Re: Writer Jerry Pournelle kicks in
MURS radios
in the SciFi community were addressing the issue of runaway
immigration/communism, but that there are MANY recent stories by
left-leaning authors that
tend to paint the future as being controlled by "evil" conservatives -
here are just a few:
Steele's COYOTE trilogy
Bova's ROCK RATS trilogy
Baxter's EVOLUTION
I'm glad to see someone is addressing these issues in the SciFi
community.
- Stewart
Alcibiades wrote:
> [Jerry Pournelle is one of the half-dozen smartest men I've ever
> spoken with, and he combines it with real wisdom, routinely. 15 years
> ago he was very non-commital, now he seems to have an unmistakable
> opinion.]
>
> http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view414.html#Tuesday
>
> Reflections on Immigration:
>
> Under currently proposed legislation, we will import up to 100 million
> -- that's 10^8 people -- legally and legalized illegals -- in twenty
> years or so. I do not believe that the Melting Pot can deal with that
> dilution to the American character.
>
> In fact I do not believe that we can assimilate the number of illegal
> immigrants we already have. The legal immigration program already
> admits too many people at the bottom end of society if you count
> families: elders imported to be on Social Security because the Old
> Country doesn't have decent pensions. And so forth. Add to that the
> illegal immigrants and the very character of the American Experiment
> in Self Government is at stake.
>
> Democracy is a dangerous form of government. There never was a
> democracy that did not commit suicide. The Framers opted for a federal
> republic, a Nation of States, an experiment in ordered liberty with
> variants. That has endured for a long time. It was transformed into a
> more unitary state by the Civil War, but even that did not destroy the
> fundamental character of these United States. I know there are those
> who argue that the Civil War ended the American experiment; I remind
> them that despair is a sin, and that in fact as late as 1938
> Washington, DC was a small town in Maryland, "Don't make a Federal
> Case of this" was a meaningful expression, the FBI office in a major
> city might have half a dozen Agents and as many clerical staff, and so
> forth.
>
> Since the Civil War the US went from Federal Republic to National
> Democracy, but it did so slowly, and until Earl Warren and his
> Imperial Judiciary it ran up against limits. Now we are going further
> down that axis toward a French-style Centralized Bureaucratic Rule. We
> are becoming a national democracy.
>
> There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.
>
> But even those who have long advocated democracy have always known
> that a democracy is not a form of government compatible with cultural
> and linguistic diversity. The Swiss Exception is instructive:
> Switzerland is a democracy, and it is diverse in both language and
> confession -- and it is not unitary. Few Swiss can name their
> President although most can tell you the name of the Canton and
> Commune officials relevant to their lives. A national democracy cannot
> endure as a culturally diverse society with cultural, linguistic, and
> religious diversities. It cannot. Ours will not.
>
> The American Melting Pot model of assimilation to a single language,
> and a wide-based Judao-Christian ethical and religious culture, might
> be able to endure nationalization. Might. That would be an interesting
> experiment. But it is 100% certain that the Melting Pot cannot handle
> great dilution, and that it takes time for it to work. Adding tens of
> millions of illegals plus larger numbers of legal immigrants will
> destroy the model and force our national democracy into the typical
> defects of a large national democracy, and thus to extinction. This is
> about as certain as anything we know about history.
>
> Apparently no one in Washington understands this.
>
> If they did, they would close the borders NOW, not in 2008.
>
> As to how, it's simple: call it 2000 miles of border. At $1 million
> per mile that is $2 billion/year, a drop in the Budget. Hand that
> money on a per/mile basis to each border county sheriff, with
> provision that it must be spent on border control -- apprehension and
> confinement. Now hand every border city $20 million a year for the
> same purposes. Hand each Border State $50 million a year, again solely
> for border enforcement. The whole program will cost less than the
> illegals cost us now.
>
> And yes, there are details to be worked out, including rewards for
> performance and penalties for non-performance, and I took the numbers
> out of the top of my head; but it would work a lot better than sending
> 6,000 Guardsmen down to the border for TWO WEEK SHIFTS. The present
> plan will do nothing. It won't even LOOK as if it is doing something,
> which is its only purpose anyway.
>
> Close the border now. Deport all illegals who come to the attention of
> the police courts. Insist that any legalization program includes
> instruction in English, Civics, American History, and such, and have a
> zero tolerance policy regarding crime including DUI, speeding tickets,
> driving without a license, drunk and disorderly... IN other words,
> deport those who volunteer for deportation. And hope that we can
> assimilate the rest. And do that NOW.
>
> Apparently no one in Washington understands what is at stake.
>
> Daily we sow the wind.
>
> ----------------------
Jordan
problem.
I'm actually in favor of increasing the level of _legal_ immigration.
The problem with our current policy is that we have set a low legal
immigration quota but are not actually enforcing it, with the result
that we are getting millions of illegal immigrants whose first lesson
in the American Way is "ignore the law." This is dangerous. We are
also doing this within the context of a public policy that generally
urges immigrants NOT to assimilate. This is doubly dangerous. And we
are doing this at the same time that we are fighting a Terrorist foe
who has already begun to make alliances with Latin American radicalism
(read any of the stories on Hugo Chavez, particularly his proposed
weapons sales to Iran). This is _suicidally_ dangerous.
We need to pick a level of immigration that we feel we can live with,
set up policies to _assimilate_ those immigrants, and then allocate the
necessary funding and pass the necessary laws to _enforce_ these
policies. If we don't, we are facing not only a cultural problem but,
possibly, a Fifth Column threat. And the reaction to _that_, if
Terrorists do manage to sneak in to do major damage using the Latin
American immigrants for cover, will NOT be favorable to _any_ American
Latinos.
(which would be very unfair, as American Latinos actually tend to be
quite patriotic on the whole. But that's what would happen).
- Jordan
Karl M. Syring
MURS radios wrote:
> Just yesterday in rec.arts.sf.written, I had brought up that no writers
> in the SciFi community were addressing the issue of runaway
> immigration/communism, but that there are MANY recent stories by
> left-leaning authors that
> tend to paint the future as being controlled by "evil" conservatives -
> here are just a few:
>
> Steele's COYOTE trilogy
> Bova's ROCK RATS trilogy
> Baxter's EVOLUTION
>
> I'm glad to see someone is addressing these issues in the SciFi
> community.
destroy the world. Well, everone, who is not like us.
Karl M. Syring
--
Rupert Murdoch Unveils Fake News Channel
http://humorix.org/articles/2006/04/murdoch/
Keith Morrison
>We need to pick a level of immigration that we feel we can live with,
>set up policies to _assimilate_ those immigrants, and then allocate the
>necessary funding and pass the necessary laws to _enforce_ these
>policies. If we don't, we are facing not only a cultural problem but,
>possibly, a Fifth Column threat. And the reaction to _that_, if
>Terrorists do manage to sneak in to do major damage using the Latin
>American immigrants for cover, will NOT be favorable to _any_ American
>Latinos.
>
>(which would be very unfair, as American Latinos actually tend to be
>quite patriotic on the whole. But that's what would happen).
They're the ones fighting the war you're cheering on but won't attend, so
nice of you to give them some props.
Research shows that by the third generation Latinos, like all immigrant
populations to the US, are assimilated: English is the primary, if not only
language, so on and so forth.
It's a non-issue except for two groups: the people who are outright racists
and the people who aren't racists but like having a convenient group to
blame things on.
--
Keith
James Nicoll
I've seen claims that under the proposed system, the US
might expect their numbers to be swelled by one hundred million
immigrants over twenty years. Oddly enough, that works out to about
1% (which was Canada's target for immigration under Volpe, although
the ReformaTories prefer no increase in the rate and in fact are
deporting people at an impressive rate), which in turn is about 70%
of the legal, documented immigration rate in the 1850s, when Americans
were a hell of a lot poorer and resources more limited than they
are now.
Actually, it's 1% if the US has no natural increase.
Otherwise, it's less than 1%.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Jordan
>
> They're the ones fighting the war you're cheering on but won't attend ... <
I don't believe that the US Armed Forces currently has a pressing need
for overweight men in their forties with no military experience, so the
option of "attending" isn't there. Are you saying that nobody can
morally support a war that they are not directly fighting? And that,
therefore, nobody who is physically 4-F is allowed to support any war?
If that were the case, it would be impossible to assemble a majority in
support of any war in any country that played by your rules.
Which wouldn't end war. It would simply mean that countries that
played by your rules would get kicked around constantly by countries
that didn't.
So there must be something wrong with your rules.
> Research shows that by the third generation Latinos, like all immigrant populations to the US, are assimilated: English is the primary, if not only language, so on and so forth. <
Yes. Even better than that -- Latinos tend to assimilate especially
well because most of their cultural assumptions are perfectly
compatible with, or in some cases _super-_ compatible with, life in
America. They tend to be on the average harder-working and
better-disciplined in their personal lives than most native-born
Americans. Many _first_ generation Latinos become functionally capable
in English and almost all second-generation ones do. I never claimed
that there was something especially insidious about Latin American
immigration; in fact I think it's one of the factors that is keeping
America strong.
However, there is (some) immigration rate above which assimilation
would become difficult, and on general principles we should not allow
our laws to be openly violated. What we should do is to increase the
legal immigration rate and also increase funding so that we can screen
out the felons, terrorists etc. The current system gives us the worst
of both worlds; we have _no_ control over the actual rate of
immigration and there is a man-smuggling network which _is_ being used
by criminal, and in some cases possibly terrorist, organizations.
> It's a non-issue except for two groups: the people who are outright racists and the people who aren't racists but like having a convenient group to blame things on. <
It's an issue because the current system clearly _doesn't work_.
