could remotely be described
>as mass immigration.
1830s, O corrector of trivia. It wasn't till the 1840s that it was a
single non-British country that was the source of the immigration, and
thus the immigration aroused opposition. There was actually a steady
rise in immigration from 1824-1836, and by 1832 immigration as a
percentage of the native population exceeded current levels.
The 380,000 who came here in 1851 (3/4 from England and Ireland was
1.6% of the current native population - we'd need more than 4 million
immigrants a year to have corresponding "mass immigration" today. The
German immigrants in 1854 (over 200,000) would correspond to 2.5
million Mexicans immigrating to this country in one year today.
>> >> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>> >
>> > What is admirable is that they value their culture
>> >and are smart enough to know how to preserve it.
>>
>> Actually they are having trouble in that regard.
>
> Trouble?
The Japanese culture is "under assault from Western values". Women
are entering the work force, and the same effects are resulting
(perhaps more quickly even because of the economic stagnation) than
when women started entering the work force in this country as a result
of the Civil War (when women ran many of the farms and business while
their men went off to war, and then continued to run them when the men
didn't come back or came back disabled).
>> Considering that
>> they didn't have any significant elements of progressivism in their
>> society until 1945, they've changed quite rapidly.
>
> The Meiji wasn't progressive? Hilarious.
Peter the Great was relatively progressive in Russia too. But the
progressive elements pretty much vanished when he died; they weren't
really "part of society". So too, other than education, did many of
the Meiji reforms vanish for a couple of generations till the end of
WW II.
(I'll admit that I am less well read on Japanese history that European
and American history, but the reactionary conservatism of Japanese
society seems to be a long running theme in what I have read.
>> >> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>> >> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>> >> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>> >> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>> >>
>> >> 40 years is a blip in history. Meanwhile, part of what we've been
>> >> facing since the end of that 40 years is the backlash that we caused.
>> >
>> > Given certain realites, backlash is inevitable and a sign
>> >of good national health.
>>
>> Umm, you do realize that you just said that the immigration wave since
>> the 1970s, which is the backlash I was referring to, was inevitable
>> and healthy, don't you?
>
> I figured you were referring to American's backlash at massive
>immigration. Try to make yourself clear, will you, Bob.
Clearly, backlash is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Current
immigration is a backlash against what came before - if we had acted
differently towards Mexicans in the 1930s to 1960s, likely there would
be less immigration from there now.
>> Your racist attitudes are hardly a backlash.
>
> It isn't racist to want to preserve one's own culture
>and country.
Our country is not threatened with destruction. And if your culture
is threatened, it is because you aren't as successful at teaching your
kids your values as you claim your parents were at inculcating values
into your psyche. My culture certainly isn't threatened by
immigration; I adopted two kids from overseas by choice (who are fully
assimilated to the point where no one recognizes them as non-native,
and when they point it out, people guess they are Hispanics, which is
10,000 miles in error - so much for the "obviousness" of race when you
don't have an accent to lead you on).
> In fact, isn't it racist, and bordering on
>genocidal, as defined by the UN, to want to destroy
>the culture and people of a country?
The UN doesn't define racism. "Genocide" has a specific definition,
and is hardly used as loosely as you do. Even "ethnic cleansing"
falls short of "genocide" even though it is a war crime.
>> They were present when I
>> was a kid in California in the 60s.
>
> And you're still a kid in lots of inappropriate ways,
>aren't you, Bob.
My kids think I'm a reactionary old fuddy-duddy, and they are more
correct than you are.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> >> >It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
>> >> >duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
>> >>
>> >> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
>> >> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>> >
>> >I notice you didn't dispute my claim -- that Mexicans have failed to
>> >create a *modest* version of the civilization millions of them yearn
>> >for north of the border.
>>
>> Make up your mind. If they "yearn for" our civilization, why do you
>> claim that they are trying to change our civilization into theirs?
>
>their own.
Evidence is lacking. EVERY immigrant culture wants to preserve the
best of their mother culture while adopting the new country.
>> I suspect that the ones who stay in Mexico are perfectly fine with
>> their civilization, while the ones who come here want something else.
>
> And yet they create the conditions from which they fled.
Really. It could easily be claimed that WE created them. WE after all
conquered Mexico in the 1840s, then left the remnants to pick up the
pieces absent the legitimacy of having defended their country against
aggression (and Mexico was then conquered by France in 1860,
destroying much of what remained). Ever since, we have been quite
adept at sucking profits from Mexico. America is nothing if it isn't
superior at sucking profit from weaker countries.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
>> >> >> unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>> >> >
>> >> > If any border screamed to be militarized, it is our
>> >> >southern border. And it was militarized well into
>> >> >the 20th Century.
>> >>
>> >> Not in the sense it would have to be in order to control immigration.
>> >
>> > We didn't have an invasion of hundreds of thousands of
>> >Mexicans every year a hundred years ago.
>>
>> They were Southern and Eastern Europeans instead, generally even
>> poorer when they got here (transatlantic transportation wasn't cheap),
>> and coming in larger numbers (*much* larger in proportion to the
>> native population).
>
>not Ellis Island.
The topic is immigration policy, and we should not be discriminating
based on what border they cross.
>Furthermore, just to counter your point, irrelevant
>as it is, percentages are meaningless when resources are finite.
Resources pertain to the entire ecology of the world, and are just as
finite whether someone is in this country or outside of it.
>The second Pilgrim off the boat doubled the colonists' population.
>In the past 50 or so years, the population of our country has about
>doubled. It is expected to about double again in the next 50 to
>60 years. By 2100, the population is expected to be about
>one billion. Forget percentages.
Scare projections.
>> You are aware, I hope, that the biblical account of Christ's birth
>> doesn't support a midwinter event (shepherds with their flocks in the
>> night)? The date of Christmas celebration came about when the Roman
>> church tried to appropriate the pagan holy days (Saturnalia in Rome
>> proper, Yule in the Celtic lands, and Mithras in the Eastern lands) in
>> an effort to win pagans over to Christianity.
>
> And which "invaders from Rome" were you referring to?
Christian missionaries. Unwelcome people from another culture trying
to change the local culture.
>Do you see the problem, Bob?
No. It's a specious argument, so I give a specious argument back.
>> Really? Then why was there any support for Prop 187 in California
>> among the Hispanic community? How did it pass in a state where whites
>> are a minority?
>
> Whites weren't the minority then,
It didn't change in a year or two.
> and indeed, some people with
>Spanish surnames did vote for the Proposition. I know some of
>them. But the fact remains that Mexicans tend not to assimilate.
Yes they do. Just not instantaneously.
>Americans with Spanish surnames notice it more than anyone,
>in my experience, and they seem to resent them more than most
>other Americans do.
Those "Americans with Spanish surnames" are Mexicans that assimilated.
It takes 3 generations.
>> Assimilation is a 3 generation process, and has been since time
>> immemorial. Assimilation has actually been slightly quicker for
>> modern immigrants, possibly because of television and universal public
>> education, so that immigrants learn the language a little quicker and
>> their kids learn English even when it isn't spoken at home.
>>
>> There is little difference between California today and New York City
>> a century ago, though New York City supported more different languages
>> and cultures, having multiple separate ghettos instead of just one
>> large barrio.
>
> And that is exactly the problem -- Mexicans don't need to
>assimilate as their numbers, along with certain PC indulgences
>provided by government, isolate them from the need to
>assimilate. Mexicans are, in effect, colonists.
But they DO assimilate, so that we end up with "Spanish-surname
Americans".
>> > Apparently, connecting some simple dots of logic
>> >is beyond you, isn't it, Bob.
