Dispatches from the Culture Wars

2

What in the world is a "beaner"?

Posted by: JuliaL | July 2, 2009 11:13 AM

4

JuliaL, when I first saw Dr. Isis's article on the "Most Active" link list, I thought . o O ( Beaner? Somebody from Boston? ) but when I read the article I remembered the "bean-eater" epithet. (Which is not in common use where I live, despite it being heavily Hispanic...)

Posted by: Squiddhartha | July 2, 2009 11:30 AM

6

Heh, well that was excessive.

Posted by: Abby Normal | July 2, 2009 11:33 AM

8

Amazing. Having lived oveseas and experienced actual functional illiteracy--in addition to having almost no comprehension of the languages spoken, I was grateful to those individuals I encountered who were patient with me, and took the time to help me understand what needed to be done if there was a misunderstanding.

People like that asshole on the plane should be dropped in the middle of a foreign country in shit kickers and cowboy boots, and told if he can't figure out how to read the signs, he will be arrested for loitering and put in a jail where if you don't have relatives or friends, no one feeds you.

The level of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia in this country never cease to amaze me.

Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | July 2, 2009 11:41 AM

10

So the idiot on the plane thinks anyone who even travels to the US should learn English first? In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny - "what a maroon".

Posted by: Taz | July 2, 2009 11:47 AM

12

I love beans. And cowboy hats. And cowboy boots. And cows. And Argentinians-- it's apparently a beautiful country, would love to travel there some day. Too bad my Spanish is pathetic.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 2, 2009 1:34 PM

14

Thanks for the Doug Stanhope clip, too....it kind of bothers me how he slurs his words, but he hits on some points perfectly. If you don't want some immigrant taking your job, then be better at your job than the immigrant-- just like if you don't want Joe Schmoe down the street taking your job, then be better at your job than Joe Schmoe! Seems like a pretty basic concept. I'm continually baffled by people who grow up with certain privileges, and then rage and scream when other people want the same privileges they've always taken for granted. Sorry, the lord did not specifically make you American/white/straight/Christian because he liked you more than other people.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 2, 2009 2:20 PM

16

Sastra, that coffee chain you reference is actually based in Michigan - home of the infamous Ed. They called the company "Beaners" after coffee beans but as they expanded south, some folks mentioned the potentially offensive connotation to the name.

In any case, Dr. Isis is fabulous and the shoes? Hella cute, no matter what Mr. Bowling Shirt says.

JPowers155

Posted by: JPowers155 | July 2, 2009 4:28 PM

18

My daughter recently moved to Charleston, SC

Wow. Small world.

I still remember . . . going out for a meal at "Sambo's."

Me too.

Thanks for all the definitions of "beaner." This is a very educational blog.

Posted by: JuliaL | July 2, 2009 6:48 PM

20

Seeing Eye Chick - I initially read your post as "Shit knickers and a cowboy hat". I don't know what shit knickers are but it sounds like a pretty cruel punishment. Cruel but fair.

Posted by: Joseph Hewitt | July 2, 2009 7:59 PM

22

As far as I am aware, the US does not have a national language. So anyone speaking any language should be welcome there if my logic is correct - I realise many people do not understand logic however, English is truly their only language.

Been a while since I last checked though.

Posted by: Katherine | July 2, 2009 8:05 PM

24

Okay, JThompson, then in that case my decision would be to stay the hell away from those employers over raging against immigrants.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 2, 2009 11:36 PM

26

"Okay, JThompson, then in that case my decision would be to stay the hell away from those employers over raging against immigrants."

If I may jump in...pray tell, how do you do this when you live in an area where this kind of activity is ubiquitous or damn near it? For that matter, how does one go about becoming qualified for a higher paying job that requires technical expertise when all -- or very near all -- of the unskilled labor jobs are taken up by those under-paid immigrants? Generally it takes money to improve your qualifications in the job market (whether it be through college or job training) and that's rather difficult to do if you live in an area where the only unskilled jobs open to US citizens are token slots. And yes, this kind of thing does happen. In San Antonio it's not uncommon to see everything from construction to waiting restaurants taken up by immigrants (I've been in more than one restaurant where the servers knew no English whatsoever beyond 'Hello' 'thank you' and 'yes' or 'no'.). And as a general rule of thumb, the closer you get to the border, the worse the situation is.

"As far as I am aware, the US does not have a national language. So anyone speaking any language should be welcome there if my logic is correct - I realise many people do not understand logic however, English is truly their only language."

This is something of a disingenuous argument. Not having a national language does not mean that there is not a common tongue spoken in the US that is generally accepted as a way to facilitate communication. While that particular person strikes me as racist, it is NOT unreasonable, in general, to be frustrated by people who come to this country with the expectation of having the privilege of not learning the common tongue which is necessary to facilitate communication with others.

Posted by: Thomas M. | July 3, 2009 2:15 AM

28

Thomas M is absolutely right. And YES, contrary to that asshole Stanhope's riff, illegal immigrants do negatively impact my day-to-day living and my overall quality of life. People love illegal immigrants until they move into their neighborhood.

I've had to deal with a clerk from the local Sears who couldn't understand when I repeatedly told her I needed to return a dishwasher and order a different model. Finally I managed to communicate the fact that I needed to speak to someone who spoke ENGLISH.

I live in a housing development that got lots of illegals moving in during the housing boom (because, of course, you didn't need to be a citizen to qualify for a mortgage in those days). And now my housing development is full of foreclosures, dragging the housing prices way down. Not to mention the guy two doors down had fourteen people living in a single-family townhouse and created a huge roach infestation that started to reach into other townhouses.

I'm on the housing board for my development. Try sending notices to fix things or requests to raise money for needed road repairs to people who can't understand them. But we can't translate our stuff into Spanish because then we potentially become liable for translating it into every possible language that anyone in the neighborhood speaks. One nearby housing board was sued by a Korean family for sending stuff out in Spanish and English but not Korean.

The local library is a hangout for illegal "day laborers" who piss outside and leave lots of trash. Not to mention it's uncomfortable to have to go into a library and pass a large assembly of strange men who leer at you as you go inside.