- Jordan
Wayne Throop
: I've seen claims that under the proposed system, the US
: might expect their numbers to be swelled by one hundred million
: immigrants over twenty years. Oddly enough, that works out to about
: 1% (which was Canada's target for immigration under Volpe, although
: the ReformaTories prefer no increase in the rate and in fact are
: deporting people at an impressive rate), which in turn is about 70%
: of the legal, documented immigration rate in the 1850s, when Americans
: were a hell of a lot poorer and resources more limited than they
: are now. Actually, it's 1% if the US has no natural increase.
: Otherwise, it's less than 1%.
I don't follow how that's 1 percent.
One percent of what, exactly? 1 percent of the people expected
to be born during that period? 1 percent population increase over
what it would be if they hadn't immigrated? Those don't seem to work,
but maybe I'm doing my arithmetic wrong.
Can you elaborate just slightly?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
James Nicoll
million now to 400 million in 20 years. In the past, the US has had
more than one percent per year from legal, documented immigration
(plus who knows from the other kind, if it had been invented yet).
Wayne Throop
: jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
: About one percent growth per year will get the US from 300 million now
: to 400 million in 20 years.
D'oh. Well OK, but that's more like 1.45 percent, innit?
Maybe that's "about". ANYhoo. As I say, "d'oh".
: In the past, the US has had more than one percent per year from legal,
: documented immigration (plus who knows from the other kind, if it had
: been invented yet).
Still, whatever the annual rate, have we really had a case where
the population was nearly a quarter 1st-generation immigrants.
That is to say, have these more-than-1-percent rates continued
for 20 years? Recently anyways? Hm...
Joseph Nebus
>Still, whatever the annual rate, have we really had a case where
>the population was nearly a quarter 1st-generation immigrants.
>That is to say, have these more-than-1-percent rates continued
>for 20 years? Recently anyways? Hm...
About a sixth of the population of the United States, around
1911, according to Michael Parrish's `Anxious Decades: America in
Prosperity and Depression,' was the first-generation immigration peak.
Depending how generous you are you might consider that 'nearly' a
quarter of the population, but I'd be hard-pressed to call that recent,
at least in the context that seems appropriate here.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Grosberg
MURS radios wrote:
> Just yesterday in rec.arts.sf.written, I had brought up that no writers
> in the SciFi community were addressing the issue of runaway
> immigration/communism, but that there are MANY recent stories by
> left-leaning authors that
> tend to paint the future as being controlled by "evil" conservatives -
> here are just a few:
>
> Steele's COYOTE trilogy
...The sequel of which, at least from the excerpts I read, has the same
future now controlled by evil _socialists_.
The ship names from there can probably be added to the "Ships of SF"
thread.
Penn
In that story, when the very technologically-advanced humans come from
Earth to the new planet, they bring incredible technology and
ressources...yet end up displacing the locals in their ONE town (a few
hundred people at best) and making sure that everyone lives in
martially-enforced poverty. The mission commander's obsession with the
original settlers bordered on the insane in that no sane commander
would willfuly generate such pain where none is needed. She could have
settled a valley a few kilometers away and raised a high-tech town in
weeks, with water, electricity and heating, uplink to her ship's
libraries, and airstrip for the shuttles. But NOoooo, she had to stick
to the original settlers and use guns.
That was a disgusting and unrealistic character and situation, which
made me despise Steele for it. I could imagine a Tsar doing that to a
small siberain community, for the show of power and because its the
only town until he reaches his destination, but this is Coyote, with
millions of square miles of land area. What she wants is her people as
clear superiors in all ways, so that she can feel superior and in
control...like back on Earth. Ok, we get it, she's evil. Earth has
become evil. Gotcha. Now explain how this is realistic? Just nuke the
place and settle next door, or gas it one night and put everyone in
newly-built concrete prison-bunkers so she can keep them alive and yet
have absolute control over them...ANYTHING but that stupid move.
/end of long overdue rent :)
Michael Stemper
>I'm actually in favor of increasing the level of _legal_ immigration.
>The problem with our current policy is that we have set a low legal
>immigration quota but are not actually enforcing it, with the result
>that we are getting millions of illegal immigrants whose first lesson
>in the American Way is "ignore the law." This is dangerous. We are
>also doing this within the context of a public policy that generally
>urges immigrants NOT to assimilate.
I think that the number one barrier to assimilation is, of course,
the illegal status that some immigrants have. They don't dare mix
in with the rest of us, for fear of deportation.
I'm glad that when my ancestors came over, there weren't such laws.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Reunite Gondwanaland!
FED UP
For crying out loud I get hit with politics EVERYWHERE.
Actors...just make freaking movies....I don't give a FREAK what your
political views are !
Musicians....just play good songs.....your politics ? Keep your mouths
shut !
Sci-fi writers....I read sci-fi to ESCAPE. Take me to another time and
place far far away.
Give me aliens and time warps....but your politics ? I DON'T GIVE A
DAMN WHAT YOUR FREAKING POLITICS ARE ! Don't tell me I should think.
I rather pass a kidney stone than read a freaking Leftist sci-fi
diatribe.....*VOMIT* !
And why the heck would anyone want the USA to increase immigration to
raise our population to 400 million ?
Why the heck would people choose to stress our environment and be
packed with humanity like rats in a cage ?
I simply cannot comprehend that.......
James Nicoll
Joseph Nebus <neb...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>>Still, whatever the annual rate, have we really had a case where
>>the population was nearly a quarter 1st-generation immigrants.
>>That is to say, have these more-than-1-percent rates continued
>>for 20 years? Recently anyways? Hm...
>
> About a sixth of the population of the United States, around
>1911, according to Michael Parrish's `Anxious Decades: America in
>Prosperity and Depression,' was the first-generation immigration peak.
>Depending how generous you are you might consider that 'nearly' a
>quarter of the population, but I'd be hard-pressed to call that recent,
>at least in the context that seems appropriate here.
As a meterstick, according to the 2001 census, 18.4% of Canada's
population was born outside Canada. This is up from 17.4% in 1996
but down from our previous high of 22.2% in 1931.
Australia apparently has a population where 22% are foreign
born.
The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3% (Frankly, with
the EU, I would have expected more foreign born UKians). New Zealand
is about 19.5% foreign born.
The OECD average is 10.2%, ranging from 0.5% in Mexico to
33% in Luxumbourg.
However, lets get back to SF:
By definition, any colonization of the solar system is going
to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
of this in SF about settlers.
The first example to come to mind is the Mars trilogy by
Robinson, where the doughty Martians, having profited from the largess
of Earth, now object to waves of immigrants arriving to take advantage
of the Martian economy.
The second is the Coyote trilogy, in which humans spoil everything
that they touch. When the colonists are recontacted by Earth, they have
to decide whether or not they will accept wave after wave of colonists,
with the first such wave not optimised to encourage acceptance.
Wayne Throop
: By definition, any colonization of the solar system is going
: to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
: indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
: We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
: that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
: against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
: of this in SF about settlers.
Would something like the low regard "new chums" are accorded in
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" count? That one is complicated by
incomers lacking skills/habits to deal with the *physical* environment,
in addition to not fitting/blending in socially.
Niven belters seem to have vaguely similar attitudes to the non-belters,
since they tend to float around and bump into important switches and all.
Or the attitude towards naive offworlders visiting crowded earth,
wrt to pickpocketing.
I dunno. There seem to be a lot of low-level borderline instances of it
in SF. Not up to the level of fear and loathing of notable real-life cases,
but still.
National Brotherhood Week!
National Brotherhood Week!
National let's-be-kind-to
One-anotherhood week.
Be kind to people who
Are inferior to you,
It's only for a week so don't you fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
--- Tom Lehrer
Peter Bruells
> The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
> 11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3% (Frankly, with
> the EU, I would have expected more foreign born UKians).
Why? EU Ctiziens - in general - are free to settle and work in any EU
member nation they wish to, as long a they provide for themselves.
The impetus to get naturlized is therefore low - why would I want to
become British, if I have nearly the same right as a British nationals
and my own country is just around the corner?
Robert Sneddon
<jdni...@panix.com> writes
> The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
>11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3% (Frankly, with
>the EU, I would have expected more foreign born UKians).
EU citizens don't have to give up their native citizenship if the
decide to move to the UK and find work here in much the same way that,
say, folks from Wyoming can move to Texas without getting a Green Card.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> Keith Morrison said:
> >
> > They're the ones fighting the war you're cheering on but won't attend ... <
>
> I don't believe that the US Armed Forces currently has a pressing need
> for overweight men in their forties with no military experience, so the
> option of "attending" isn't there. Are you saying that nobody can
> morally support a war that they are not directly fighting?
Read the top quote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/War
Now, don't you feel it is your patriotic duty to actually make their
sacrifice MEAN something by actually BEING right. Not THINK you are
right by being selective in what facts you choose to learn and choose
to believe. Not being selective in what rhetorical devices you use to
defend your beliefs. Being sincerely right or humbly admitting you
don't know. Not accusing others who disagree with you of treason. (An
example from somebody else: Which U.S. city would you be okay with
being nuked, Mark?)
I keep asking: what makes you, Atwood, and others who argue like this
any different from the trolls in the political groups other than
erudition, education and your participation in on-topic conversations?
You CHOOSE to be manipulative in order to 'win' conversations. Nobody
is forcing you to not have a serious give and take.
James Nicoll
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <e4i2ve$kr9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
><jdni...@panix.com> writes
>
>> The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
>>11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3% (Frankly, with
>>the EU, I would have expected more foreign born UKians).
>
> EU citizens don't have to give up their native citizenship if the
>decide to move to the UK and find work here in much the same way that,
>say, folks from Wyoming can move to Texas without getting a Green Card.
OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
nation appears to be foreign-born.