>>
>> I can connect the dots. But you aren't making any case - just waving
>> your arms and making accusations without support.
>
> Let me connect the dots then: false documents allow illegals to
>obtain various benefits.
The false documents are illegal independent of whether they seek
benefits. Furthermore, there is a difference between "fraud" and
"abuse".
>Furthermore, various benefits, such
>as food stamps, housing assistance, health care, education ...
>are available to illegals.
That isn't abuse, so long as the law permits it.
>They are a net drain on our economy and society.
And their kids are a net plus (as are most of them when they've been
here 20 years).
>> About 10% of American citizens do not speak English as their native
>> tongue.
>
> Again, Bob, you make a leap in logic. I write "American,"
>and you respond with "American citizen." The terms aren't
>synonymous.
All American citizens are Americans. That is the definition (unless
one uses the worldwide definition of America to refer to the entire
hemisphere, in which case most Americans speak Spanish.
>> Some don't speak it at all (though this isn't common)
>
> Again, an American by definition speaks English. That
>is what you need to refute. Unfortunately for your
>position, it's irrefutable.
In is insupportable. There is no definition of "American" that fits
that claim.
>> This is not merely an artifact of recent immigration. Along the
>> Southeast coast, communities of former black slaves speak Gullah and
>> have done so for centuries. A large chunk of New York Jews spoke
>> Yiddish. Go to any Chinatown (they've been around for 150 years) and
>> people speak Chinese. In the Pennsylvania Deutsch country, they spoke
>> German (and there were entire brigades of Union soldiers in the Civil
>> War that spoke only German, a fact that cause no small amount of
>> problems for the generals).
>
> And this is 2003, Bob, not 1865.
The still speak Gullah, Chinese, Yiddish. Not sure whether the
Pennsylvania Deutsch still speak German.
The definition of "American" hasn't changed.
>> And then there are the native Americans. You know - the REAL
>> "Americans".
>
> Indians don't speak English? Okay, I know of a handful -- a
>dozen or so -- Navajoes who are elderly and have lived all their
>lives on the reservation whose English isn't too good -- are those
>the ones you're referring to?
They are Americans, aren't they?
>> Maybe to you it does. I guess you are unaware of the factionalism
>> between those of Irish descent in Boston and everyone else, the
>> centuries of strife between Catholics and Protestants. You ignore or
>> denigrate the difference in culture between a Bible Belt "fundie" and
>> a Boston "liberal". And you, a western (probably Californian) "white"
>> haven't a clue how weird the "whites" of the east think Californians
>> are (since I grew up in California and have lived 20 years in
>> Virginia, I can't escape knowing).
>
> That's just silly. Compare any of those people to a Mexican
>or a Russian or an Egyptian, and then tell me the vast differences
>among white Americans.
You mean my kids, Russian born, who are indistinguishable from their
native peers?
>> Historically this was even more so, and still has its remnants today.
>> The cultural differences between North and South led to the Civil War
>
> No, Bob, economic differences led to the Civil War.
Not the whole story, and teh economic differences came in part from
the cultural differences.
>> and hardly went away when slavery was abolished. Go 100 miles from
>> Richmond to Baltimore and the cultural change is startling. Go 300
>> miles from Roanoke to New Jersey and except for language, the
>> differences are just as much as the differences between you and the
>> Mexican immigrants you denigrate.
>
> That's just nonsense, Bob. Your idea of cultural differences
>amounts to variations on the same themes.
The Mexican culture is just a variation on the same theme too. It is
called "human culture".
>> Nope.
>
> That we're willing to discuss these issues rather than whip
>out pistols is one indication of my position.
Meaning that you think that whites don't duel but Mexicans habitually
do so? Aaron Burr and Alex Hamilton ring any bells?
>> The father is justifiably offended under both cultures. Unlike
>> Thailand, in this country, I might call the cops if you didn't stop
>> touching my kid.
>
> Apparently you image some adult touching some kid in a
>dark alley, or something. You've at least *seen* an adult
>tussel some kids hair, haven't you, Bob. Your worldview
>seems a bit perverse.
I don't see strangers doing so.
>> Meanwhile if a European gentleman came up and kissed you and hugged
>> you, YOU would be offended no matter how "white" he was.
>
> That would depend on the circumstances, and you're mentioning
>it reinforces my position. Thanks.
But that is "white culture" too.
>> In this country, if it isn't against the law, it is to be tolerated.
>> You have no right to say that my behavior is "unacceptable" as long as
>> it is legal. They call this "freedom", as American a fundamental
>> value as they come.
>
> Bob, I'm entitled to an opinion of what is and is not
>acceptable and I have a right to express that opinion,
>don't you think?
Yes. And I have the right to opine and state that your opinions are
racist and wrong.
>> If there was a single "American will" we wouldn't have all those
>> immigrants - SOMEONE lets them is and SOMEONE hires them.
>
> And that in no way, given political realities, indicates that
>there is "no American will."
"Political realities" is another way of saying that there is no will,
because those political realities result from the same will.
>> We also
>> wouldn't have such high stress debates over so many topics from
>> abortion to gun control to religion in schools to homosexuality and
>> other sexual freedom. There wouldn't be any debate over going to war
>> with Iraq; we'd all think as one and the mindless Borg of America
>> would rule the world.
>
> Yet another leap, Bob. The subject is the will and way of
>Americans to keep the Mexicans out. The subject isn't
>Iraq or religion or the price of rice in Japan.
The subject is whether there is a single American will. If there were
so on one issue, there would be so on all issues.
>> Meanwhile read the Geneva conventions and you'll find that even real
>> military invaders have rights that must be respected.
>
> Invaders tend to be shot. The Geneva Convention is okey
>with that.
Better read them.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> International treaty had given that land to the Spanish, which passed
>> to the Mexicans when Monroe recognized their government. We legally
>> recognized that ownership, and negotiated its transfer by treaty when
>> we ended the war, and PAID FOR the Gadsden Purchase (not to mention
>> the earlier Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Florida, and the
>> purchase of Alaska and the Russian coastal colonies). Every single
>> one of these purchases recognized that the land belonged to another
>> country, and that ownership did not require enormous amounts of
>> settlement (most of Louisiana was far less settled by the French than
>> California by the Spanish/Mexicans).
>
>*own* the territory because the definition of ownership of
>such territory requires occupation and control.
Since when? Ownership is a legal determination. There are many
situations where a renter occupies and has near-total control, but
they don't own anything.
>> and we played games for more than a year to come up
>> with a pretext to cross the Rio Grande.
>
> Actually, the Nueces Strip was under dispute. Mexicans
>crossed the Rio Grande and attacked the American army.
If it was "under dispute", then the US entering it was no more nor
less an act of war than Mexicans entering it. But we put the troops
there to provoke a war. Polk campaigned and was elected on the idea
of annexing Texas and California.
>Is that your idea of "a pretext?" Try again.
I've read histories and some first person accounts. Under your
"occupied" argument above, there were Mexican villages north of the
Rio Grande. We sent our army into there with the explicit intent to
provoke a war.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/MexicanWar.htm
By treaty, we recognized the Nueces as the border. Our troops crossed
that border. Thus we invaded. (We also blockaded the Rio Grande
before war was declared, which is an act of war.)
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/march19/herita.htm
>In 1834, Antonio López de Santa Anna assumed the presidency of Mexico.
> Endorsing the concept of a strong centralized government, Santa Anna
> discarded the Constitution of 1824 and, from Mexico City, the
> nation's capital, began regulating the people in the various Mexican
> states, much as the U.S. government does today to the American people
> from Washington, D.C.