The key is to help Mexico improve its own rule of law and to stop the horrible corruption in that government that causes the abject poverty. Also, I think the US government screwed over the Mexican and Central American corn farmers with NAFTA. So no, it's not the illegals' fault for wanting to come to America for a better life. It's the US government's fault for not keeping them out and deporting the ones already here.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 3, 2009 10:32 AM

30

"It's the US government's fault for not keeping them out and deporting the ones already here."

Because such activities are so fitting for democratic peoples and also very easily accomplished. Yeah.

Hear that spinning? It's Emma Lazarus' corpse at 2000 rpm.

Posted by: jws | July 3, 2009 10:59 AM

32

The central problem with illegal immigration is that we are permitting the growth of an underclass that is easily exploited by the unscrupulous. Ignoring or avoiding such employers just allows the exploitation to continue, and yet, so far at least, reporting them seems to bring such few and light penalties that there it is little deterrent effect.

In our area, immigrants without documentation tend to get paid inhumanly low wages, in cash, which they keep at home (home being a small rental house with a dozen or more men squeezed into it). Wherever these immigrants congregate, the crime rate seems to go up, not because the immigrants commit more crime but because they are easy victims.

Last year an Hispanic man who lives nearby (with his wife and children) offered to do some basic yard work for me early on Saturday mornings before going off to his usual six-day-a-week job as a landscaping laborer. He said he'd bring a friend. I paid him $25 an hour to share with his friend for essentially unskilled work such as ripping out an overgrowth of vines.

I noticed that the friend, a very small man who spoke no English, worked with great energy and speed. When I asked the Hispanic neighbor to please give his friend my compliments on his good work, the neighbor replied, "That's because he wants me to keeping hiring him. He's illegal. I give him $10 an hour of what you pay us, and he works outdoors as a laborer ten hours a day all week for $3 an hour."

Yes, illegal immigration is a serious problem, and I think it needs to be tackled first by addressing the exploitation.

Posted by: JuliaL | July 3, 2009 11:35 AM

34

re comment 13 & 16

Beaners started in East Lansing MI with the name being in reference to coffee beans. However, they wanted to expand the chain outside of the region and discovered the potentially offensive nature of their name in other regions of the U.S. So, they changed the name to Biggby's. When I worked a block away from their location on Washington Square in downtown Lansing and would order a triple latte they would usually throw in the fourth shot of expresso for free!

http://www.biggby.com/BIGGBY_release_v2.pdf

Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | July 3, 2009 12:47 PM

36

You know, what strikes me about Stanhope's riff is how classist it is. He in his privileged world really can't conceive of what it's like to live as the working poor, seeing everything from his blinkered upper-middle-class viewpoint.

Oh sure, beat out the illegal immigrants who take lower wages by being the best box-hauler you can be. As if employers hiring low-skilled labor conduct interviews or look at resumes. Please, these people are LOW SKILLED, remember. A dime a dozen. The cheapest ones get the job, period.

Also, does he really think it's that easy to move from a low skilled occupation up to the middle class? A lot of low-skilled workers often have two jobs or more and are working paycheck to paycheck to support their families. What does Stanhope think they'll do, quit working and take out loans to go to college? As if that would help them find jobs. Even graduates of beauty school and vo-tech programs are having a hard time finding jobs in the recession and yet are still expected to pay back the loans they took out to go to school (which of course are not dischargeable in bankruptcy).

Would Stanhope tell some inner-city black kid from Detroit (where unemployment is 40%) that if he just tried harder he could find a good (implication: middle class) job? Does Stanhope think that lower-skilled people with no experience and education can just interview their way into jobs that require higher skill levels on the strength of their personality?

Sure, Stanhope can afford not to speak to his neighbor. He probably lives in an upper-middle-class neighborhood with free-standing houses. But if you live in a rowhouse/townhouse neighborhood or even an apartment complex in an area where crime is a factor, you need to know who your neighbors are so that you can all watch out for each other. I live in one such neighborhood.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 3, 2009 12:59 PM

38

Had enough time to wipe the foam from your mouth?

Posted by: jws | July 4, 2009 9:56 AM

40

The local library is a hangout for illegal "day laborers" who piss outside and leave lots of trash. Not to mention it's uncomfortable to have to go into a library and pass a large assembly of strange men who leer at you as you go inside.

This is thick over here. Really, really thick. Me thinks this is fodder for a blog post.....

And Ed, you know how much I love you. You are basically my blog crush.

XOXOXOX,
Isis

Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 5, 2009 9:55 PM

42

Some commentators here remind me of the guy who starved and mistreated his dogs, then was surprised and indignant when they turned around and bit him. - DJ

Posted by: DIngoJack | July 6, 2009 12:34 AM

44

After reading your comments on this thread and a few others I'm beginning to think that you wish only "good" hispanics would come to YOUR country.

You're absolutely right! I would prefer that Hispanics who at least have a minimal command of English and who are law-abiding and who preferably already have jobs lined up (or who are highly skilled) would come to this country.

I hope that someday the US adopts Canada's policy on immigrants: import primarily highly skilled ones with a command of English (Canada accepts only those with a proficiency in English or French). One quarter of Canada's population is now foreign born. Most of the new immigrants are Chinese and Indian and all are highly skilled (except for refugees). In fact, I would even support more refugee imports here in the US, but only if we stopped the flow of illegal immigrants first.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 9:18 AM

46

Seems like in some areas of the US the "common language" isn't English. So perhaps English shouldn't be the official language of the entire US, at least not on it's own.

Yes, because that's worked so well for Canada and Belgium.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 9:25 AM

48

Perhaps you should stick to having American as the principal language.

I support that!

DJ wrote:
Some commentators here remind me of the guy who starved and mistreated his dogs, then was surprised and indignant when they turned around and bit him.

Are you referring to me? I don't understand your comment, then, except to say that I haven't mistreated anyone.