James Nicoll
An unexamined assumption that people who move to other countries
will then want to become citizens. What makes this particularly silly is
that my father lived in Canada for twenty years before becoming Canadian
and my mother for more than forty, without ever becoming Canadian.
Peter Bruells
> In article <pn6XruST...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message <e4i2ve$kr9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
> ><jdni...@panix.com> writes
> >
> >> The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
> >>11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3% (Frankly, with
> >>the EU, I would have expected more foreign born UKians).
> >
> > EU citizens don't have to give up their native citizenship if the
> >decide to move to the UK and find work here in much the same way that,
> >say, folks from Wyoming can move to Texas without getting a Green Card.
>
> OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> nation appears to be foreign-born.
Luxembourg is very very small. I reckon that esp. during the economic
rise after WW 2 they simply had to import people - as did Germany, of
course, but there's a difference between 100.000 people immigrating
into a nation of 400.000 or one of 60 million.
James Nicoll
>: jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
>: By definition, any colonization of the solar system is going
>: to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
>: indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
>: We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
>: that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
>: against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
>: of this in SF about settlers.
>
>Would something like the low regard "new chums" are accorded in
>"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" count? That one is complicated by
>incomers lacking skills/habits to deal with the *physical* environment,
>in addition to not fitting/blending in socially.
>
Mars is to Earth as America is to Europe, not Know Nothings on Mars.
I don't recall her objecting to people moving off Earth.
Actually, I _can_ think of a RAH where the local object to
incomers: FARMER IN THE SKY, where the Bosses were asked for more
equipment and sent people instead.
Actually, it's a bit odd that there's so little nativism
in SF. It seems like a rich source of ideas, both pro and con.
Anthony Nance
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
>
> However, lets get back to SF:
>
> By definition, any colonization of the solar system is going
>to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
>indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
>We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
>that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
>against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
>of this in SF about settlers.
>
> The first example to come to mind is the Mars trilogy by
>Robinson, where the doughty Martians, having profited from the largess
>of Earth, now object to waves of immigrants arriving to take advantage
>of the Martian economy.
>
> The second is the Coyote trilogy, in which humans spoil everything
>that they touch. When the colonists are recontacted by Earth, they have
>to decide whether or not they will accept wave after wave of colonists,
>with the first such wave not optimised to encourage acceptance.
I believe Asimov got a great deal of volume and mileage out of Spacers
and the Spacer worlds in this fashion. Some of it wasn't up front and
center, but it was of critical importance to the settings.
Tony
Matthias Warkus
> OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> nation appears to be foreign-born.
Tax evaders, probably. What's the rate for Monaco?
mawa
James Nicoll
Anyone have a centralized source?
Interestingly, if you look at the so-called core Anglosphere
nations (The US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), the
factor that seems to be negatively correlated with % foreign-born
isn't stuff like "is this nation actually habitable?" (which Australia
and Canada score poorly on) or "is the place already essentially one
big city?" (because, for example, it's the bits of Canada with the
most people that are attracting the most incomers), but the absolute
value of population: the higher it is, the lower the % of foreign-
born.
My working theory is the more people under one government,
the more likely it is that at least one group will have both a desire
to limit immigration and the political pull to accomplish this
goal. An easy way to test this is to divide the US into ten or
so independent nations, to see if immigration in some of them
increases.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:e4ien7$csb$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>...
> Interestingly, if you look at the so-called core
> Anglosphere
> nations (The US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), the
> factor that seems to be negatively correlated with %
> foreign-born isn't stuff like "is this nation actually
> habitable?" (which Australia and Canada score poorly on) or "is
> the place already essentially one big city?" (because, for
> example, it's the bits of Canada with the most people that are
> attracting the most incomers), but the absolute value of
> population: the higher it is, the lower the % of foreign- born.
> My working theory is the more people under one government,
> the more likely it is that at least one group will have both a
> desire to limit immigration and the political pull to accomplish
> this goal. An easy way to test this is to divide the US into ten
> or so independent nations, to see if immigration in some of them
> increases.
It would almost have to: most of the internal migration within the
US would suddenly get added to the immigration totals. Likewise,
if, say, Quebec seceded, both Canada's and Quebec's numbers could be
expected to go up without any change in the way people currently
move-- at least assuming that there were incentives to naturalize
after moving from one to the other.
Which at least suggests one possible factor in the result you're
identifying-- if, say, equal numbers of people move between Canada
and the US, the percentage of immigrants so generated is 10x as big
in Canada as in the US. The smaller the country, the bigger the
impact of each immigrant on the numbers, and the more moves to and
from its population centers are likely to cross a border.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Tim McDaniel
>to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
>indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
>We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
>that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
>against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
>of this in SF about settlers.
Jerry Pournelle's Codominium novels, as I recall, but I may have read
only one story and bits of other stories. I seem to recall a
Belisarius In Spaaaace with a thinly-disguised Nika riot. I think
Sparta, just before the proclamation of the Empire, got a jolt of new
settlers (who, in Pournelle's scheme, were worthless criminal welfare
queen scum, as on Constantinopleworld).
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Jordan
>Read the top quote
I did. Yes, it's quite true that wars are always fought _primarily_ by
young boys, but I don't know if it's at all true that wars are fought
solely for "old men." For one thing, both young and old in the modern
West benefit directly from our freedoms, freedoms which would be
distinctly diminished if we lose this war. (Ironically it is not so
much young _boys_ as young _girls_ who would suffer the most, given the
ideology of our foe).
> Now, don't you feel it is your patriotic duty to actually make their sacrifice MEAN something by actually BEING right. Not THINK you are right by being selective in what facts you choose to learn and choose to believe. Not being selective in what rhetorical devices you use to defend your beliefs. Being sincerely right or humbly admitting you don't know. <
There is a clear impossibility in your directive. If I was wrong, but
believed I was right, I would have no magic way to know that I was not
in fact right. I certainly wouldn't assume that I was wrong simply
because you told me that I was. Would you simply assume that you were
wrong because I told you that you were?
Everyone is "selective" in the acquisition of knowledge. Some of the
knowledge that I have acquired makes me aware that the Terrrorists do
_not_ have strictly limited objectives; that their objectives are in
fact universalist and millenarian; and that this means that withdrawing
from a war in Iraq or a war in Afghanistan would not end the larger
war; it would simply mean that more of it would wind up being fought at
home. This is knowledge that _you_ are choosing to blind yourself to,
and it is easy knowledge to acquire -- all you'd need to do is actually
read _what the Terrorist leaders THEMSELVES say_.
> I keep asking: what makes you, Atwood, and others who argue like this any different from the trolls in the political groups other than erudition, education and your participation in on-topic conversations? <
Well, then by definition we aren't "trolls." Unless you choose to
define as "trollish" simple disagreement with yourself.
And of course you're not answering the question that I posed to Keith:
"Are you saying that nobody can morally support a war that they are not
directly fighting?"
_Are_ you saying that? Or not?
> You CHOOSE to be manipulative in order to 'win' conversations. Nobody is forcing you to not have a serious give and take. <
My "manipulativeness" consists of raising logical objections to the
arguments of others, and logical reasons in support of my own
arguments. You seem to be arguing that I should instead simply assume
that I am wrong and that you are right.
Why should I? And why would this constitute "a serious give and take?"
Why can't a "serious give and take" consist of each party outlining
his reasons for his opinions and, if someone else has different
opinions, his reason for disagreeing with those other opinions?
You seem to believe that, simply because you claim to be in favor of
"peace," you have the moral high ground and thus everyone else should
simply assume themselves to be in the wrong.
But that is not logical.
- Jordan
Jordan
> I think that the number one barrier to assimilation is, of course, the illegal status that some immigrants have. They don't dare mix in with the rest of us, for fear of deportation. <
Then wouldn't increasing the level of legal immigration help?
> I'm glad that when my ancestors came over, there weren't such laws.
I do think that they're mostly wrong-headed, but I also think that some
screening process is essential, because the alternative is to let
hostile foreign agents enter the country unchecked. And I'm not
speaking of the Latino immigrants in general, I'm speaking of members
of criminal and terrorist organizations, and foreign intelligence
agencies, who could _easily_ enter the country and move about freely
with NO system of controlling immigration.
- Jordan
Jordan
> I dunno. There seem to be a lot of low-level borderline instances of it in SF. Not up to the level of fear and loathing of notable real-life cases, but still. <
In Jerry Pournelle's CoDominium future history, the Bureau of
Relocation exiles millions of people from national minorities, criminal
or dissident organizations, or otherwise unwanted folk from the Earth
and dumps them willy-nilly, often without sufficient supplies or
training, on existing extrasolar colonies. The resultant chaos and
difficulties of assimilation drives most of the wars that Falkenberg
fights in. See especially _West of Honor_, _The Mercenary_, and the
_Sparta_ trilogy (with S. M. Stirling).
- Jordan
Jordan
>
>An unexamined assumption that people who move to other countries will then want to become citizens.
In most countries you need to be a citizen to vote, to have
unchallengable rights of residence, and often to obtain other benefits,
so the tendency is in the long run for most immigrants to become
citizens if the option is available. American citizenship is
particularly prized internationally, so in the case of the US the
assumption is usually a valid one.
> What makes this particularly silly is that my father lived in Canada for twenty years before becoming Canadian and my mother for more than forty, without ever becoming Canadian. <
Yes, but even when the first-generation immigrants aren't citizens, the
second generation usually are. In America, by _definition_ a second
generation immigrant is a US citizen, because he or she is "native
born," unless he or she happens to be born abroad (on a trip back to
the Mother Country or whatever).
- Jordan
Thomas Lindgren
D> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 15:59:31 +0000 schrieb James Nicoll:
> > OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> > nation appears to be foreign-born.