>>
>By this time, the seven-year grace period for tariff exemption for the
> American-Mexican colonists had expired. Santa Anna announced that
> customs stations were being established along the eastern border of
> Texas. He also sent Mexican troops to Texas to maintain order.
> Believing that American-Mexican immigrants, including American
> illegal aliens, were threatening Mexico with their foreign language
> and foreign culture, he closed the Texas territory to any further
> immigration by Anglo Americans. The American Mexicans were outraged
> over Santa Anna's imposition of immigration controls and tariffs.
> They considered these actions tyrannical, and petitioned the Mexican
> government for redress of grievances. But the petitioning process had
> never been part of the Mexican or Spanish political system, and the
> Mexican officials considered the petition to be an unlawful
> questioning of their authority. Santa Anna assumed the position of
> commander in chief and led the Mexican army north to quell the
> growing resistance to his rule.
In other words, the Alamo fight came about because Mexico enacted
strict immigration controls against American immigrants. I wonder how
many Texas soldiers were "illegal aliens" - people like Crockett, for
example.
>> That war, and the
>> simultaneous eruption of the first wave of anti-immigration sentiment
>> led to the destruction of the Whig party which enabled the birth of
>> the Republican party.
>
> And the point of that information is ... what? That
>Mexico *owned* Texas or the Southwest?
That Americans at the time were in dispute over whether we had the
legal right to take Mexico and California, and that this was a cause
of national turmoil.
>> They called your ilk "Know-Nothings" back then.
>
> Right. And the Know Nothings were correct, at least
>to those who favor Jeffersonian democracy.
They LOST. (And "Jeffersonian democracy" was never the system of
government in this country, not that I agree with your conclusion).
>> In any event, most of our wealth isn't individual
>> "needs". We squander our wealth, and most of what we have is a luxury
>> by the standards of all other nations.
>
> And so Haitians and other billions of impoverished, starving,
>diseased, ignorant, superstitious third-world masses would
>view eating as a luxury. You're right, Bob. They would.
Eating the quantities that we eat is a luxury. Mexicans as a populace
aren't starving (1997 per capita daily food intake 3097 calories, 133%
of recommended minimums. The US consumes 3699 calories per day per
capita).
>> >> >> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >> >> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >> >> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >> >> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > No society is as stratified along lines of color
>> >> >than Mexican society.
>> >>
>> >> What does this have to do with Aztlan?
>> >
>> > The poster claimed that Mexican culture is rife with
>> >ethnocentrism. You called him a liar.
>>
>> That is not what he said,
>
> "... a civilization rife with ethnocentrism..." is what he wrote, Bob.
>Have a look, above, for yourself.
You deleted 3 words "you object to" which changes the meaning of the
claim. I don't in fact object to their ethnocentrism - it is their
country and they have a right to live the way they choose. In OUR
country, systematic "ethnocentrism" is in most cases illegal when not
unconstitutional.
>> and not what I called a lie. Learn to read.
>> The lie is "the popular hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is
>> to merge California with Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan""
>>
>> There is in fact nothing in there about political unity with Mexico,
>> and indeed it is clear that the unity they are talking about is the
>> unity of a culturally-based political party.
>
> MEChA identifies with Mexicans and with Mexico. You're
>trying to make a distinction where none really exists.
I am calling it a lie that they want to merge California with Mexico
and rename it "Aztlan".
>> > And any of that suggests to you ... what? ... that La Raza, that
>> >the people in the Aztlan Movement, that MEChA aren't
>> >ethnocentric? Hilarious.
>>
>> Of course they are ethnocentric. They are even "racist". So what?
>> They are the minority out of power,
>
> And long may they remain that way.
That is determined by voters.
>> MEChA has less chance of reuniting with
>> Mexico (even if they really wanted to do so) than the American
>> revolutionaries had of getting independence,
>
> Nonsense. Filling this country with Mexicans is a big
>step in that direction.
You mean like filling Texas with Americans was a big step in annexing
Texas.
>> and our chances were
>> rather based on the luck of world circumstances at the time.
>
> Sure, Bob. The imagination and actions of Americans
>had nothing to do with it.
Did I say that? Without international support, all the imagination
and actions of Americans would have been their death sentence for
treason.
>> > Actually, proof exists only in mathematics. The weight of evidence
>> >in the case of MEChA indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that
>> >it's a subversive, anti-American organization.
>>
>> It's a nascent political party.
>
> Aren't all political parties at some point "nascent?"
But political parties aren't "subversive anti-American organizations".
They are the American Way.
>> > Are you claiming that whites didn't build this country?
>>
>> Not as "whites" they didn't.
>
> Did they do it as Zulus, Bob?
>
>> And in the South it was blacks that did
>> most of the building.
>
> Only in the sense that they performed some of the physical
>labor.
Well isn't "building" physical labor?
>But about 85 to 90 percent of Southerners never
>owned slaves,
http://www.salisburypost.com/columns/slavery_support121398.htm
and any number of other sites indicate it was 25-30% that owned
slaves. There seems to be a raft of sites that say 5%, but that does
not match census records. (About 5% owned 20 or more slaves).
>and most Southerners never saw a slave until they walked to battles during the Civil War.
You are full of **it. Blacks, almost all of them slaves, were close
to 50% of the population. There were slave auctions in every major
town and probably a lot of minor ones.
>> In any event, many reactionaries oppose change in their society that
>> they don't approve of, but if you really have studied history, you
>> should be aware that change is inevitable.
>
> Change is inevitable, but certainly immigration is the imposition
>of change rather than some cosmic inevitability.
There has been no society in history that has prevented it for any
significant period.
>> You want to tear down and destroy businesses if they happen to employ
>> someone you don't approve of.
>
> I want to tear down and destroy employers of illegal aliens.
In other words you agree with me, since those employers are
businesses.
>> You want to keep inventive foreigners
>> from coming to our shores and enriching our country instead of their
>> native country with their new ideas.
>
> Which "inventive foreigners" are you referring to? Some
>dripping wet Mexican? Hilarioius.
You also expressed hostility to the high tech visas.
>> >> I'm not aware
>> >> of how you "behave", but relatively few 20th/21st century Americans
>> >> abide by 18th century behavioral standards.
>> >
>> > Your narrowness is pretty stunning, Bob.
>>
>> I'm generally considered broad-minded. But most people have little
>> understanding of 18th century mores.
>
> In your view, wanting to preserve this country by limiting
>immigration is ... what? ... an 18th Century behavioral standard?
No. I am claiming that you don't know what you are talking about in
making your claim about me above.
>What do you hate about this country that you want to turn it
>into someplace else and someplace less?
I don't. YOU are the one who wants change. The status quo is
immigration and medium enforcement of illegal alien laws. And you
have no more basis for saying that the result will be "someplace less"
than you have for disputing my claim that America is stronger because
of our immigration policies.
>> > I know that filling the country with Mexicans isn't progressive.
>>
>> It certainly is.
>
> Really hilarious. Exactly how is filling the country with
>ignorant, often criminal, superstitious, impoverished,
>uneducated third-world latinos "progressive?" I can't
>wait for your answer.
Because they don't stay that way. They become working Americans, and
their kids become educated Americans.
>> Actually it is precisely the point of my disagreement with you of what
>> constitutes a "progressive society".
>
> Apparently *progressive* means to you allowing millions of
>squalid third-worlders into the US. That's just silly. Progressive
>is a whole lot of things, but none of them include a dedication to
>ignorance, superstition, corruption, lying, and other unsavory
>characteristics of river-swimming Mexicans or opportunistic
>airliner immigrants from India and Pakistan. The clamoring,
>grasping third-world masses tend not to be progressive, Bob.