Now, the US (via NAFTA), Mexican, and Latin American govts have done much to mistreat their people, which is creating the illegal immigration flood. I fully support the US helping these countries. What they need is a better and more stable insfrastructure for education and the rule of law, IMHO. Enforcing the legal system is what helped the Asian "tiger" countries to grow and prosper. Mexico and Latin America have terrible problems with corruption and yes, racism (indigenous indians poorly treated). If those could be fixed, somehow, then real progress could be made there.

Letting Mexico unload its poor people as illegal immigrants to the US is not a way to really help them. It's a great way to help the corrupt Mexican government, however! Oh, and the highest Mexican gov't officials are almost all white, btw. The rich whites there don't care much about the mestizos or Indians.

IMHO, most of the US aid to these countries should be in the form of microloans and grants to small business owners. Anything but putting it directly into the hands of corrupt politicians.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 10:22 AM

50

I take it back. It wasn't inelegantly worded, clearly it was incoherent.
I'm sure, Adrienne, that you, and people you know, are descendants of migrants (or migrants themselves). Each of us contributes to society (in our own ways) because we feel we are part of the society around us.
It wouldn't be hard to create a long list of those who came to America (or anywhere else*), some as migrants, some as refugees, some as economic migrants, some as slaves who managed to greatly benefit their adopted country directly and indirectly, in large ways and small, because they were given a chance to be part of, and contribute to, society.
I guess my thesis is that exclusion is a form of abuse; abuse breeds contempt toward the abuser(s).
I'm not sure that's any clearer, sorry. - DJ
___________
*Every time you use a USB2 think of my friend Alan Ng. He helped design it. His grandparents were political refugees from China.

Posted by: DIngoJack | July 6, 2009 11:15 AM

52

Statue of Liberty for the 21st century

Give me [on a temporary basis] your tired, your poor [healthy, skilled workers,]

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free [be part of a permanent underclass],

[Please keep the rest of] The wretched refuse of [on] your teeming shore.

[After eight years] Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, [back to their home country to apply for permanent residence.]

I lift my lamp [searchlight] beside the golden door! [370 miles of border fence!]

Posted by: Abby Normal | July 6, 2009 11:27 AM

54

LOL, Abby:

Give me [on a temporary basis] your tired, your poor [healthy, skilled workers,]

Actually, I fully support fast-tracking the highly skilled to citizenhood. I'd much rather see them "amnestied" than millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants.

But also limiting their amounts such that the labor market here can absorb them without hurting the highly skilled native born looking for jobs.

[Please keep the rest of] The wretched refuse of [on] your teeming shore.

Again, I support refugee immigration and the Diversity Visa lottery, which draws from many countries far worse off than Mexico.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 11:44 AM

56

Dear all,
Sorry, I'm gotta get some sleep. But please, I'd like to hear your thoughts & I'll think and write more tomorrow [or later tonight, depending on your global position ;} ]
Have a great day! - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 6, 2009 12:08 PM

58

These two bits (DingoJack's queries and Adrienne's replies):

DJ--"If a person lives in a country for 30 years, gets a job (no matter how shitty, low paid & unskilled it is), pays taxes (through indirect taxes say), buys goods and services, helps out others & etc. are they not citizens too? If you say to them all this can be yours, (and your children's), how many do you think will willing, and gladly, become great, productive citizens of such a wonderful country?"

A--"No, they should be sent back and can get into the queue to get here legally."

and

DJ--"If your Grandparents were denied entry (because of their lack of skills say) to the US do you think they would have tried to get in anyway?"

A--"Funny, there's goddess-knows-how-many Filipinos waiting to come to the US. Yet somehow they aren't swarming us illegally. Why is that? And no, I don't think they would have tried to get in anyway, if just for geographical reasons."

Ah, what the hell, this one, too.

DJ--"What do you think your family's life would have been like then?"

A--"Moot point, as we can't go back into the past, change it, and see how an alternate future develops. But I will tell you this, they were (to my great sadness) hired by union busters as scabs. So if their fortunes would have been worse by not being allowed to emigrate here legally, perhaps some starving unionworkers' families might have had a much better life had my relatives stayed home."

Tells me that you are someone who thinks that since you've got yours, the rest of the world can eat shit and die.

As for Mexico being a third world country. It is, according to the way countries were sorted out during the Cold War. Of course Mexican government officials and other public figures argue that Mexico is a developing country. The Phillipines are also listed as having been "third world". A quick google shows that about 40% of the populace of Mexico lives the poverty level and at least 30% of citizens of the Phillipines as well. Both of these statistics are based on their respective levels of what is considered adequate income. I didn't see Mexico's but the Phillipines, in 2006, was less that $1,400/annum. That both Mexico and the Phillipines have some world class resorts and some nicy, shiny government buildings cannot disguise the fact that large numbers of their citizens, particularly those who live in rural areas live in grinding poverty.

I think it's likely that if the Phillipine islands were as close to the U.S. as Mexico is (with a long, porous border) that there would be millions of their citizens doing exactly what the Mexicans and other Central Americans do, to try to get a piece of the "American Dream".

I have no idea about how your parents, or grandparents gained entry into the U.S., but until the late 1970's, there were not anything like the sort of immigration controls that exist today.

I also have no doubt that your mind is made up and not subject to change. Good for you, you got yours, fuck everybody else.

Posted by: democommie | July 6, 2009 1:40 PM

60

I think it's likely that if the Phillipine islands were as close to the U.S. as Mexico is (with a long, porous border) that there would be millions of their citizens doing exactly what the Mexicans and other Central Americans do, to try to get a piece of the "American Dream".

You might be right. But I was responding to DingoJack's question asking if my low-skilled grandparents hadn't been able to come here legally to work, wouldn't they have found some way to sneak in anyway? Since there are so many Filipinos wanting to come to the US, you'd think that despite the geographical issues, some number of the highly motivated among them would find a way to come here if they thought they could make it in and stay. But who knows?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 2:23 PM

62

Well, er, thank you, Raging Bee.

I was looking up the information from the bipartisan Immigration Reform Commission that Jordan was a part of. Interestingly enough, they recommended getting rid of the Diversity Visa lottery. And they also recommended lowering the number of legal immigrants (including refugees) overall.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 4:37 PM

64

Dingo Jack asked:
If a person lives in a country for 30 years, gets a job (no matter how shitty, low paid & unskilled it is), pays taxes (through indirect taxes say), buys goods and services, helps out others & etc. are they not citizens too?