>
> Tax evaders, probably. /.../
I've read about Germans crossing the border with suitcases full of
cash (isn't it an amazing coincidence that Germany has tax havens next
door at nearly every point of the compass? :-) ... but my money is on
the surplus being EU drones and people in financial services.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
Matthias Warkus
> Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org> writes:
>
> D> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 15:59:31 +0000 schrieb James Nicoll:
>> > OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
>> > nation appears to be foreign-born.
>>
>> Tax evaders, probably. /.../
>
> I've read about Germans crossing the border with suitcases full of
> cash
All of which is true, though things seem to improve with recent
legislation.
> (isn't it an amazing coincidence that Germany has tax havens next
> door at nearly every point of the compass? :-) ...
What would be the others? Switzerland is not really a tax haven as much
as a laundering place for dirty money, and Liechtenstein doesn't border
Germany. Are there other candidates?
BTW, total taxation in Germany is rather low by international comparison.
What's driving people's money out of the country is not as clear as many
often put it.
> but my money is on
> the surplus being EU drones and people in financial services.
There isn't all that much EU administration in Luxemburg, as far as I
know. As for the financial services people, working for a Luxembourg-based
banking operation does not require citizenship AFAIK, thus I don't see a
compelling reason for foreign bankers to immigrate.
(I've got money in a depot in Luxembourg, BTW, as millions of German do.
Pretty much every German bank has a Luxembourg-based subsidiary for
precisely this purpose, and perfectly legal at that.)
mawa
MURS radios
The rich choose it, because they can make a buck off it (and we the
people have to foot the bill for the overburdened social systems...
schools, hospitals, roads, etc.)... the illegals choose it, because
they can make a buck off it (and get subsidized social services). The
young and foolish choose it, because they are young and foolish, and
don't understand the consequences (their "hearts bleed" for the
illegals). Communists choose it, because they see a chance to
implement Mexican-style communism in the USA (if they get enough votes
from illegals, it could very well happen).
This is why you MUST write your congressmen often, to express your
outrage that the US Government is not doing enough to protect the
borders of this country, and is not doing enough to enforce employment
laws against the hiring of illegal aliens. Also, express your outrage
to any of your Senators who are voting in support of Guest Worker
(Amnesty).
Then, VOTE OUT any of the foot-draggers on election day! We are, by
far, in the majority of this issue... it just needs to be made a
PRIORITY.
- Stewart
John F. Eldredge
For that matter, my maternal grandfather emigrated from Canada to the
US as a child, in 1904, but didn't become a US citizen until around
1950, after having served as a US Army chaplain during World War II.
My grandmother, who was American-born, automatically lost her American
citizenship and became stateless when she married a foreign national
[1], but didn't realize it until she applied for a passport decades
later, in the late 1940's. She ended up having to become a
naturalized US citizen, despite having been born a US citizen.
[1] American law at the time assumed that an American woman marrying a
foreign man would automatically be granted citizenship in her
husband's nation, which Canada didn't do. An American man marrying a
foreign national retained his American citizenship. Under current US
law, marrying a foreigner doesn't cause loss of citizenship.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Roger Christie
news:1147883141.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just yesterday in rec.arts.sf.written, I had brought up that no writers
> in the SciFi community were addressing the issue of runaway
> immigration/communism, but that there are MANY recent stories by
> left-leaning authors that
> tend to paint the future as being controlled by "evil" conservatives -
> here are just a few:
>
> Steele's COYOTE trilogy
> Bova's ROCK RATS trilogy
> Baxter's EVOLUTION
>
Bova? Left leaning??
Peter Bruells
> Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org> writes:
>
> D> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 15:59:31 +0000 schrieb James Nicoll:
> > > OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> > > nation appears to be foreign-born.
> >
> > Tax evaders, probably. /.../
>
> I've read about Germans crossing the border with suitcases full of
> cash (isn't it an amazing coincidence that Germany has tax havens next
> door at nearly every point of the compass? :-)
Nope. A tax heaven *needs* big neighbors who actually produce
something, so they have money to hide from Tax.
> ... but my money is on the surplus being EU drones and people in
> financial services.
The claim wasn't "foreign residents", but "foreign-born citizens". My
money is on bond-fide immigrants to who came to Luxembourg to work and
needed citizenship to stay there.
Peter Bruells
> My grandmother, who was American-born, automatically lost her
> American citizenship and became stateless when she married a foreign
> national [1], but didn't realize it until she applied for a passport
> decades later, in the late 1940's. She ended up having to become a
> naturalized US citizen, despite having been born a US citizen.
Mmmm.... Does that mean she could run for president?
Peter Bruells
> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 20:28:43 +0000 schrieb Thomas Lindgren:
> > Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org> writes:
> >
> > D> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 15:59:31 +0000 schrieb James Nicoll:
> >> > OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> >> > nation appears to be foreign-born.
> >>
> >> Tax evaders, probably. /.../
> >
> > I've read about Germans crossing the border with suitcases full of
> > cash
>
> All of which is true, though things seem to improve with recent
> legislation.
>
> > (isn't it an amazing coincidence that Germany has tax havens next
> > door at nearly every point of the compass? :-) ...
>
> What would be the others? Switzerland is not really a tax haven as much
> as a laundering place for dirty money, and Liechtenstein doesn't border
> Germany. Are there other candidates?
>
> BTW, total taxation in Germany is rather low by international comparison.
No, it isn't.
....
> There isn't all that much EU administration in Luxemburg, as far as I
> know.
*cough*
Just the European Court of Justice,
the Secretariat of the European Parliament,
the European Investment Bank,
and the European Court of Auditors.
(Okay, now I have the strange image of Miles Vorkosigan being one of
the 12 auditors answerable only to Brussels.)
Nancy Lebovitz
Penn <penn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steele's COYOTE trilogy
>
>In that story, when the very technologically-advanced humans come from
>Earth to the new planet, they bring incredible technology and
>ressources...yet end up displacing the locals in their ONE town (a few
>hundred people at best) and making sure that everyone lives in
>martially-enforced poverty. The mission commander's obsession with the
>original settlers bordered on the insane in that no sane commander
>would willfuly generate such pain where none is needed. She could have
>settled a valley a few kilometers away and raised a high-tech town in
>weeks, with water, electricity and heating, uplink to her ship's
>libraries, and airstrip for the shuttles. But NOoooo, she had to stick
>to the original settlers and use guns.
I quit reading Steele (except for the occasional short piece) with his
first book. One of the minor things there was a man making peace with
having murdered his evil ex.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Nancy Lebovitz
FED UP <endtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I HATE sci-fi with a political agenda !
> For crying out loud I get hit with politics EVERYWHERE.
>
> Actors...just make freaking movies....I don't give a FREAK what your
>political views are !
>
> Musicians....just play good songs.....your politics ? Keep your mouths
>shut !
>
> Sci-fi writers....I read sci-fi to ESCAPE. Take me to another time and
>place far far away.
> Give me aliens and time warps....but your politics ? I DON'T GIVE A
>DAMN WHAT YOUR FREAKING POLITICS ARE ! Don't tell me I should think.
It's probably not possible to write sf with no politics. If you're
making up societies (possibly with backstories), you've got to have
some ideas about how societies and governments work.
>
> I rather pass a kidney stone than read a freaking Leftist sci-fi
>diatribe.....*VOMIT* !
Do you feel the same way about right-wing diatribes?
>
> And why the heck would anyone want the USA to increase immigration to
>raise our population to 400 million ?
Getting good people. Decency.
> Why the heck would people choose to stress our environment and be
>packed with humanity like rats in a cage ?
> I simply cannot comprehend that.......
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> BTW, total taxation in Germany is rather low by international comparison.
>
>No, it isn't.
VATs are a way to hide taxes - but *all* taxes are paid by people.
Michael Stemper
> As a meterstick, according to the 2001 census, 18.4% of Canada's
>population was born outside Canada.
> Australia apparently has a population where 22% are foreign born.
> The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
>11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3%
> By definition, any colonization of the solar system is going
>to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
>indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
>We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
>that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
>against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
>of this in SF about settlers.
In Asimov's _Nemesis_, a rogue planet was discovered coming towards
the solar system. The discoverers didn't announce it, but set up a
colonization expedition instead. A few generations later, when the
left behind folks spotted this planet, they sent another expedition
to it. The welcome that they received was somewhat less than cordial.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
Michael Stemper
>Michael F. Stemper said:
>
>> I think that the number one barrier to assimilation is, of course,
>> the illegal status that some immigrants have. They don't dare mix
>> in with the rest of us, for fear of deportation.
>
>Then wouldn't increasing the level of legal immigration help?
That was what I was hinting at, yes.
>> I'm glad that when my ancestors came over, there weren't such laws.
>
>I do think that they're mostly wrong-headed,
Since they first came into existence about a century ago, with the
purpose of preventing "those types of people" (Irish, Italians, Jews)
from entering, that's a pretty safe premise.
> but I also think that some
>screening process is essential, because the alternative is to let
>hostile foreign agents enter the country unchecked.
Which isn't something that our current immigration restrictions have
any relation to. It seems to me that easing legal immigration would
tend to increase the likelihood that people would come into the
country in more controlled environments, where there would be INS
stations. Screening for terrorists there would be simpler, without
the need to fan out the NG across a thousand miles checking the
papers of people who are only sneaking in for the opportunity to
swab johns for minimum wage with no benefits. If those people could
come in legally, the occasional foriegn agent sneaking across the
border would no longer be part of a flood, and thus (slightly) more
visible.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
T Jr Hardman
> The reason why Latino immigrants are bound to assimilate, at least to
> some degree, is that unless they outnumbered almost _all_ native-born
> Americans (and immigration to that degree would be improbable even if
> we had totally open borders), they would need to learn English in order
> to communicate with almost all non-Latinos, because most Americans
> speak English, not Spanish. American English is a _koine_, and a koine
> remains dominant until displaced by another koine. This is for simple,
> practical reasons.