>Quite to the contrary ...
But admitting them to our country IS progressive.
>> >> No more than South Boston is an approximation of Ireland,
>> >> Detroit is an approximation of Poland, or for that matter, Chinatown
>> >> is an approximation of China.
>> >
>> > I've never been to South Boston or Detroit, but I have spent
>> >lots of time over many years in and around Chinatown in San
>> >Francisco, and I promise you, having been to China, Chinatown
>> >*is* an approximation of a Chinese city.
>>
>> But I thought you were saying that "real Americans" all assimilate.
>> Chinatown has been there a lot longer than you have.
>
> Right. It's been an approximation of China for a long time.
>Some Chinese assimilate, but many don't. And those in
>Chinatown tend to remain pretty close to Chinese in China.
So the residents of Chinatown are not Americans even if their
ancestors were here before the ancestors of most Americans. (And the
Gullah speakers in Georgia whose ancestor were brought as slaves in
the 1600s aren't "American" because they don't speak English.)
>> But I was referring to the period from 1607 to 1789, when we made and
>> evolved this country into something so different from Britain that we
>> ceased to consider ourselves to be British.
>
> Whoa re you speaking for? Many Americans thought of themselves
>as British. They were called Tories.
I didn't say 1776. By 1789, they were either gone or they were no
longer Tories.
> Your theory has one crucial problem, and that is this: no population
>so large and from one country has ever immigrated to this country
>and lived as colonists at any point in US history.
Your premise that they "live as colonists".
>You have no
>precident by which to draw your conclusions. Furthermore,
>Mexicans are often currently, if not hostile,
>then at least contemptuous of Americans and our ways,
I am equally contemptuous of people like you and your ways.
>You refer to Mexicans from earlier generations, and the
>ancestors of the huge majority of those Mexicans arrived
>between 1910 and 1920, in flight from a civil war.
Nope. They are the grandchildren of Cezar Chavez's farm workers of
1966, most of whom had not been here since 1920.
>They
>were comparatively few in number and assimilated without
>ever being a political or social or cultural threat to the
>existing population.
I grew up in California in the 60s, and there were just as many
complaints about Mexicans then as there are now.
>Today's Mexicans are much different.
So their culture is not the culture you attribute to Mexicans of
1910-20? If the culture can change that quickly, then why do you
assume that children of the Mexican immigrants of today won't be just
as assimilated in 2100?
>> > The first immigration act was passed by Congress in
>> >1790.
>>
>> Naturalization, not immigration. There were no controls on
>> immigration (how could there be, with no means to enforce any
>> controls).
>
> States and local communities enforced immigration.
Nope. States did not try to pass immigration laws until after the
Civil War
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/history/articles/oview.htm
There were no significant controls on immigration, and in fact, until
1855, immigrants were simply dropped off when they got here.
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/legishist/index.htm
Up until 1862 there were no immigration restrictions at all. (There
was a limit on ship's passengers that made a de facto limit on how
many could possibly arrive by ship.) Ship's captains had to report
admissions.
>> There was actually a steady
>> rise in immigration from 1824-1836, and by 1832 immigration as a
>> percentage of the native population exceeded current levels.
>
> Percentage is meaningless.
Disagree. Percentage indicates the impact of immigrants on the
non-immigrant population. A million immigrants a year into China
might not be noticed for a long time.
>> > I figured you were referring to American's backlash at massive
>> >immigration. Try to make yourself clear, will you, Bob.
>>
>> Clearly, backlash is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Current
>> immigration is a backlash against what came before - if we had acted
>> differently towards Mexicans in the 1930s to 1960s, likely there would
>> be less immigration from there now.
>
> American behavior toward Mexico from the 1930s to the
>1960s has nothing whatsoever to do with Mexican
>immigration today.
The academics who write on the subject disagree with you.
>> Our country is not threatened with destruction.
>
> Filling it with Mexicans and other third-world immigrants
>at a rate of more than a million per year certainly does
>threaten this country with destruction.
Unsupported assertion.
>> > In fact, isn't it racist, and bordering on
>> >genocidal, as defined by the UN, to want to destroy
>> >the culture and people of a country?
>>
>> The UN doesn't define racism. "Genocide" has a specific definition,
>> and is hardly used as loosely as you do.
>
> Read the UN definition of genocide.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
>Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
>
>Article 1
>The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
>
>Article 2
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Nothing about culture in there.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> > They want the benefits of ours but the cultural elements of
>> >their own.
>>
>> Evidence is lacking. EVERY immigrant culture wants to preserve the
>> best of their mother culture while adopting the new country.
>
>the wonders of multiculturalism and how our strength is
>in our diversity. Assimilation is passe, if not entirely
>discouraged, Bob.
False. Multiculturalism doesn't stop assimilation.
>> >> I suspect that the ones who stay in Mexico are perfectly fine with
>> >> their civilization, while the ones who come here want something else.
>> >
>> > And yet they create the conditions from which they fled.
>>
>> Really. It could easily be claimed that WE created them. WE after all
>> conquered Mexico in the 1840s, then left the remnants to pick up the
>> pieces absent the legitimacy of having defended their country against
>> aggression (and Mexico was then conquered by France in 1860,
>> destroying much of what remained). Ever since, we have been quite
>> adept at sucking profits from Mexico. America is nothing if it isn't
>> superior at sucking profit from weaker countries.
>
> Hilarious. Mexico drains billions of dollars every year out of
>this country. We have a trade deficit with Mexico. Mexicans
>are parasties on this country, whether they're here or
>in Mexico. Get in touch with reality.
By that logic, Canada, Japan, Germany, and China are even bigger
parasites on this country
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh14.txt
lojbab
Tiny Human Ferret
Sure, the resources are finite.
However, an illegal alien in the US _consumes_ far more resources than an
illegal alien in rural and totally undeveloped areas.
Just from walking on a streetlit street, they consume more resources than
they would walking down an unlit dirt path.
Back in the undeveloped homeland, they're living on what their environment
produces for them, mostly; living in the US, they're yet another contributor
to the rape of the planet. Never forget that.
The best thing we can do for them is to assure them of a good and reliable
supply of birth-control.
>
>
>>The second Pilgrim off the boat doubled the colonists' population.
>>In the past 50 or so years, the population of our country has about
>>doubled. It is expected to about double again in the next 50 to
>>60 years. By 2100, the population is expected to be about
>>one billion. Forget percentages.
>
>
> Scare projections.
No, See http://www.census.gov/ for projections. Doug is off a bit, the
population will only be (probably, central projection) a bit over a
half-billion.
Bob LeChevalier
>illegal alien in rural and totally undeveloped areas.
>
>Just from walking on a streetlit street, they consume more resources than
>they would walking down an unlit dirt path.
Really? And how is this? The street will be lit whether or not there
is an illegal alien walking on it, so the existence of the illegal
alien is irrelevant to resource consumption.
>Back in the undeveloped homeland, they're living on what their environment
>produces for them, mostly; living in the US, they're yet another contributor
>to the rape of the planet. Never forget that.
>
>The best thing we can do for them is to assure them of a good and reliable
>supply of birth-control.
The most reliable supply of birth control is education and employment.
When 3rd world countries raise education levels, their birthrate goes
down correspondingly.
>>>The second Pilgrim off the boat doubled the colonists' population.
>>>In the past 50 or so years, the population of our country has about
>>>doubled. It is expected to about double again in the next 50 to
>>>60 years. By 2100, the population is expected to be about
>>>one billion. Forget percentages.