No, DJ. If I break into your house, even if I clean it and renovate your bathroom for free, am I entitled to live in your house as well?

If they knowingly came here violating the law, then they have no right to complain about "exclusion".

If you say to them all this can be yours, (and your children's), how many do you think will willing, and gladly, become great, productive citizens of such a wonderful country?

Many of them already have children here already. And I'm sure that while some number of them would become great, productive citizens, etc., the fact is that the labor market can only support so many low-skilled workers. Right now, with the recession, many of the large illegal immigrant enclaves in southern California have ridiculously high unemployment rates. There's too many of them and not enough work. And this is bad for them and for US citizens as a whole, especially the native-born low-skilled workers.

Some poorer black neighborhoods in LA are now getting swamped with (mostly illegal) Hispanics, with deleterious effects on the long-term black residents. Some black parents in LA have complained that because their kids can't speak Spanish, they are basically excluded from participating in school activities because the majority of children in school speak Spanish monolingually. There's a lot of black-on-Hispanic and Hispanic-on-black gang violence now in LA too, as rival gangs vie for territory.

Exclude people, make them fear, make the dependant on criminals and then what will you get?

Why not work with them to help them demand more accountability from their own corrupt government? Why not help them feel, instead of political apathy, a greater sense of political participation in their own country? Why not work to make the third world country a better ("first world") place instead of importing large quantities of it here with all of the attendant problems that brings?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 6, 2009 7:40 PM

66

What's the difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant? The first one got luckier.

I really don't understand the visceral hatred of people who come in illegally--that is, hatred against those who already live exceptionally difficult lives, on top of which they didn't get lucky in the green-card lottery. Calling them "illegals," as though that's a sufficient defining term for them, is despicable.

I certainly look forward to the day when other countries are prosperous enough that people don't feel compelled to leave their families behind in search of better economic opportunities. But frankly, I can understand hiring them instead of American citizens, given how frankly spoiled about work many Americans are. I remember a very lousy summer job in college, in which the other young people I worked with decided that they wouldn't work too hard because they "weren't being paid enough." And my sister, who spent years working in Yellowstone as a housekeeping manager, has told me about the poor work ethic of so many of her employees who were citizens, while the kids they imported from Eastern Europe in the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall worked their asses off.

I hate to say it, but I see it among a large proportion of my students, too--a lousy work ethic combined with the assumption that somebody owes them something.

Nobody has an inherent right to a job--you have to outcompete others. And it's not just about how much you get paid, it's about your relative productivity. One of the reasons companies that outsource often change their minds is that they find out that the lower wages in developing countries don't always offset the lower labor costs. If you pay me $1.50 an hour, but I only produce $2 an hour worth of value, you're better off paying $10 an hour for someone who can produce $12 an hour worth of value.

It's not exactly fair to a small businessman (and since one of the comments focused on construction, let's note that most contractors are running very small businesses) to demand that s/he hire people who will produce less value while demanding higher pay.

In a nutshell, if you're an American who isn't a more relatively productive employee than an uneducated illegal immigrant, it might not be the immigrant who's your real enemy.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 6, 2009 10:20 PM

68

James Hanley @66:

What's the difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant? The first one got luckier.

Oh, and the latter broke the law by sneaking into the country illegally or overstaying a visa.

Calling them "illegals," as though that's a sufficient defining term for them, is despicable.

Yeah, you're right on that one. I will stick to "illegal immigrants".

But frankly, I can understand hiring them instead of American citizens, given how frankly spoiled about work many Americans are. I remember a very lousy summer job in college, in which the other young people I worked with decided that they wouldn't work too hard because they "weren't being paid enough.

Those stupid Americans, expecting first-world wages! The shame!

Nobody has an inherent right to a job--you have to outcompete others.

And nobody has a right to citizenship, especially if they knowingly came to a country illegally.

Native-born people shouldn't have to compete with illegal immigrants. A country should look out for the interests of its citizens first and foremost, not hurt their chances of finding employment by failing to keep out cheaper labor who will compete with them for jobs and lower their wages.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 6:29 AM

70

I really don't understand the visceral hatred of people who come in illegally--that is, hatred against those who already live exceptionally difficult lives, on top of which they didn't get lucky in the green-card lottery.

Maybe if they moved en masse into your community, created problems with gangs (necessitating the creation of an "anti-gang task force" by the local police), brought overcrowding, loitering, and littering, and made it hard for you to communicate in the same language with large numbers of your neighbors, you'd start to understand.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 6:38 AM

72

Adrienne:

You live in a housing development with lots of foreclosures, rundown properties and roach infestations. This is the fault of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who got mortgages from banks that they should not have been eligible for? Uh, you think maybe the bankers might be culpable-as well as the assholes in congress who gutted banking oversight legilation like Glass-Steagall?

Why do you suppose "illegal day laborers" piss outside? Is it because they are not allowed in the library or are they animals? If it's because they have no manners than the most expedient course would be to arrest a few of them for public urination or provide some outdoor toilet facilities.

You say you can't translate your housing boards documents into spanish? And you don't speak spanish, apparently. I don't know how large a community you live in, but if you've got enough "illegals immigrants", as you like to call them, in your area, there must be at least a few of them who speak passable english and can read same. Have you tried working with them instead of your stupid, lazy, filthy, unamerican neighbors?

Actually, I think you do "viscerally" hate those immigrants that you think are somehow "less" than your grandparents were when they came to this country. It's not a reasonable reaction, it's a "gut" reaction and one that you buttress with your facts, figures and complaints against certain members of the group.

You ask:

"Pssst- here's a question for you. How do large numbers of people coming into the US from *one* area of the world and speaking a single language (not the English language)--and one country in particular--make the US more "diverse"?"