>
> Imagine that you are a Latino immigrant. If you speak only Spanish,
> you can only speak to other Spanish-speakers, who are a minority except
> in certain limited regions. Your social mobility is thus limited to
> the _barrios_.
Ah, given that the high-school dropout rate for even 3rd generation
Mexican-Americans hovers close to 50 percent, social mobility -- in the
terms most other Americans understand it, meaning going to college and
becoming upper-middle-class -- doesn't much seem to concern them.
> You can learn one other language. If you choose to learn anything
> _but_ English, you can now speak to other Latino immigrants and to the
> one ethnic group whose language you have learned. But if you learn
> English, you can speak to some degree to members of _every_ immigrant
> ethnic group, because almost every immigrant to America learns _some_
> English.
>
> The only way for this to change would be if so many Latin American
> immigrants entered America _so_ fast that the _koine_ became Spanish.
> But that would require some sort of _forced_ migration to America -- it
> wouldn't happen fast enough naturally even with wholly open borders.
Ah, the point you might be missing -- and I can presume only that you
must not very much get out of the house, or your upper-class
neighborhood, and haven't seen what's been happening.
There's more factors at work here that migration, or lack of it.
For one, you have a population which has very decreased growth, and
which has an elder-heavy population curve. Sure, the vast majority of
Americans are anglophone ("english speaking") but they're also aging,
and are demographically moving towards an average age above the
reproductive age. Remember, when the average woman is post-menopausal,
it's very likely that you have a decreasing population of nubiles.
For another thing, you have a population migrating, illegally for large
part, into the USA. Demographically, they are generally young, with an
average age somewhere around 23. At first they were primarily young men
roughly of military age, and towards the buck-private conscript end of
that age bracket. However, increasingly the flood comprises females,
generally in their years of peak fertility. And do to the legal
situation, it is very much in their interests to have a child as an
"anchor baby". The more they have, the harder they are to deport... and
though their children will of course learn to speak English, they'll
almost certainly be primarily speaking Spanish at home, and "home"
includes the neighborhood. Culturally, they'll be equal parts of
all-American, Old Country, and the inevitable new brew of homegrown
culture that emerges in any first-generation immigration population of
any size.
Even in the second generation there's generally enough retention of
Spanish for it to serve as a koine or trade-language. Even if it's used
as an agrammatical pidgin it's still there... and still any newcomers
can use it for trade, without learning the other koine, and they will
continue to prop up the numbers of those who speak it as well or better
than the other koine is spoken.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
>
--
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak foolishness and remove all doubt.
--Aesop
T Jr Hardman
> I HATE sci-fi with a political agenda !
> For crying out loud I get hit with politics EVERYWHERE.
>
> Actors...just make freaking movies....I don't give a FREAK what your
> political views are !
>
> Musicians....just play good songs.....your politics ? Keep your mouths
> shut !
>
> Sci-fi writers....I read sci-fi to ESCAPE. Take me to another time and
> place far far away.
> Give me aliens and time warps....but your politics ? I DON'T GIVE A
> DAMN WHAT YOUR FREAKING POLITICS ARE ! Don't tell me I should think.
>
> diatribe.....*VOMIT* !
>
> raise our population to 400 million ?
> packed with humanity like rats in a cage ?
> I simply cannot comprehend that.......
>
What I find amusing in a rather sad way is that everything you see
happening today was predicted repeatedly in most of the classics of SF.
Kornbluth's "the Marching Morons", and we see elements of Orwell's
"1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World" as well.
The thing we don't see is free fusion energy too cheap to meter, or even
sensible people everywhere holding down their reproductive rate and
driving fuel-efficient cars, nor do we see robots replacing slave labor
or near-slave labor.
It's a lot less expensive to use disposable human bodies to be worked to
death, than to develop robots to do the same jobs, right?
And it helps you to hold onto power, if you start a senseless war on
pretenses. It also helps to hold onto power if you make everything so
expensive that people who used to cooperated to rein in excessive power
become obsessed with "getting ahead" and start fighting amongst
themselves and in any case can't afford to travel to find others with
similar opinions, or to even form any opinion of any place much outside
of their own venue, or official tourist vacation destinations.
Look, SF was meant in many cases to drop you headfirst into the results
of present trends.
Then again, sometimes it's just short fiction meant to be read for a
quick laugh in the sciences:
http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/bofh.html
Will in New Haven
Jordan wrote:
> Keith Morrison said:
> >
> > They're the ones fighting the war you're cheering on but won't attend ... <
>
> I don't believe that the US Armed Forces currently has a pressing need
> for overweight men in their forties with no military experience, so the
> option of "attending" isn't there. Are you saying that nobody can
> morally support a war that they are not directly fighting? And that,
> therefore, nobody who is physically 4-F is allowed to support any war?
> If that were the case, it would be impossible to assemble a majority in
> support of any war in any country that played by your rules.
>
> Which wouldn't end war. It would simply mean that countries that
> played by your rules would get kicked around constantly by countries
> that didn't.
>
> So there must be something wrong with your rules.
>
> > Research shows that by the third generation Latinos, like all immigrant populations to the US, are assimilated: English is the primary, if not only language, so on and so forth. <
>
> Yes. Even better than that -- Latinos tend to assimilate especially
> well because most of their cultural assumptions are perfectly
> compatible with, or in some cases _super-_ compatible with, life in
> America. They tend to be on the average harder-working and
> better-disciplined in their personal lives than most native-born
> Americans. Many _first_ generation Latinos become functionally capable
> in English and almost all second-generation ones do. I never claimed
> that there was something especially insidious about Latin American
> immigration; in fact I think it's one of the factors that is keeping
> America strong.
>
> However, there is (some) immigration rate above which assimilation
> would become difficult, and on general principles we should not allow
> our laws to be openly violated. What we should do is to increase the
> legal immigration rate and also increase funding so that we can screen
> out the felons, terrorists etc. The current system gives us the worst
> of both worlds; we have _no_ control over the actual rate of
> immigration and there is a man-smuggling network which _is_ being used
> by criminal, and in some cases possibly terrorist, organizations.
>
> > It's a non-issue except for two groups: the people who are outright racists and the people who aren't racists but like having a convenient group to blame things on. <
>
> It's an issue because the current system clearly _doesn't work_.
>
> - Jordan
To the extent it's a legitimate issue, it's an issue because the
current system is disorderly. The crime of illegal immigration is not a
crime of violence or an evil act, it is a crime against order. While it
does not harm us that a few people slip through the cracks, the large
numbers of illegal aliens make for difficulties in our society that
simply legitimizing their entry would have mostly solfved. The
histerical nativist movement is deplorable but there is a problem and
it needs to be addressed.
Will in New Haven
--
"Have faith in the Yankees my son and remember the great Dimaggio."
Ernest Hemingway, THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA
Wesley Struebing
(posted ONLY to rasf...)
Umm, I may be thinking of another Baxter novel, but how is "Evolution"
painting the future as being controlled by "evil conservatives"? (the
author may be left-leaning - you couldn't prove it by me, however)
Humans (as homo sapiens) barely appear in it (though hominids are
prominent, but passing), so I'm not sure I follow that line of
reasoning...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Peter Bruells
Which reminds me, that the "rather low taxaion in Germany, by
international standards" is hillariously funny especially in this
week, where parliament voted to raise it from 16 to 19 percent.
Matthias Warkus
> What I find amusing in a rather sad way is that everything you see
> happening today was predicted repeatedly in most of the classics of SF.
>
> Kornbluth's "the Marching Morons",
Utter nonsense.
mawa
Matthias Warkus
>> BTW, total taxation in Germany is rather low by international comparison.
>
> No, it isn't.
It is.
> ....
>
>> There isn't all that much EU administration in Luxemburg, as far as I
>> know.
>
> *cough*
>
>
> Just the European Court of Justice,
> the Secretariat of the European Parliament,
> the European Investment Bank,
> and the European Court of Auditors.
Not much. Exactly as I said.
mawa
Matthias Warkus
Did Morbus Christiansen get your brain, too? You do know that 19 percent
isn't especially high a VAT rate, don't you?
mawa
Peter Bruells
It isn't high for European standards, but it is still a significant
raise, that what makes the claim funny.
And it wouldn't even be bad if we'd actually get something out of
these raises. Frankly, I don't consider "paying intersts on debt" a
worthwhile economic endeavour.
Peter Bruells
> Am Fri, 19 May 2006 08:59:35 +0200 schrieb Peter Bruells:
> >> BTW, total taxation in Germany is rather low by international comparison.
> >
> > No, it isn't.
>
> It is.
It's trivial to get the numbers, be from ATTAC, the IHK or even from
the Ministry of finance.
The BDI has a particular nice document about it:
"Rather low" implies the lower third, by the way. Perhaps for
you."rather low" means 3rd place or something like that.
> > ....
> >> There isn't all that much EU administration in Luxemburg, as far as I
> >> know.
> >
> > *cough*
> >
> >
> > Just the European Court of Justice,
> > the Secretariat of the European Parliament,
> > the European Investment Bank,
> > and the European Court of Auditors.
>
> Not much. Exactly as I said.
Ah I see, three major instiutions constitute "not much".
Peter Bruells
Don't watch much TV, do you?
SCNR - I'm actually not the bad state of general knowledge in curret
times implies a decline....
David Loewe, Jr.
Stemper) wrote:
>In article <1147885990.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Jordan writes:
>
>>I'm actually in favor of increasing the level of _legal_ immigration.