>>
>>
>> Scare projections.
>
>No, See http://www.census.gov/ for projections. Doug is off a bit, the
>population will only be (probably, central projection) a bit over a
>half-billion.
The central projection assumes current rates. Economists believe that
current rates are a bubble that will decline within a dozen years due
to NAFTA. Such a decline is not factored into Census projections any
more than a change in immigration policy is factored into them.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> > Again, Bob -- and try to grasp the idea, Mexico didn't
>> >*own* the territory because the definition of ownership of
>> >such territory requires occupation and control.
>>
>> Since when?
>
>
>> Ownership is a legal determination. There are many
>> situations where a renter occupies and has near-total control, but
>> they don't own anything.
>
>original occupants.
I agree entirely. But they weren't "owners" because
property/ownership are distinguished from mere possession as a result
of government/societal recognition. In other words, if other people
do not recognize your ownership, you own exactly what you physically
possess and then only so long as you physically possess it. Any thing
beyond that takes something that can be called "government", and if it
is to be systematic and defensible so as to call it a "right",
property requires "law".
>Some dumbass Spaniard stood on a shore
>somewhere and claimed all the land within and beyond his
>sight the property of the King of Spain. Is that your
>idea of ownership?
As opposed to mere "occupancy", yes.
>> If it was "under dispute", then the US entering it was no more nor
>> less an act of war than Mexicans entering it.
>
> Simpleton nonsense..
Your argument style will win many converts. Not.
>> But we put the troops
>> there to provoke a war.
>
> No, we put them there to assert our ownership.
Same difference, since they also believed they owned it, and
international law was on their side.
>> I've read histories and some first person accounts. Under your
>> "occupied" argument above, there were Mexican villages north of the
>> Rio Grande.
>
> Three's an American flag on the Moon. Do we own
>the Moon, Bob?
We haven't claimed it, and it isn't recognized as such by the world's
governments, so no. There is a UN Treaty that we've signed regarding
"ownership" of space. Just as there was one that we signed in 1819
regarding ownership of Texas.
>> http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/MexicanWar.htm
>
>> By treaty, we recognized the Nueces as the border.
>
> What are you talking about? The Nueces was in contention
>from the moment that Texans won independence.
Texas had no "right" to declare independence. Something you may not
realize but self-determination of a people was NOT a principle of
international law at the time, despite the American Revolution. The
Founders broke international law, and got away with it because France
and the Netherlands were at war with Britain as well, and it suited
them to recognize and aid us.
I am talking about law, and not about modern moral sensibility
(despite the fact that most of the Americans who went to Texas did so
NOT with the intention of becoming Mexicans. They did not respect
Mexican culture and law, and declared independence when they found
that Mexico did not have the Anglo-American traditional respect for
individual rights.
You fault Mexicans for coming to this country and not adopting our
culture and respecting our laws (even though most of them indeed do
so), but the Americans in Texas did precisely the same thing.
>In fact, despite
>the agreement that Houston made with Santa Ana in 1836, in
>exchange for Houtson allowing Santa Ana to live, the Mexicans
>claimed that *all* of Texas belonged to Mexico.
And under our treaty, we were obliged to respect that claim.
>> In other words, the Alamo fight came about because Mexico enacted
>> strict immigration controls against American immigrants. I wonder how
>> many Texas soldiers were "illegal aliens" - people like Crockett, for
>> example.
>
> So you support Mexican dictators?
It is none of my business. But if I were to swear allegiance to the
Mexican government and become a Mexican citizen, and that government
were a dictatorship, then I would be legally obliged to support
Mexican dictators.
>Are you aware that the
>Mexican government and army were as corrupt then as they
>are today; that Mexican troops would show up at someone's
>business and ransack the place and steal whatever they could
>carry away as *taxes* -- taxes that were either already paid
>or didn't exist?
I'm sure things like this happened. Some people claim that the IRS
does the same now.
>You have a small amount of knowledge and
>a santitized version of events, along with a kind of wacky
>belief that Mexicans deal fairly. Bob, Spanish has no word
>equivalent to the English word *fairness*. The concept
>is unknown to Mexicans.
If I were to believe you (I don't - Babelfish gives "imparcialidad"),
then those who immigrated to Texas should have realized that
"fairness" wasn't part of the social contract that they entered into
in becoming citizens of Mexico.
>> That Americans at the time were in dispute over whether we had the
>> legal right to take Mexico and California, and that this was a cause
>> of national turmoil.
>
> Legality wasn't the issue.
Legality is the ONLY issue when it comes to acts by governments (such
as moving soldiers into territory). Why do you think we are going
through all this international obstacle course to establish as legal
what we are going to do to Iraq?
>Congressmen such as JQ Adams
>and Lincoln tried objected to the war as a moral problem.
>The nation disagreed. And those who fight dictators and
>corrupt governments tend to have morality on their side.
So what? There is no universal morality. Thus each side has morality
on its side.
>> They LOST. (And "Jeffersonian democracy" was never the system of
>> government in this country, not that I agree with your conclusion).
>
> Yes, the lost, but not because they were in error, but because
>economic powers wanted cheap labor.
And they ignored the laws of economics. Thus they were indeed in
error. Ignoring reality is indeed an error.
>And Jeffersonian democracy
>was the aspiration of many and to some extent the reality in the late
>18th and early 19th centuries.
Nonsense. It wasn't all that widely aspired to, and the Founders were
pragmatists, not idealists. That is why they abandoned the Articles
of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. The ideals of the D of
I proved not to work as a basis of government, because from the first
year they ignored economic realities and the nature of human
psychology (much as did Marxism - another ideal system that was
abandoned as a failure practically from the start).
>> You deleted 3 words "you object to" which changes the meaning of the
>> claim. I don't in fact object to their ethnocentrism - it is their
>> country and they have a right to live the way they choose. In OUR
>> country, systematic "ethnocentrism" is in most cases illegal when not
>> unconstitutional.
>
> So then you oppose Affirmative Action and view LULAC and
>MEChA and other such organizations as subversive. I agree.
No. Because LULAC and MEChA are NOT part of the "system". But if
indeed those organizations were to break our laws, then no I would not
support them.
> Actually, they want all the territory that Mexico claimed
>up to 1847, and if you believe that they wouldn't merge
>with Mexico, that's your privilege, unenlightened as it is.
I don't believe in "enlightenment" I am neither a Buddhist nor a
Gnostic nor any other sort of religious person that believes in such a
concept.
>> >> Of course they are ethnocentric. They are even "racist". So what?
>> >> They are the minority out of power,
>> >
>> > And long may they remain that way.
>>
>> That is determined by voters.
>
> And if we fill this country with Mexicans, guess who those
>voters will be.
Americans, since they cannot become voters until they become citizens.
>
>> >> MEChA has less chance of reuniting with
>> >> Mexico (even if they really wanted to do so) than the American
>> >> revolutionaries had of getting independence,
>> >
>> > Nonsense. Filling this country with Mexicans is a big
>> >step in that direction.
>>
>> You mean like filling Texas with Americans was a big step in annexing
>> Texas.
>
> Exactly. We should learn from the past, don't you think?
You think what we did in Texas is right, but think that what you
believe Mexicans are doing in the Southwest, which is precisely the
same thing (except that the Texans never practiced loyalty to their
adopted country at all) is wrong. Hypocrite.
>> Did I say that? Without international support, all the imagination
>> and actions of Americans would have been their death sentence for
>> treason.
>
> The Revolutionary War would have taken longer. The British
>would have been worn down by guerilla warfare, just as we
>were in Vietnam.