Think Germans, Jews, Poles, Italians, Greeks, Russians, Armenicans, Serbs, Scandinavians, Vietnamese, Lao and Khmer (not an exhaustive list). Of course many of their children learned to speak english. In fact, quite a few of them have gone on to have children and grandchildren who are white enough, bright enough and speak the language well enough that they can get theirs and say, "I really, really don't HATE those ignorant, filthy, funny talking people; but none of THEM should be allowed in my country."

You can cherry pick and quotemine all of the sources you like. I'm quite sure that if one digs deep enough they can find quotes by someone else with a pedigree of liberalism, like Barbara Boxer whose stance on immigration (as characterized by your quote) is in diametrical opposition to Ms. Boxer's. Cesar Chavez was a great man but hardly a saint.

You say:

"And yes, I will admit I first became interested in this issue when I started being negatively affected by it directly. But the more I've researched it, the more I've come to realize how deleterious large scale illegal immigration is...to the environment, to the native-born poor, to the economy...the list goes on and on."

How, exactly, have undocumented immigrants affected your life? Please be specific. Speaking of environmental impacts; it appears that Mr. Bush's backyard fence is creating some horrific problems for various desert flora and fauna that had no idea that they were either mexican or U.S. residents.

IF we could get rid of all the "illegals" then who would do the scut work that is so frequently their lot in this life? Who will clean the toilets at the ballparks, pick up garbage, work at the McDonalds in the "bad neighborhoods, fight our wars--today's native born, white americans? How much do you think trash collection, Big Mac's and tickets for sporting events and concerts will cost if we simply get rid of all of the "illegals". Working for lower wages, paying lots of taxes (sales, mostly) and spending most of their income--because they really have no choice, undocumented workers represent a huge cash bump in the U.S. economy. IF they could be magically swept off the board, do you really think that nothing else would change, and change in ways that you might term as "adverse"?

When I worked in Boston, a local chain of coffee shop/cafes was staffed, almost exclusively by foreign born workers. Many of them were Guatemalan and Colombian. Most of them also worked as cleaners in the same high rises from which their clientele descended to get their bagels and coffee. They were unfailingly polite, generally quite cheerful and extremely industrious. I spoke to them (their english language skills were not always great but we managed) about their families and their living situations. They were so happy to be here, for the most part--and they seemed always happy to work on their language skills with me or others who took a moment to chat when their work permitted. One young man became a manager of another store in the chain and when he finished his shift, he would come to the store in my building, pick up his wife and then, together they would go and pick up their children who attended a private, catholic school. After that, they would go their second job, cleaning offices. Lazy, indifferent, uneducated or unkempt--they were none of those things.

You seem to view the people you think of as "illegal immigrants" as a horde of invaders. I prefer to focus on the individuals that I meet and interact with. You say that these people have an adverse impact on your life. That has not been my experience in about 95% of the encounters that I have had. I wish I could say the same for native born U.S. citizens.

I know you don't care what I think. Likewise, I don't really care what you think. Neither of us is ever going to convince the other that their position is reflective of anything except their own prejudicial thinking. My prejudice on the subject of immigrateion tends in the direction of inclusion, yours tends in the direction of exclusion.

Posted by: democommie | July 7, 2009 8:40 AM

74

Just a question. Does everyone agree that it is possible to be against illegal immigration but not anti-immigrant?

Posted by: Laen | July 7, 2009 8:51 AM

76

Anna wrote:
If anything, it is attitudes like yours that make me sick.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 9:21 AM

78

Ann @73:
You ignore that this country was built on the backs of immigrants. You ignore that immigrants coming in mass is commonplace in our history.

And you ignore that there was a 41-year pause in US immigration from 1924-1965. Unfortunately, it was motivated by racial/ethnic prejudice, but the reality is that it probably did help two groups--the Irish and the Italians--to assimilate faster into the mainstream than they otherwise would have.

You also ignore the reality that many of the prior waves of immigrants here actually went home. As many as 30% of those who came in via Ellis Island went home when they couldn't make a successful living here. So the US kept the best and most successful of the crop of immigrants.

My immigrant parents have always paid their share of taxes, have worked harder and contributed to our economy and community with their purchases and their skills more than many US born folks I know (myself included).

I'm glad they had skills and paid taxes. Do you know that the children of illegal immigrants use a disproportionate amount of social services? Paid for by tax dollars, of course.

You have to earn it and if you are not willing, immigration is a reminder that others are and it isn't the job of our government to protect some mythical "way of life".

Illegal immigrants don't "earn" their citizenship. It is the job of the government to protect the interests of its own citizens. Having millions of illegal immigrants coming here is not in the best interest of US citizens.

I mean, really, do you think that the US is not producing enough poor, illiterate, and low-skilled people on its own? Is that why you think the US needs to import millions more of them from other countries to keep the cycle of poverty and attendant social pathologies (teen pregnancy, no education, gangs, welfare use, etc.) going and even growing? Do you think there were too few unemployed, poverty-stricken, and illiterate people in South Central and East LA or in inner city Baltimore or Detroit?

And as I pointed out to Democommie earlier, if you support helping the impoverished, why not support immigration from other very poor and corrupt countries worldwide, many of which are much worse off than Mexico and Central America. At least that would add some true "diversity" to the illegal immigrant population.Why aren't you agitating for more immigrants from Somalia, Chad, Mali, Myanmar, and the Phillipines? Don't they deserve as much as the people of Mexico and Central America? Why are you discriminating against them?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 10:08 AM

80

Actually, a majority of native-born Hispanics and even amnestied formerly illegal immigrants actually favor reducing immigration due to the competition they face from the fresh waves of illegal immigrants.

One LA Times story profiled a woman who was amnestied into citizenship in 1986 and moved her family from LA to Tennesse to find work....too much competition from illegal immigrants in LA for low-skilled work. She also wanted to get her children away from the gangs and to put them in an environment of mostly English speakers so that they would learn English as well as Spanish. Even the mom has become conversant in English.

Her strategy worked. She's making a good living and her kids are doing really well.

Her sister, back in LA, and her husband didn't take the amnesty and so are still illegal. Not only have they not learned English despite being here for over twenty years, their teenage children can only read English at the second-grade level.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 11:01 AM

82

Her tone is the same one I hear from KKKristians who love teen-age moms, but HATE their sinnin' ways.