>>The problem with our current policy is that we have set a low legal
>>immigration quota but are not actually enforcing it, with the result
>>that we are getting millions of illegal immigrants whose first lesson
>>in the American Way is "ignore the law." This is dangerous. We are
>>also doing this within the context of a public policy that generally
>>urges immigrants NOT to assimilate.
>
>I think that the number one barrier to assimilation is, of course,
>the illegal status that some immigrants have. They don't dare mix
>in with the rest of us, for fear of deportation.
A LOT of "illegals" aren't here to immigrate.
>
>I'm glad that when my ancestors came over, there weren't such laws.
--
"The trust and self-assurance that can lead to happiness
They're the very things we kill, I guess
Pride and competition cannot fill these empty arms
And the work I put between us, doesn't keep me warm"
Don Henley, Mike Campbell & JD Souther
T Jr Hardman
Well, it's not entirely _that_ bad, yet, but you might try to stop
thinking in absolutes for comparisons, and start looking at trends.
One of the things that Kornbluth -- IIRC an advertising exec -- uses as
a scene-setter in that story is "presentation versus operation". For
example, when riding in one of the new cars, it's just astonishingly
shiny and has all sorts of bells and whistles and evidently it generally
runs down the street at 80. However, the impressing-sounding "80" that
it runs is 80 kilometers/hour, not miles/hour. All of that engine
howling doesn't seem to produce much acceleration, etc.
But the more worrisome contention, the basis for Kornbluth's story, is
that the clear trend of the well-educated and intellectual persons to
fail to reproduce their kind, that's seen all across "the western
world". Everyone with the intelligence to understand the need for
birth-control tends to be using it. While we cannot suggest that genuis
springs only from parents of above-normal intelligence, we certainly can
point out that the intelligentsia aren't particularly known for having
stupid kids, and the children of slightly-sub-par parents aren't
particularly known for even finishing highschool.
I notice that you don't seem to have any remarks to rebut my contention
that we appear to be trending towards authoritarian or at least
undemocratic/unlibertarian governance systems in the West. I'm not sure
which is more doubleplusungood, that you offer no rebuttal (perhaps you
think it would be politically unwise? ;) ) or perhaps that such a
rebuttal isn't possible of being true. To wit, warrantless spying on US
citizens, the deplorable practices at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq, etc etc and even the Canadians have evidently taken a
turn towards right-wing militarism.
But back to Kornbluth; you can't for a moment believe that the majority
of US voters would vote for someone who was clearly and obviously far
smarter than they, could you? Nor could the political machines'
masterminds. Hence, President GW Bush. Nobody thinks he's threatening at
all, as he seems to be more the throne, and less than the power behind
the throne. A figurehead. One sees this rather commonly; one hears from
the spokespeople rather than from anyone who can actually think much.
In the meantime, the one thing I don't think I _ever_ saw in SF -- too
ridiculous to write, I'd guess -- we've been successfully invaded by
Mexico.
Weren't you saying something about "ridiculous"? ;)
Peter Bruells
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:pn6XruSTgJbEFwk2
> @nospam.demon.co.uk:
>
> > In message <e4i2ve$kr9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
> > <jdni...@panix.com> writes
> >> The same article says the % of Americans who are foreign born is
> >>11% and the % of UKians who are foreign born in 8.3% (Frankly, with
> >>the EU, I would have expected more foreign born UKians).
> >
> > EU citizens don't have to give up their native citizenship if the
> > decide to move to the UK and find work here in much the same way that,
> > say, folks from Wyoming can move to Texas without getting a Green Card.
>
> Um, are you two talking about % of citizens or % of residents?
% of citiziens. James was - at least it appeared to me so - thinking
that being in the EU would make it easier for the various EU citizens
to mingle. Which it does.
But being in the EU doesn't make it easier to become easier a citizien
of another EU member nation, it makes it mostly pointless. There's
even talk about giving resident EU citizen a vote on a communal or
even state level, with onöy the national vote reserved for that
nation's citizen.
Thomas Lindgren
Peter Bruells <p...@ecce-terram.de> writes:
> The claim wasn't "foreign residents", but "foreign-born citizens". My
> money is on bond-fide immigrants to who came to Luxembourg to work and
> needed citizenship to stay there.
Well, that sounds like as reasonable a guess as anything. There seems
to be little real reason to actually move to Luxembourg for tax
planning reasons, let alone for tax evasion.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
Thomas Lindgren
> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 20:28:43 +0000 schrieb Thomas Lindgren:
> > Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org> writes:
> >
> > D> Am Thu, 18 May 2006 15:59:31 +0000 schrieb James Nicoll:
> >> > OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> >> > nation appears to be foreign-born.
> >>
> >> Tax evaders, probably. /.../
> >
> > I've read about Germans crossing the border with suitcases full of
> > cash
>
> All of which is true, though things seem to improve with recent
> legislation.
>
> > (isn't it an amazing coincidence that Germany has tax havens next
> > door at nearly every point of the compass? :-) ...
>
> What would be the others? Switzerland is not really a tax haven as much
> as a laundering place for dirty money, and Liechtenstein doesn't border
> Germany. Are there other candidates?
I was thinking of neighbours in a somewhat broader sense of being
conveniently near, but don't forget Austria. Also, I don't think you
can just define away Switzerland :-)
> BTW, total taxation in Germany is rather low by international comparison.
I wouldn't say so. It's hovering near (a percentage point or so below) the
EU average; 38.7% vs 39.5% according to the following:
Of course, this is far lower than where I happen to live, and our political
leaders sagely point out that taking taxes down to the German level would be
our utter ruin, people dying in the streets, etc. But I digress.
> What's driving people's money out of the country is not as clear as many
> often put it.
Of course not. So why classify Luxembourg immigrants as tax evaders?
Wayne Throop
:: Utter nonsense.
: But the more worrisome contention, the basis for Kornbluth's story, is
: that the clear trend of the well-educated and intellectual persons to
: fail to reproduce their kind, that's seen all across "the western
: world". Everyone with the intelligence to understand the need for
: birth-control tends to be using it.
Yeah. That's the part that's pretty much nonsense.
: While we cannot suggest that genuis springs only from parents of
: above-normal intelligence, we certainly can point out that the
: intelligentsia aren't particularly known for having stupid kids, and
: the children of slightly-sub-par parents aren't particularly known for
: even finishing highschool.
People with exceptional acheivement *are* known, statistically, for
having children of lesser acheivement. And people of exceptional
non-acheivement are known, statisically, for having children of somewhat
greater acheivement. And since the supposed leaching of "genes for
intelligence" from the population, when expressed, has been a stereotype
for most of human existance, I don't see evidence that we've suddenly
turned a corner in that regard, or that it's in the top 20 concerns for
the next few hundred years.
: In the meantime, the one thing I don't think I _ever_ saw in SF -- too
: ridiculous to write, I'd guess -- we've been successfully invaded by
: Mexico.
And you think that's relevant to the "marching moron" context?
Hm. Interesting.
: Weren't you saying something about "ridiculous"? ;)
I don't find the term "ridiculous" in any article upthread from here.
Did I miss something?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
:: Utter nonsense.
: Don't watch much TV, do you?
I watch entirely too much TV. And arguably worse, I read and post to usenet.
However, I doubt that differential genetic success is a significant factor.
Never attribute to genetics what can adequately be explained by memetics.
Nyrath
> ::: Kornbluth's "the Marching Morons",
> :: Utter nonsense.
> : Don't watch much TV, do you?
>
> I watch entirely too much TV. And arguably worse, I read and post to usenet.
>
> However, I doubt that differential genetic success is a significant factor.
> Never attribute to genetics what can adequately be explained by memetics.
True.
However, with the Marching Morons, it seems to me
that the situation is close to being equally
hopeless whether or not the low IQ of the masses
is due to nature or nurture.
If it is nature (genetic), the only solution is
sterilization.
If it is nurture, the only solution is to
remove the masses children from their parents
and somehow manage to educate them into a
higher IQ. Somehow I think the masses
will object to this.
Wayne Throop
: If it is nurture, the only solution is to
: remove the masses children from their parents
: and somehow manage to educate them into a
: higher IQ. Somehow I think the masses
: will object to this.
I dunno. I suspect the 6 or more hours a day that children spend in school
nowdays could acutally be effective, if school was actually intended
to educate children, and all. And parents don't object to it now,
and exercize little oversight to the process. So actual education
*could* be snuck in.
In theory anyways. Yes, I know it seems implausible.
T Jr Hardman
> ::: Kornbluth's "the Marching Morons",
>
> :: Utter nonsense.
>
> : But the more worrisome contention, the basis for Kornbluth's story, is
> : that the clear trend of the well-educated and intellectual persons to
> : fail to reproduce their kind, that's seen all across "the western
> : world". Everyone with the intelligence to understand the need for
> : birth-control tends to be using it.
>
> Yeah. That's the part that's pretty much nonsense.
Really? In the USA, right around 1970, the native-born citizens reduced
their rate of reproduction to a level where we hit zero population
growth right around now. Remember, it was initially the elites who led
the trend, starting with college students, young adults, teens, etc.,
but mostly in the upper-middle classes, where people's incomes generally
reflected their academic achievements, which in an era of widespread
college scholarships and inexpensive tuition and inexpensive tuition
loans tended to reflect native intelligence and aptitude more than it
reflected class or hereditary wealth.
>
> : While we cannot suggest that genuis springs only from parents of
> : above-normal intelligence, we certainly can point out that the
> : intelligentsia aren't particularly known for having stupid kids, and
> : the children of slightly-sub-par parents aren't particularly known for
> : even finishing highschool.
>
> People with exceptional acheivement *are* known, statistically, for
> having children of lesser acheivement.