We could not have pursued guerilla warfare. We needed weapons from
Europe, and money to keep our government in operation. We were
nowhere near the level of self-sufficiency needed to continue war.
Learn some history. I suggest Tuchman's book.
Vietnam needed third party support to continue guerilla action as
well.
>> >> It's a nascent political party.
>> >
>> > Aren't all political parties at some point "nascent?"
>>
>> But political parties aren't "subversive anti-American organizations".
>> They are the American Way.
>
> Not political parties whose purpose is to overthrow not only
>the government, but the form of government under which the
>party exists.
You have no evidence that they plan to do either.
>> http://www.salisburypost.com/columns/slavery_support121398.htm
>> and any number of other sites indicate it was 25-30% that owned
>> slaves. There seems to be a raft of sites that say 5%, but that does
>> not match census records. (About 5% owned 20 or more slaves).
>>
>> >and most Southerners never saw a slave until they walked to battles during the Civil War.
>>
>> You are full of **it. Blacks, almost all of them slaves, were close
>> to 50% of the population. There were slave auctions in every major
>> town and probably a lot of minor ones.
>
> If you knew anything about the Civil War South, you'd know
>that a huge amount of the population lived back in hollows and
>small isolated valleys and that the people for generations never
>travelled more than five to ten miles from home during their
>entire lives.
If you said 50 miles, I might believe that many (but not most) never
traveled that far. Five to ten was a joke. Kids would travel that
far from home on their own unsupervised.
>Big plantations and cities held the slave
>population. Most people never saw a slave.
Find me a single county in the Confederate South in any census before
1860 that did not have any slaves.
Here is Ashe County NC, a mountainous county which remained loyal to
the Union:
http://www.main.nc.us/ashe/civil.htm
In 1860 there were only 391 slaves, 5% of the population (i.e. 8000 or
so), held by only 6.6% of the population, but they owned 14% of the
improved land.
Ashe County is only 460 square miles, or around 22 miles across. Thus
on average someone in that county who never traveled more than 11
miles from home would still see 391 slaves.
>> >> In any event, many reactionaries oppose change in their society that
>> >> they don't approve of, but if you really have studied history, you
>> >> should be aware that change is inevitable.
>> >
>> > Change is inevitable, but certainly immigration is the imposition
>> >of change rather than some cosmic inevitability.
>>
>> There has been no society in history that has prevented it for any
>> significant period.
>
> Define significant.
A generation or more.
For 40 years we minimized immigration, but did not prevent it, and
even that is ignoring things like the bracero program where we
imported lots of guest workers.
>Further, we have the means to control it.
We don't have the will to use those means at the genocidal level
needed to do so.
>> >> You want to tear down and destroy businesses if they happen to employ
>> >> someone you don't approve of.
>> >
>> > I want to tear down and destroy employers of illegal aliens.
>>
>> In other words you agree with me, since those employers are
>> businesses.
>
> A business is a business. An employer is an employer. Jailing
>and fining an employer isn't necessarily tearing down a business,
>though I certainly don't oppose tearing down a business that
>hires illegals.
You would have government take away his God-given right to his
property? You, you ... *socialist* you!
>> >> You want to keep inventive foreigners
>> >> from coming to our shores and enriching our country instead of their
>> >> native country with their new ideas.
>> >
>> > Which "inventive foreigners" are you referring to? Some
>> >dripping wet Mexican? Hilarioius.
>>
>> You also expressed hostility to the high tech visas.
>
> Right. They're unnecessary. They're a scam to employ
>foreigners for less pay. Thousands of Americans lack
>jobs because of high-tech visas.
Spare me your excuses (which I don't believe). Therefore by admission
"You want to keep inventive foreigners from coming to our shores and
enriching our country instead of their native country with their new
ideas."
>> No. I am claiming that you don't know what you are talking about in
>> making your claim about me above.
>
> Your judgements tend to be founded on the narrow.
You seem to be far more narrow minded than is possible except in
extremists.
>> >What do you hate about this country that you want to turn it
>> >into someplace else and someplace less?
>>
>> I don't. YOU are the one who wants change. The status quo is
>> immigration and medium enforcement of illegal alien laws.
>
> The status quo is destroying the country.
Inherently self-contradictory. The status quo IS the country.
>Current levels of immigration are unprecidented.
No.
>The resistance to assimilation is unprecidented,
No.
>as is the governmental support of the resistance.
No.
>This is all comparitively new in American events.
Not in world events.
>> And you
>> have no more basis for saying that the result will be "someplace less"
>> than you have for disputing my claim that America is stronger because
>> of our immigration policies.
>
> A country filled with squabbling nationalities is
>someplace less.
You mean like the 13 separate and squabbling states that formed the
United States of America?
The differences between Virginia and Boston in 1776 were, except for
language, as great as between any two countries of Europe.
>If you like the Balkans, you'll love the future of the US.
I'm also aware of the history of the Balkans that made it so.
Meanwhile Switzerland has done fine with 4 different language groups
living in rough equality for centuries.
>> > Really hilarious. Exactly how is filling the country with
>> >ignorant, often criminal, superstitious, impoverished,
>> >uneducated third-world latinos "progressive?" I can't
>> >wait for your answer.
>>
>> Because they don't stay that way. They become working Americans, and
>> their kids become educated Americans.
>
> You have no precident to make those judgements.
I have the precedent of current reality. My daughter attends a school
that is 30% Hispanic (and 25% Asian). The parents are working
Americans, because you can't live in this country otherwise. Most of
the kids are not fully, but are mostly assimilated, and I can't say
that the Hispanics are less assimilated than the Asians or the 8%
blacks in the school. While the school is one of the lower ones in
the county, it is still well above national average.
>> But admitting them to our country IS progressive.
>
> It is regressive in every sense of the word.
Actually in NO sense of the word (see below).
>Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
>Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
>Function: adjective
>Date: circa 1612
>1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
>2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
>3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING
>4 a : increasing in extent or severity <a progressive disease> b : increasing in rate as the base increases <a progressive tax>
>5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
>6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of
>- pro·gres·sive·ly adverb
>- pro·gres·sive·ness noun
It is progressive in meanings 1b, 2, and 4. We disagree whether it
pertains to 1a and 3.
>Main Entry: re·gres·sive
>Pronunciation: ri-'gre-siv
>Function: adjective
>Date: 1634
>1 : tending to regress or produce regression
>2 : being, characterized by, or developing in the course of an evolutionary process involving increasing simplification of bodily structure
>3 : decreasing in rate as the base increases <a regressive tax>
>- re·gres·sive·ly adverb
>- re·gres·sive·ness noun
>- re·gres·siv·i·ty /"rE-"gre-'si-v&-tE/ noun
Meaning 2 does not apply, since a multiethnic society is not as simple
in structure as a single ethnicity.
Meaning 3 does not apply unless you think the rate of immigration is
decreasing
Meaning 1 depends on the meaning of regress.
>Main Entry: 1re·gress
>Pronunciation: 'rE-"gres
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English, from Latin regressus, from regredi to go back, from re- + gradi to go -- more at GRADE
>Date: 14th century
>1 a : an act or the privilege of going or coming back b : REENTRY 1
>2 : movement backward to a previous and especially worse or more primitive state or condition
>3 : the act of reasoning backward
And it is clear that the relevant meaning is 2 going back to a
PREVIOUS state (which one usually considers worse or more primitive).
>> > Right. It's been an approximation of China for a long time.
>> >Some Chinese assimilate, but many don't. And those in
>> >Chinatown tend to remain pretty close to Chinese in China.