So you can't prove she actually IS such a bigot, so you fall back on saying her "tone" is "the same" as the bigots. This sort of dodge is one reason our current immigration policy is so broken and schizophrenic. Liberals made the same mistake in the '80s: every time someone complained about crime, the liberals automaticallly called him a racist, then wondered why people didn't vote for them.

Either prove that the specific problems Adirenne spoke of aren't really problems, or admit she's not a bigot for talking about them.

The overwhelming %age of immigrants, documented or otherwise is, as a group, as law abiding, hard working (if not more so) and paying their fair share as any other group.

Are they really paying their fair share? Or are they paying MORE because they're unable to file tax returns and get refunds back, like I did when I had low-wage jobs?

For instance, "illegal" immigrants are accused of sucking up tax dollars in educational, food assistance, medical and other social welfare programs. They undoubtedly do so. OTOH, they perform jobs for which they are paid a fraction of what others are paid. The difference between their wages and the value of their product is given to those who employ them and, by extension, to you and me.

Like I said, they're an underclass who are being exploited. This is unfair, both to them, and to other immigrants who jump through all the legal hoops we set out for them; and contrary to our basic value of equal justice under law. If we're not going to kick them out, then we need to encourage them to get properly documented so they can live and work here as equals.

If the development that Adrienne lives in is near the U.S./Mexico border then there is a fair chance that her home was built by people who used "illegal" help and passed the savings on to her.

So now you're saying she may have benefitted (intentionally or not, knowingly or not) from an injustice, therefore she has no right to criticize the injustice? That's the standard response of reactionaries: "You got paid, therefore you have no right to criticize."

At this point we are all talking past each other, so, I think I'm pretty much done here.

Adrienne was trying to talk about specific problems in concrete terms. You're the one ignoring the specifics of what she said, and now you're the one giving up on dialogue.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2009 11:37 AM

84

Raging Bee:

This is really the last one, I think.

There is no dialogue between me and Adrienne. She puts up her "facts" and that's pretty much all she is interested in.

After telling DingoJack that anyone who comes her illegally should be sent back Adrienne offers this anecdote in a later post.

"One LA Times story profiled a woman who was amnestied into citizenship in 1986 and moved her family from LA to Tennesse to find work....too much competition from illegal immigrants in LA for low-skilled work. She also wanted to get her children away from the gangs and to put them in an environment of mostly English speakers so that they would learn English as well as Spanish. Even the mom has become conversant in English."

Is this woman from LA okay? Is it because she now speaka de english?

Adrienne says:

"And as I pointed out to Democommie earlier, if you support helping the impoverished, why not support immigration from other very poor and corrupt countries worldwide, many of which are much worse off than Mexico and Central America."

I don't think it was actually put to me that way, however, the problem with Mexican emigres is that they can WALK here, they don't have to swim or fly. You notice that very, very few canadians attempt to steal across our northern border and take low-paying jobs in Minot, ND--I'm guessing that's because the disparity between their lives and ours is not quite so stark as the difference between ours and the folks along our southern border.
Read her comments again, all of them.

"I mean, really, do you think that the US is not producing enough poor, illiterate, and low-skilled people on its own? Is that why you think the US needs to import millions more of them from other countries to keep the cycle of poverty and attendant social pathologies (teen pregnancy, no education, gangs, welfare use, etc.) going and even growing? Do you think there were too few unemployed, poverty-stricken, and illiterate people in South Central and East LA or in inner city Baltimore or Detroit?"

This is an argument against allowing people into this country? What a sad way to look at your fellow human being.

Adrienne says:

"I'd love to emigrate to Canada, for instance, because I think Canada is a much saner country overall than the US. But gosh darn, it's not easy to do that! I qualify under their point system, but I'd still have to either find a job first or have six months' worth of living expenses before they'd let me in legally."

This strikes me as complete b.s., but I can't know what's in her mind. Adrienne is unhappy here, because of immigrants who don't speak her language, etc.,. She doesn't want to move to a different city or state (say ND, for instance) but she would like to move to Canada. Canada has not one, but, two official languages. It has mandated, government provided healthcare--for everyone, regardless of their status, if they reside in Canada. It has, horrors, ethnic enclaves, including First People groups, who speak a bewildering array of dialects of a number of differerent
languages. Based on her comments about the unwashed multitudes that offend her, and impact her life on a daily basis, in this country I'd say she might not be thrilled to live in Canada.

This is Adrienne's comment at #77.

Laen @74 asked:
Just a question. Does everyone agree that it is possible to be against illegal immigration but not anti-immigrant

Apparently not. I've been called a xenophobe for opposing illegal immigration, even though I love the Indian, Chinese, and Korean people I work with and interact with in my community. Heck, I wish way more of them lived in my housing development! Curiously, we don't have a Korean youth gang problem or an Indian loitering problem or Vietnamese drunk driving problem or a Chinese house-overcrowding problem where I live either. We do have a "problem" of their kids being way overrepresented in the local gifted and talented schools and programs, though.

I guess I'm an "elitist xenophobe" for favoring high-skilled, English-speaking, and law-abiding legal immigrants. I actually rather like that label.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 9:27 AM

She loves the Korean, Indian and Chinese who she works and interacts with; in fact she wishes more of them would live in her development (hopefully displacing all of those filthy, ignorant, non-english speakers who live there now (the ones that haven't been foreclosed on, at any rate). This is because their kids are all bright, polite and don't do gang shit or live in overcrowded houses, loiter in public places (some of us white folks do that, too) get in trouble, or drive drunk. I don't know where Adrienne lives, but I've seen plenty of drunken chinese, vietnamese and other folks from various cultural and ethnic groups. No Korean gangs? Maybe not where Adrienne lives, but there are gangs in all major cities. No ethnic, religious or national group is without it's share of troublesome individuals. None. I'm guessing that if all of sudden the indian teens went all bollygangsta that Adrienne would soon enough be thinking admitting folks from Bangalore is a bad idea.