I take it that you mean that geniuses don't generally have children of
the same level of genius. True enough.
> And people of exceptional
> non-acheivement are known, statisically, for having children of somewhat
> greater acheivement.
Statistically, that almost goes without saying. People at the far
extremes are rather unlikely to have children at the same extremes, with
exceptions perhaps for people whose dysfunction is clearly due to
genetic and heritable disorder.
> And since the supposed leaching of "genes for
> intelligence" from the population, when expressed, has been a stereotype
> for most of human existance,
I don't think that statement is supportable, as written.
> I don't see evidence that we've suddenly
> turned a corner in that regard, or that it's in the top 20 concerns for
> the next few hundred years.
Perhaps, then, you can explain the H-1B program in which industry makes
desperate claims that they can't find enough American citizen
intelligentsia to do the specialized work they need done?
> : In the meantime, the one thing I don't think I _ever_ saw in SF -- too
> : ridiculous to write, I'd guess -- we've been successfully invaded by
> : Mexico.
>
> And you think that's relevant to the "marching moron" context?
> Hm. Interesting.
What's interesting is that you seem to think I think that is to what
it's relevant.
What that's relevant to is that all of the people writing stories about
the collapse of Western Civilization never thought that it would simply
slide downhill until even _Mexico_ could successfully invade.
> : Weren't you saying something about "ridiculous"? ;)
>
> I don't find the term "ridiculous" in any article upthread from here.
> Did I miss something?
You seem to have misplaced your thesaurus.
Wayne Throop
: Perhaps, then, you can explain the H-1B program in which industry makes
: intelligentsia to do the specialized work they need done?
Certainly. Faulty memes, not faulty genes.
: What that's relevant to is that all of the people writing stories
: about the collapse of Western Civilization never thought that it would
: simply slide downhill until even _Mexico_ could successfully invade.
How about Cuba? Red Dawn. And scenarios with various elements of
central or south americans gaining ascendancy are not unknown;
futures with esperanto-like spanish languages take over english,
and the seat of industry moves to Brazil or wherever, as the
northamericans get lazy. Sometimes these are acompanied with
some calamity, like war or whatnot, but not always.
John F. Eldredge
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 May 2006 07:44:21 -0500, mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael
>Stemper) wrote:
>
>A LOT of "illegals" aren't here to immigrate.
The pattern of some people immigrating to stay, and others doing so on
an intended short-term basis in order to build up savings and/or send
money back home, and planning to eventually return to their homelands,
goes back at least to the early 19th century, and probably earlier
than that. A lot of the people who intended to be here for only a few
years ended up becoming permanent residents.
One difference between the immigration laws now and those of a century
ago is that it is considerably harder now for a working-class, as
opposed to professional, person to emigrate legally to the USA.
However, the working-class people, then and now, make up a majority of
those wishing to immigrate. Someone who is well-off in their homeland
has less incentive to go to the difficulty and expense of moving to
another country.
Given the historical record that such immigrants have been a major
benefit to American society, economically and otherwise, I think the
current laws are short-sighted.
There has been a lot of fuss about how the first-generation immigrants
continue to speak mostly their native languages. The general pattern,
among both Hispanic and non-Hispanic immigrants, is that persons who
immigrate as adults, and haven't already learned English before
immigrating, tend to have a hard time becoming fluent in English.
Those who immigrate as children, or who are born in the USA to
immigrant parents, tend to be fluent in both languages. By the third
generation, English has become the primary (and in some cases, the
only) language spoken. Large numbers of German immigrants came to
America after the Hundred Years War in Europe, to the point that some
of the Founding Fathers discussed whether or not German should become
America's national language instead of English. Two hundred years
later, the percentage of Americans of German descent still outnumber
the Americans of British descent, yet nearly all of those persons of
German descent speak English.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<blockspam...@thomashardman.com> wrote:
>
>What that's relevant to is that all of the people writing stories about
>the collapse of Western Civilization never thought that it would simply
>slide downhill until even _Mexico_ could successfully invade.
And Mexico is a non-Western country, in your paranoid dreams? What
sort of culture do you imagine prevails there? Hindu? Buddhist?
David Loewe, Jr.
<jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 May 2006 08:49:22 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 07:44:21 -0500, mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael
>>Stemper) wrote:
>>
>>A LOT of "illegals" aren't here to immigrate.
>
>The pattern of some people immigrating to stay, and others doing so on
>an intended short-term basis in order to build up savings and/or send
>money back home, and planning to eventually return to their homelands,
>goes back at least to the early 19th century, and probably earlier
>than that. A lot of the people who intended to be here for only a few
>years ended up becoming permanent residents.
There's never been this large an influx of people who come from a
country so close where the cost of retirement is so cheap.
It more or less boils down to, why would you as a Mexican live here
when you can go *home* and live like a hidalgo on what you made up
here?
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it
commits suicide."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle
Mike Schilling
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:egnv62tnph780d5i1...@4ax.com...
>
> There's never been this large an influx of people who come from a
> country so close where the cost of retirement is so cheap.
>
> It more or less boils down to, why would you as a Mexican live here
> when you can go *home* and live like a hidalgo on what you made up
> here?
The same applies to people from India who came here on work visas. Anyone
with savings (or who's bought property) could move back there and live like
a rajah. And it does happen, but it's not the usual thing.
Keith Morrison
fingers and typed:
>> By definition, any colonization of the solar system is going
>>to consist of settler colonies. Although initially there will be no
>>indigenous populations, obviously once people settle, there will be.
>>We also know from nations like the US, Australia, Canada and France
>>that nations that have high % of incomers also have period backlashes
>>against said incomers. Logically, therefore, there should be examples
>>of this in SF about settlers.
>>
>> The first example to come to mind is the Mars trilogy by
>>Robinson, where the doughty Martians, having profited from the largess
>>of Earth, now object to waves of immigrants arriving to take advantage
>>of the Martian economy.
>>
>> The second is the Coyote trilogy, in which humans spoil everything
>>that they touch. When the colonists are recontacted by Earth, they have
>>to decide whether or not they will accept wave after wave of colonists,
>>with the first such wave not optimised to encourage acceptance.
>
>I believe Asimov got a great deal of volume and mileage out of Spacers
>and the Spacer worlds in this fashion. Some of it wasn't up front and
>center, but it was of critical importance to the settings.
Weber's Kingdom of Manticore. The original colonists became the
aristocracy and nobility in order to retain disproportionate control over
their society when they realized they'd be swamped by the wave of
immigrants they needed to make their civilization viable.
--
Keith
r.r...@thevine.net
<jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>Large numbers of German immigrants came to
>America after the Hundred Years War in Europe, to the point that some
>of the Founding Fathers discussed whether or not German should become
>America's national language instead of English. Two hundred years
>later, the percentage of Americans of German descent still outnumber
>the Americans of British descent, yet nearly all of those persons of
>German descent speak English.
As a point of fact, my grandmother spent part of her youth in a
Chicago orphanage. Where the predominant language was German. Which
my grandmother had to learn from the Irish nuns who ran the orphanage,
so she learned a very odd accent. So it's not that long ago that
German was still a major language in the US. And, to support both
sides of the debate, by the time I was taking German in school,
grandma had forgotten all the German she ever learned.
Rebecca
Matthias Warkus
> Really? In the USA, right around 1970, the native-born citizens reduced
> their rate of reproduction to a level where we hit zero population
> growth right around now.
And with non-"native-born citizens" consistently outperforming
"native-born citizens" academically, I don't see how this relates to
intelligence or education.
mawa
Matthias Warkus
> And it wouldn't even be bad if we'd actually get something out of
> these raises. Frankly, I don't consider "paying intersts on debt" a
> worthwhile economic endeavour.
Yeah. We should just stop serving our national debt, that would do wonders
to our international reputation.
mawa
Peter Bruells
> Am Sat, 20 May 2006 12:40:12 +0200 schrieb Peter Bruells:
> > And it wouldn't even be bad if we'd actually get something out of
> > these raises. Frankly, I don't consider "paying interests on debt" a
> > worthwhile economic endeavour.
>
> Yeah. We should just stop serving our national debt, that would do
> wonders to our international reputation.
Actually, you misunderstand. Paying interest is necessary, but it
creates exactly nothing. Oh, I forgot: It creates a good ranking, so
Germany can borrow even *more* money to spend. Doesn't help the
economy just one bit, while our schools get worse (and they weren't
exactly good when I went to school during the 80s) and our
infrastructure crumbles.
Heaven forbid that we should actually stop paying for coal or Kenyian
adventures which should be best left to Belgians.
David Loewe, Jr.
Lots of people in The Hill neighborhood of St. Louis speak Italian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hill_%28Saint_Louis%29
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
Kai Henningsen
What do you mean, "talk of"?! That's been actually happening for quite a
while. I seem to remember some debate because at least some places in
Germany didn't actually limit that to "EU citizens", notably including
Turks.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Peter Bruells
Oh yeah, I forgot that they can already vote on the communal
level. Not on the state level, though.
Carl Dershem
4ax.com:
> As a point of fact, my grandmother spent part of her youth in a
> Chicago orphanage. Where the predominant language was German. Which
> my grandmother had to learn from the Irish nuns who ran the orphanage,
> so she learned a very odd accent.
My 'ear' is having trouble hearing that accent, which is sad (I love
unusual dialects). Then again it could be worse - they could have been
Scots!
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Mike Schilling
"Peter Bruells" <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote in message
news:m2hd3j5...@rogue.ecce-terram.de...
> Matthias Warkus <mawa...@gnome.org> writes:
>
>> Am Sat, 20 May 2006 12:40:12 +0200 schrieb Peter Bruells:
>
>> > And it wouldn't even be bad if we'd actually get something out of
>> > these raises. Frankly, I don't consider "paying interests on debt" a
>> > worthwhile economic endeavour.