>>
>> So the residents of Chinatown are not Americans even if their
>> ancestors were here before the ancestors of most Americans.
>
> Would a third-generatin Frenchman in Vietnam be
>a Vietnamese, even though he lived like a Frenchman
>and spoke French?
He wouldn't be a Frenchman. He would be a 3rd generation Vietnamese
of French ancestry.
You probably think that Fujimoro (the leader of Peru) is Japanese.
>> (And the
>> Gullah speakers in Georgia whose ancestor were brought as slaves in
>> the 1600s aren't "American" because they don't speak English.)
>
> Again, you're attempting to use the exception as a rule.
You attempted to state a universal. Universal statements are almost
always false.
>Certainly
>someone who arrives in this country, speaks no English, and receives
>citizenship papers is an American citizen, but calling such a person
>an American is nonsense.
Calling them anything else is nonsense. We have several million
Puerto Ricans and no small number of Cubans in South Florida that are
multigenerational Americans. I'm sure there are quite a few in the
border states as well.
>> >> But I was referring to the period from 1607 to 1789, when we made and
>> >> evolved this country into something so different from Britain that we
>> >> ceased to consider ourselves to be British.
>> >
>> > Whoa re you speaking for? Many Americans thought of themselves
>> >as British. They were called Tories.
>>
>> I didn't say 1776. By 1789, they were either gone or they were no
>> longer Tories.
>
> As you erased so much text, I'm not sure what you're
>referring to.
Here was my paragraph, to which you replied with a mention of de
Tocqueville, who was 40 years too late to be relevant (but on thinking
about it, I don't see how Tocqueville wrote anything that proves me
wrong - he certainly did not consider us an imitation of Britain.
>> Even when there was nothing to assimilate into, those people who came
>> from Britain to what is now this country quickly made this place into
>> something that wasn't an imitation of Britain (and they WERE
>> "colonists"), why would we expect anyone immigrating from another
>> country to do differently.
Clearly I was talking about the period from 1607 to 1789.
>> > Your theory has one crucial problem, and that is this: no population
>> >so large and from one country has ever immigrated to this country
>> >and lived as colonists at any point in US history.
>>
>> Your premise that they "live as colonists".
>
> Right. Have you driven around a Mexican neighborhood?
>Notice the signs, the shops, the manners of the people.
We have them around here; this area has more ethnicities than I would
care to count. I see greater differences in the Vietnamese and Korean
areas in all 3 facets, than in the Mexican ones.
>> >You have no
>> >precident by which to draw your conclusions. Furthermore,
>> >Mexicans are often currently, if not hostile,
>> >then at least contemptuous of Americans and our ways,
>>
>> I am equally contemptuous of people like you and your ways.
>
> So you favor the colonization of your own country by
>third-world parasaites. You're quite a guy, Bob.
I don't believe them to be either colonists, or parasites.
>> >You refer to Mexicans from earlier generations, and the
>> >ancestors of the huge majority of those Mexicans arrived
>> >between 1910 and 1920, in flight from a civil war.
>>
>> Nope. They are the grandchildren of Cezar Chavez's farm workers of
>> 1966, most of whom had not been here since 1920.
>
> Again, the huge majority of Mexicans before the 1970s were
>descended from those who fled Mexico between 1910 and 1920.
I have the numbers in hand and you are wrong. Adding in my head,
1910-1919 was around 185,000 Mexican immigrants. 1920-1929 was 508,000
Mexican immigrants (and there were more in 1929 than in any of the
preceding decade. 1930s dropped back to 32,000 but that was the
Depression, 1940s back up to 54,000, 1950s 275,000 with every year
after 1953 being higher than all of the 1910-19 period., 1960s
441,000. Thus only around 7% of the immigrants between 1910 and 1969
came in the 1910-19 period. Hardly a "huge majority".
>> >They
>> >were comparatively few in number and assimilated without
>> >ever being a political or social or cultural threat to the
>> >existing population.
>>
>> I grew up in California in the 60s, and there were just as many
>> complaints about Mexicans then as there are now.
>
> Not really. I was a teenager in California in the 60s, and
>frankly Bob, we just didn't see many Mexicans, at least
>not in Northern California.
I lived in Redwood City and was a teen in the late 60s, and there were
both Hispanics and blacks (though they segregated the latter in
Ravenswood). You must have lived in a rich kids' area. (The census
says that there were twice as many Hispanics as blacks in the state in
1970, some 11% of the population). They taught Spanish in Redwood
City schools starting in grade 6 as well as a pilot 1st-3rd grade
cultural awareness group because it was recognized that Hispanics were
the dominant foreign-ancestry minority.
>> >Today's Mexicans are much different.
>>
>> So their culture is not the culture you attribute to Mexicans of
>> 1910-20?
>
> There culture is more parasitic.
Unsupported assertion.
>> > States and local communities enforced immigration.
>>
>> Nope. States did not try to pass immigration laws until after the
>> Civil War
>> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/history/articles/oview.htm
>
> Communities tended to be rather closed to masses of
>foreigners. Laws didn't exist. Social pressures and
>exclusion did. Americans had control of their communities
>and lives in those days in ways that we no longer have
>control, thanks to the behemouth federal government
>and its social engineers.
This of course is a myth. There is a reason the idea of the "melting
pot" came into being.
>> There were no significant controls on immigration, and in fact, until
>> 1855, immigrants were simply dropped off when they got here.
>
> And the only places they could go were to slums in the
>big cities or to the frontier.
Before 1855, that is pretty much all there was to this country: a few
big cities and the frontier. Yet the area now called Pennsylvania
Deutsch was rural and largely German before then.
>> >> There was actually a steady
>> >> rise in immigration from 1824-1836, and by 1832 immigration as a
>> >> percentage of the native population exceeded current levels.
>> >
>> > Percentage is meaningless.
>>
>> Disagree. Percentage indicates the impact of immigrants on the
>> non-immigrant population. A million immigrants a year into China
>> might not be noticed for a long time.
>
> Again, percentage is meaningless in a finite land.
While we have no frontier except maybe some pieces of Alaska, we still
have large areas of uninhabited territory.
>And even at that, percentages today are historically high.
The data I presented shows otherwise. .4% of the native population
per year is as low as it was since 1830 except for 3 decades, and only
1/4 what it was in the early 1850s.
>> > American behavior toward Mexico from the 1930s to the
>> >1960s has nothing whatsoever to do with Mexican
>> >immigration today.
>>
>> The academics who write on the subject disagree with you.
>
> Who cares? I'm an academic. I write. And I know
>more about the subject than most of them. Furthermore,
>I'm not owned by corporations through grant money.
In other words, you are close-minded and cannot be convinced by
anything.
>> >Article 2
>> >In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
>destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>> >
>> >(a) Killing members of the group;
>> >(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>> >(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
>physical destruction in whole or in part;
>
> Bingo.
Physical destruction of a group means killing. There is no systematic
mass murder of whites by Hispanics.
>> >(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>
> Bingo again.
How do Hispanics act to percent births by whites? Hispanics are
mostly Catholic and hence more likely to oppose abortion and
contraceptives (which is why their birth rate remains higher).
>> >(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
>>
>> Nothing about culture in there.
Not answered, I see. And that was your claim.
lojbab
americankernel
news:b3l3qo$gl4$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> x-no-archive: yes> news:jc2r5vgcrkenibeea...@4ax.com...
> > "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> > In other words, you are close-minded and cannot be convinced by
> > anything.
>
> What an odd conclusion. You know less than
> I figured you knew.