As for the "High tech visas", a study done a few years ago suggested that many indian emigres who came here on such visas stayed their alloted time because that is what they wanted to do. After working in a state of the art U.S. facility, on cutting edge projects they returned to their homes and opened up businesses to compete with those they had left. They set up factories in India to take manufacturing jobs away from U.S. workers. Nothing is a simple as it seems.

I'm also guessing from Adrienne's comment that she either works with no hispanics, or she doesn't like them. Apparently they aren't smart enough to get them HT jobs.

Read her comments, all of them, again. Make whatever you want of them. I see a person who is quite angry and not very tolerant of those she considers lesser beings.

You seem to have gotten the idea that I'm for unlimited, unregulated immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm in favor of finding something that works to keep things in balance. Adrienne only wants immigrants that she deems suitable to live in HER country, the problem is that it's our country, too.

Posted by: democommie | July 7, 2009 3:13 PM

86

Mack wrote:Its the language and tone, Adrienne. Your good ideas are drown out by your harsh over-generalizations.

First of all, one-half of me descends from Hispanics who thought as I do regarding illegal immigration and the importance of learning the common language here. My late Mexican grandmother voted Republican her whole life (much to my horror as I was growing up). I haven't even gone that far. She thought very little of other Hispanics who failed to learn English or be upwardly mobile.

Overgeneralizations my foot. This is what I have seen around me and lived through. I've had the roaches from the ridiculously littered and overcrowded house nearby enter into my kitchen. I'm stuck now with trying to canvass in my community for money for needed improvements and something like a quarter of the residents don't speak the same language I do well enough to have a conversation. I avoid certain parts of a nice nearby town even in daylight because it's well known among residents that it's full of MS-13 gang members who like to commit petty thefts (and worse, I'm sure). If I want to go to the library during the week, I have to pass a gauntlet of strange men staring at me. And I shouldn't have to. These people should not even be here. I didn't have to worry about gang violence in my area many years ago, because we didn't have white or black or Korean or Vietnamese gangs before MS-13.

This is what I've seen happen in the many years I've been a homeowner in one place. This is what started me rethinking my support of immigration overall and illegal immigrants in particular. And then I started reading. I started doing research on my own, pro and con.

I get very nervous when I hear about the high rates of teen pregnancy and high school dropouts among the lowest-skilled Latinos. That only perpetuates poverty and other problems (welfare dependency, gang membership). This doesn't portend well for any of us in this country. And that's not an overgeneralization, as this attests: www dot childtrends dot org/Files/HispanicRB.pdf.

And the really sad thing is that Hispanic teen birthrates had started to decline in the early 90s, but more illegal immigrants drove them up again.

If I think that teens having babies and dropping out of high school and drunk driving are bad things, then why should I welcome the people who not only break the law to get into this country, but who also do these bad things disproportionately often relative to their percentage of the population? I'm not crazy about legal immigrants who do these things disproportionately often either, I should add.

So this is what I've come to believe. If I sound angry, it's because I'm tired of getting painted as being "hateful" and racist and what have you by the people I disagree with. I'm none of those things. And because that's how I am..this is my online personality. I get intensely *into* arguments back and forth like this. It's pretty intellectually stimulating, actually.

As Raging Bee said, if the US decides we need them, then let them in. I'm opposed to yet another amnesty unless it really, truly, includes border enforcement and employer crackdowns this time. But we should do something.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 4:52 PM

88

This strikes me as complete b.s., but I can't know what's in her mind. Adrienne is unhappy here, because of immigrants who don't speak her language, etc...

No, she's unhappy for a variety of other reasons, all of which she stated in plain English, right here. There's no excuse for you to pretend you don't understand where she's coming from here.

And reading her posts, it's perfectly obvious she's not against immigration in general, nor is she against Hispanic immigrants; she's in favor of allowing educated immigrants to come here, and favoring them over uneducated immigrants, for pretty much the same common-sense reasons we want our own kids to be educated and not hang around with morons: educated people are more productive, have more opportunities to better themselves, set better examples for others, and are more likely to improve their communities as well. Yes, it's a great thing to give poor and uneducated people a chance, and no one here is against that general principle; but there's more such people in the world than we can take in, and we have other needs, and what's wrong with giving educated people a chance too? Besides, if we really want to give the poorest and least educated a chance, we'll need lots of educated people to help educate the uneducated.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2009 5:04 PM

90

I speak a *little* Spanish. I understand it far better than I speak it, though.

And the rest of your diatribe was bordering on racism.

In America today, racism is noticing that certain groups of people along ethnic lines, racial lines, or some combination of the two do certain things, good or bad, more than others.

Upper middle class Americans, especially white Americans, are supposed to pretend that, say, Asian teenagers tend to be super smart and hard working relative to just about everybody else (whites included). Or they can notice it, but not say it. We're supposed to say (and think) it's purely by accident that North Asian and Indian surnames disproportionately dominate the lists of those who win the Intel Science Talent Search and the National Spelling Bee and so on. We're not supposed to dare postulate that something like cultural work ethic or the relative value one culture places on education relative to other cultures factors in at all. Oh no, it's all by chance. Or we are supposed to chalk it up purely to affluence in their families. Of course, there are plenty of affluent white families too.

And of course we're not supposed to notice or say when certain groups of people do certain bad things--like say, join gangs--more than others.

I learned to leave all that sh*t behind.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 5:16 PM

92

No Dear, racism is assigning negative traits to a certain segment of the population because they are different. (Among other things)

You have bought into the MS13 hysteria. It amounts to nothing. Wanna see a gang? Go watch the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Dept. Now those guys are gangsters.

If you need some money, maybe you can ask a Jew, since, you know, they are all rich.

This isn't bringing out the best in me...apologies to our host. I'm following Demo's lead, and making my exit now. The last word is yours.

Posted by: Mack | July 7, 2009 5:27 PM

94

Cop-eating donuts. Now that's a funny image! Maybe I can find some "gang-eating donuts".

LOL.

No, meant, "donut-eating cops"

If you need some money, maybe you can ask a Jew, since, you know, they are all rich.

Another group that greatly values education and upward mobility. Worked pretty well for them, didn't it? Especially given how much they were discriminated against. There's a Jewish author who refers to Asians as "the new Jews".