>>
>> Yeah. We should just stop serving our national debt, that would do
>> wonders to our international reputation.
>
> Actually, you misunderstand. Paying interest is necessary, but it
> creates exactly nothing. Oh, I forgot: It creates a good ranking, so
> Germany can borrow even *more* money to spend. Doesn't help the
> economy just one bit, while our schools get worse (and they weren't
> exactly good when I went to school during the 80s) and our
> infrastructure crumbles.
There was a theory that was popular among Republicans here that running up
the national debt was a good thing, because paying off interest would crowd
out other sorts of evulll government spending. I'm sure you're aware how
well that worked.
Mike Schilling
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9vv072l0pvqr01ah6...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:39:45 -0700, r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 May 2006 21:14:00 -0500, John F. Eldredge
>><jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Large numbers of German immigrants came to
>>>America after the Hundred Years War in Europe, to the point that some
>>>of the Founding Fathers discussed whether or not German should become
>>>America's national language instead of English. Two hundred years
>>>later, the percentage of Americans of German descent still outnumber
>>>the Americans of British descent, yet nearly all of those persons of
>>>German descent speak English.
>>
>>As a point of fact, my grandmother spent part of her youth in a
>>Chicago orphanage. Where the predominant language was German. Which
>>my grandmother had to learn from the Irish nuns who ran the orphanage,
>>so she learned a very odd accent. So it's not that long ago that
>>German was still a major language in the US. And, to support both
>>sides of the debate, by the time I was taking German in school,
>>grandma had forgotten all the German she ever learned.
>
> Lots of people in The Hill neighborhood of St. Louis speak Italian.
Does The Hill still produce ballplayers? (I'm thinking of Garagiola and
Berra, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been others.)
FED UP
>raise our population to 400 million ?
<Getting good people. Decency.
For the most part, we are getting the world's trash right now.
It's the nature of our political system that it thrives on idiocy and
ignorance....therefore it's
that which it embraces.
Highly educated europeans....they can't get in here.
The "ideal" immigrant today is an HIV infected, drug addicted,
uneducated Somalian criminal with an insatible libido.
The government loves them so much they've imported thousands of them
to live in my neighborhood.
If I thought going out into the street and began screaming would do
any good I would.
Mike Schilling
"FED UP" <endtr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148229424.8...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> And why the heck would anyone want the USA to increase immigration to
>>raise our population to 400 million ?
>
> <Getting good people. Decency.
>
> For the most part, we are getting the world's trash right now.
And they're all posting to Usenet!
Default User
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:39:45 -0700, r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 May 2006 21:14:00 -0500, John F. Eldredge
> ><jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Large numbers of German immigrants came to
> > > America after the Hundred Years War in Europe
> > As a point of fact, my grandmother spent part of her youth in a
> > Chicago orphanage. Where the predominant language was German.
> > Which my grandmother had to learn from the Irish nuns who ran the
> > orphanage, so she learned a very odd accent. So it's not that long
> > ago that German was still a major language in the US. And, to
> > support both sides of the debate, by the time I was taking German
> > in school, grandma had forgotten all the German she ever learned.
>
> Lots of people in The Hill neighborhood of St. Louis speak Italian.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hill_%28Saint_Louis%29
It should be noted that St. Louis also had a strong German immigration
as well. Much of what was said previously applied here too, there were
German-language newspapers and schools for a period of time. Settlement
tended to be more diffuse than with the Italians, although many of the
former congregated in the Baden area. As the Italian neighborhood has
retained much of its cohesiveness and character, we tend to thing of
the Italian immigration as being predominant, but the Germans actually
formed the largest group.
"Census figures of the 19th century reflect the steady influx of
Germans to the St. Louis area. From 1830 to 1850 the total population
of St. Louis grew from 7,000 to 77,860. By 1850 more than a quarter of
the city's population had been born in Germany, and by 1860 the number
of German-born people in the city had grown to 50,510 out of a total
population of 160,733. The Germans were the largest immigrant group to
settle in St. Louis."
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/Gazettes/GemanAmerStl.htm
The German immigrants were behind the St. Louis beer brewing tradition,
of course.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
David Loewe, Jr.
More soccer players than baseball players nowadays.
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
David Loewe, Jr.
I can think of a Billion reasons not to go back to India.
--
"I ain't ready for the altar but I do agree there's times
When a woman sure can be a friend of mine."
Gerry Beckley
Mike Schilling
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 04:28:29 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:egnv62tnph780d5i1...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> There's never been this large an influx of people who come from a
>>> country so close where the cost of retirement is so cheap.
>>>
>>> It more or less boils down to, why would you as a Mexican live here
>>> when you can go *home* and live like a hidalgo on what you made up
>>> here?
>>
>>The same applies to people from India who came here on work visas. Anyone
>>with savings (or who's bought property) could move back there and live
>>like
>>a rajah. And it does happen, but it's not the usual thing.
>>
> I can think of a Billion reasons not to go back to India.
One hundred million of them apply to Mexico.
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>Large numbers of German immigrants came to
>America after the Hundred Years War in Europe
ITYM the Thirty Years War (the Hundred etc ended in 1453).
Even then, is this accurate? Was there really a wave of German
immigration in the 1650s? That's pretty early for any en-masse
immigration to the Americas.
David Loewe, Jr.
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:l2a172dg8440me0qk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 May 2006 04:28:29 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:egnv62tnph780d5i1...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> There's never been this large an influx of people who come from a
>>>> country so close where the cost of retirement is so cheap.
>>>>
>>>> It more or less boils down to, why would you as a Mexican live here
>>>> when you can go *home* and live like a hidalgo on what you made up
>>>> here?
>>>
>>>The same applies to people from India who came here on work visas. Anyone
>>>with savings (or who's bought property) could move back there and live
>>>like
>>>a rajah. And it does happen, but it's not the usual thing.
>>>
>> I can think of a Billion reasons not to go back to India.
>
>One hundred million of them apply to Mexico.
>
The difference in scale actually means something in this instance.
--
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
to take it all away."
- Barry Goldwater
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
We like to say that St. Louis is a Spanish city with a French name
populated by Germans that features an Italian culture.
My own patrilineal ancestors came here to the area in the mid 1800s
from Germany.
--
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I
would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a
quiet place and kill him."
- Mark Twain
Roy Stilling
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
>> nation appears to be foreign-born.
>
>Luxembourg is very very small. I reckon that esp. during the economic
>rise after WW 2 they simply had to import people - as did Germany, of
>course, but there's a difference between 100.000 people immigrating
>into a nation of 400.000 or one of 60 million.
IIRC the figures for foreign-born in Luxembourg are skewed by the
presence of the European Court of Justice on its territory which
employs people from all over the EU. I think I read somewhere that
Luxembourg even has an opt-out from the rule that EU members have to
allow residents from other EU states the right to vote in local
elections as the proportion of non-Luxembourgoise residents is so
high.
Roy
Peter Bruells
> Peter Bruells <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
>
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >> OK, fair enough, but what about Luxembourg? A third of that
> >> nation appears to be foreign-born.
> >
> >Luxembourg is very very small. I reckon that esp. during the economic
> >rise after WW 2 they simply had to import people - as did Germany, of
> >course, but there's a difference between 100.000 people immigrating
> >into a nation of 400.000 or one of 60 million.
>
> IIRC the figures for foreign-born in Luxembourg are skewed by the
> presence of the European Court of Justice on its territory which
> employs people from all over the EU.
W are talking "foreign born citizens", not "foreign born residents"
> I think I read somewhere that Luxembourg even has an opt-out from
> the rule that EU members have to allow residents from other EU
> states the right to vote in local elections as the proportion of
> non-Luxembourgoise residents is so high.
Possible. But these people wouldn't get counted as foreign-born
citizens" which were the numbers James dug up.
Default User
> We like to say that St. Louis is a Spanish city with a French name
> populated by Germans that features an Italian culture.
Pretty good summation.
Nicholas Waller
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> Peter Bruells <p...@ecce-terram.de> writes:
>
> > The claim wasn't "foreign residents", but "foreign-born citizens". My
> > money is on bond-fide immigrants to who came to Luxembourg to work and
> > needed citizenship to stay there.
>
> Well, that sounds like as reasonable a guess as anything. There seems
> to be little real reason to actually move to Luxembourg for tax
> planning reasons, let alone for tax evasion.
When I spent some months in Luxembourg 10 years ago there was a
sizeable Italian presence, and I seem to remember they had come to work
in the steel industry after the war.
--
Nick
Nicholas Waller
Graphic Queen quoted T Roosevelt:
>
> "There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something > else also, isn't an American at all."
I knew someone born and raised in the USA who, by dint of having an
English mother and Swiss father, managed to collect all three
passports.
(ObSF/Tolkien) "But no man was she! You look upon a woman, Christina am
she!"
--
Nick
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>It isn't high for European standards, but it is still a significant
>raise, that what makes the claim funny.
>
>And it wouldn't even be bad if we'd actually get something out of
>these raises. Frankly, I don't consider "paying intersts on debt" a
>worthwhile economic endeavour.
Unfortunately, "paying interest on a debt" causes those who raise the
taxes to be punished, instead of those who raise the debt, who are
usually gone.
Howard Brazee
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There was a theory that was popular among Republicans here that running up
>the national debt was a good thing, because paying off interest would crowd
>out other sorts of evulll government spending. I'm sure you're aware how
>well that worked.
Democrats had a similar theory. What the theories had in common is
that they were believed only when the party was in power. Those out
of power are for fiscal responsibility. Those in power are for
spending money they don't have.