>
After following butthead Bob's ramblings here for the last few days, I've
concluded that at some point he completely gave up upon or lost touch with
what it means to be an American; that is, assuming he ever had such notions.
That is the only way I can reconcile his insistence in supporting each and
every means by which the Bush Administration, in league with the
quasi-Governmental syndicate in Mexico are subverting the desires of
196,000+ Americans (per polling data).
I don't know if the loss of Bob's "American Soul" was gradual or sudden,
but he writes like someone who has been indoctrinated into a cult. I see a
lot of parallels between Bob and Deduardo. They both know a lot of "stuff";
they both wield incredible amounts of irrelevancies and spread them
throughout their responses, kind of like a beleaguered old bomber dumping
the last of its chaff.
But, also like Deduardo, I'm beginning to see the signs of tail chasing. It
seems inevitable that his head will end up residing up his butt in this
discussion and methinks that is the usual place in which it resides in his
day-to-day living. Yesterday, he tried to pull that old "Statue of Liberty
Play," you know, the one in which someone claims that their position is the
most American because it comes closest to the views of Emma Lazarus. That
pretty much signals the end of anyone's credibility in my book.
Mr. Long, this guy is a weasel in rats clothing. Why bother? In the end,
what he says is very troll-like...he's more pedantic than most trolls, but
still, he appears to be a denizen of dark places nonetheless.
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>After following butthead Bob's ramblings here for the last few days, I've
>concluded that at some point he completely gave up upon or lost touch with
>what it means to be an American; that is, assuming he ever had such notions.
>That is the only way I can reconcile his insistence in supporting each and
>every means by which the Bush Administration, in league with the
>quasi-Governmental syndicate in Mexico are subverting the desires of
>196,000+ Americans (per polling data).
Wow. I've been accused on various threads in the last week of being a
Christian, a demon-infected of Satan, a liberal, a communist, a
fascist, and now a Bushie.
It shows how narrow-minded these extremists can be, that everyone who
doesn't agree with their pet extreme can be demonized as a member of
the opposite extreme.
Meanwhile, I'll just stay here firmly emplanted in the center, willing
to consider ideas when people can escape the error of the extremes.
lojbab
d...@cheetah.net
wrote:
Rather than showing how narrow minded the extremists
are, maybe their reactions show that you must be doing
something right by getting responses from many diverse
sectors of the posting population. You must understand
that one can go to extremes, however, in maintaining a
middle of the road point of view.
Just a thought.
DCI
little_plantinga
I declined to answer LeChavelier's last post to me when I viewed it
and saw that it was littered with his customary
arrows-flying-in-every-direction replies. He deliberately misconstrued
the balkinzation issue by turning it into a free speech issue, and he
did not explain how he failed to notice "any differences" between
groups, yet how he nonetheless noticed them. If he doesn't notice "any
differences" between groups, then he shouldn't notice groups. Also, he
initially asserted that migrations have never been controllable by
law, yet the US did just for 40 years. LeChavelier's response was that
40 years was a "blip in history," implicitly conceding that he was
wrong. Needless to say, his switch and bait tactic grew tiresome.
Moreover, he wrote: "Anything that attempts to exclude one of those
ethnicities, as you do, usually claiming it is inferior, as you do."
Based on this definition, the Zionists in Israel are the most
xenophobic, ethnocentric human beings alive. I wonder if LeChavelier,
a Jew, would hold his camel-faced brethren to the same standards of
"xenophobia" and "ethnocentrism" white gentiles? My hunch is that he
wants to destroy gentile societies by flooding them with illiterate,
disease-ridden third-worlders, while taxing the native-born gentile
population to death by establishing universal health care system.
Typical hebe.
Bob LeChevalier
>I declined to answer LeChavelier's last post to me when I viewed it
>and saw that it was littered with his customary
>arrows-flying-in-every-direction replies.
I respond to each point on its own. If this seems incoherent, it is
because I don't see your position as coherent any more than you see
mine to be so.
> He deliberately misconstrued
>the balkinzation issue by turning it into a free speech issue,
See above.
and he
>did not explain how he failed to notice "any differences" between
>groups, yet how he nonetheless noticed them.
I notice differences between individuals. I recognize that
individuals are commonly if somewhat arbitrarily assigned to "groups".
I recognize that a statistical analysis of two such arbitrary groups
may show apparent differences. But correlation is not causation
(i.e., one cannot conclude that because one is a member of a
particular arbitrary group that they will show some particular trait),
and I attempt strongly to not judge individuals based on such
arbitrary groupings.
>If he doesn't notice "any
>differences" between groups, then he shouldn't notice groups.
False. I notice that people are eminently capable of dividing people.
There is indeed a "group" called "American citizens". One of you
seems to define some different group called "Americans" who only speak
English and says that "Americans" are somehow different than "American
citizens". That is purely arbitrary grouping as well as misuse of the
language since that is not what most people (or the dictionary)
understands "American" to refer to.
>Also, he
>initially asserted that migrations have never been controllable by
>law, yet the US did just for 40 years.
No it did not. 1) Migrations DID continue during the timeframe in
question, though at a reduced level. 2) Those migrations grew with
time to the point that Mexican immigration in 1953 reached the level
of 1911-20, so the period in question was really only 23 years, not
40. 3) The bracero program bled off some of the immigration pressure,
but guest-worker programs are still "migrations". 4) It was not
controlled in that pressures grew to the point where the law could not
be maintained and it was changed.
>LeChavelier's response was that 40 years was a "blip in history,"
It is, when the period excluding that 40 years (23 years) does not
show the same pattern as that short period. We're talking about a
period covering only 15% of our short national history (if you don't
think our national history is short, talk to some Europeans who think
that 500 years is a short life for a country; Russia dates its
founding from 862 AD, for example).
>implicitly conceding that he was wrong.
No. I claim your entire paradigm is flawed.
>Needless to say, his switch and bait tactic grew tiresome.
You needn't answer me, either directly as you were or indirectly as
you are now.
>Moreover, he wrote: "Anything that attempts to exclude one of those
>ethnicities, as you do, usually claiming it is inferior, as you do."
I don't usually write incomplete sentences and that therefore does not
look like an exact quote.
>Based on this definition, the Zionists in Israel are the most
>xenophobic, ethnocentric human beings alive.
Not the most. But I have no problem with calling Zionists or even
traditional Jews who are NOT Zionists "racist". The religion is based
in racism - that the Jews are set apart from other peoples.
>I wonder if LeChavelier, a Jew,
I am?
>would hold his camel-faced brethren to the same standards of
>"xenophobia" and "ethnocentrism" white gentiles?
Zionists in Israel aren't Americans in America. I judge them by their
own rules in their country.
>My hunch is that he
>wants to destroy gentile societies by flooding them with illiterate,
>disease-ridden third-worlders, while taxing the native-born gentile
>population to death by establishing universal health care system.
>Typical hebe.
So now, racist, you add anti-Semite to your collection of extremes.
And your "ethnic cleansing" of Mexicans probably is a lead in to
similar cleansing of blacks and Jews, making it clear that you are
nothing but a Nazi.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I'll just stay here firmly emplanted in the center, willing
>> to consider ideas when people can escape the error of the extremes.
>
>legal third-world immigrants and hundreds of thousands of illegal
>aliens into this country every year, at huge expense to Americans,
>isn't extreme?
It is the status quo, which by definition is the "center" to which
proposed changes are relative. Centrist conservatives are more or
less satisfied with the way the country is, and don't want to see a
lot of change either of the rightist or leftist sort.
>Apparently the "center" is way out of whack.
Perhaps, but we are the richest and most powerful nation in the world,
so we must be doing something right.
lojbab