And now that you mention it,I haven't heard of any problems with nearby Jewish gangs.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 7, 2009 5:34 PM

96

Laen wrote,

Just a question. Does everyone agree that it is possible to be against illegal immigration but not anti-immigrant?

Respectfully, while I must admit that it is logically possible, my experience is that it is an exceedingly rare combination, and the focus on illegal immigration is often a smokescreen for being anti-immigrant. Or rather, I should say, anti-non-white immigrant. While living in California, I new many people who assumed every brown-skinned person who didn't speak English fluently was illegal, while--particularly in San Francisco--ignoring the large numbers of illegal Irish immigrants.

Adrienne's rant against "people who can't English" (@44) have that same vibe. That's a shift from having an anti-illegal-immigrant focus to an anti-hispanic-immigrant focus. She also rants against uneducated hispanic immigrants. Given that there are a large number of poorly educated monolingual Latinos who emigrated to the U.S. legally, I think there's good reason to doubt whether Adrienne's being consistent in her claims.

Adrienne wrote,

I don't "viscerally hate" illegal immigrants.

Perhaps you don't. But despite your repetition of the words, your vehemence gives the impression that you do.

the latter broke the law by sneaking into the country illegally or overstaying a visa.

Yes, we've all heard this one, but for me it just doesn't pack much punch. "They broke the law by overstaying their visas" equates a lot more to "he smokes pot" than "he's a murderer and rapist." And "they crossed the border without visas" tells me they're so desperate to make a better life for their family that they'll undertake great risks to do so. I rather respect their initiative and drive. You claim we don't need more uneducated people--I claim we need people with that kind of initiative and willingness to take risks and work hard.

And your claim that you only want well-educated immigrants who can already speak the language and already have jobs lined up is pure gross snobbery. It's historically ignorant, in that historically the majority of immigration to the U.S. has been by the uneducated, and yet the U.S. has thrived on that immigrant pool. And it assumes that a person's education level is sufficient evidence as to whether they can be productive citizens or not. My father-in-law has less than a high-school education, but he's lived in the country longer than either you or I have, was repeatedly praised at his place of employment until he retired, and fathered 4 children, every single one of whom began working as a teenager and has been a productive and law-abiding citizen ever since. So I personally take offense at your snobbery and don't respect it at all.

As to all the arguments about gangs, I think there are two factors you overlook. 1) Lots of citizens join gangs, too; it's not predominantly an illegal immigrant phenomenon. 2) Maybe if our government, at the urging of people like you, didn't make life so damn difficult for illegal immigrants, their kids would be less likely to join gangs because they'd have better prospects.

Raging Bee wrote,

People like you make up charges of "hatred" and "racism" because you clearly just don't want to deal with the real issues being discussed.

Raging Bee, you know that's not true, and if you don't please re-read my comment @66 and explain what those paragraphs are about, if they're not about issues.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 7, 2009 7:31 PM

98

I don't hate Hispanicshomosexuals, or even illegal immigrantssodomists. I don't hate who they are, or what they are, but I do strongly oppose or dislike some of what they *do* and some of what they don't do (such as learn Englishstart nuclear families). I also dislike or oppose some of the changes that large numbers of them have brought to the area in which I live.

Maybe you object to the characterization because the things that homosexuals do don't bother you as much as a gauntlet of leering, piss-smelling brown guys at the library, or a bunch of slovenly brown guys living next door, or a bunch of brown high school dropouts joining gangs, or a bunch of brown 13-17 year olds getting pregnant, or a bunch of brown people disdaining education. The main objection to my characterization is that gangs tend to be significantly more violent than the general population, and homosexuals are not, AFAIK. But then again, I also don't have figures for the rates of citizens versus immigrants versus illegal immigrants joining gangs, so if you do, and they are controlled for affluence, please inform me.

Posted by: Shawn Smith | July 7, 2009 8:00 PM

100

Respectfully, while I must admit that it is logically possible, my experience is that it is an exceedingly rare combination, and the focus on illegal immigration is often a smokescreen for being anti-immigrant.

And people who have a certain opinion about certain subject all look alike to you? "Your experience" must not include people like me who think "rule of law" and "equal justice under law" are good ideas. The problems of illegal immigration largely arise, both from failure to observe the law, and our failure to honestly discuss and change the law.

Perhaps you don't. But despite your repetition of the words, your vehemence gives the impression that you do.

Translation: you have chosen to pay attention to Adrienne's words when they reinforce your prejudices, and ignore her words when they don't.

1) Lots of citizens join gangs, too; it's not predominantly an illegal immigrant phenomenon.

Adrienne never said it was. In fact, she explicitly acknowledged, at least once, that it isn't. Can you take a little time to respond to what she DID say, instead of what she DIDN'T say?

2) Maybe if our government, at the urging of people like you, didn't make life so damn difficult for illegal immigrants, their kids would be less likely to join gangs because they'd have better prospects.

Both she and I are advocating changes in our immigration policy for precisely that purpose: making life easier, or at least fairer, for ALL immigrants. We have both explicitly said this, and you have no excuse to pretend otherwise.

And yes, I read your Comment #66. When it comes to "sense of entitlement," American workers have NOTHING on their upper management, who have long considered themselves entitled to treat workers like slaves, shaft them on health insurance to cut costs, replace experienced workers with whoever will accept the lowest pay, expect long workdays and miracles, lie to their workers whenever it's convenient, dump whole towns full of workers (after assuring them everything was hunky-dory) to compensate for their own bad decisions, and then blame the same workers' bad habits for everything that goes wrong with their business plans. Workers follow where their bosses lead them; and bad work habits are usually the result of their bosses' leadership or lack thereof.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2009 11:18 PM

102

Neither Adrienne or you have convinced me that tougher immigration laws would solve or curtail any of the scenarios you put forth.

You're not actually addressing any of our points with any depth, so it's no surprise that you're not convinced by them. That's not our fault.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2009 9:07 AM

104

And "they crossed the border without visas" tells me they're so desperate to make a better life for their family that they'll undertake great risks to do so. I rather respect their initiative and drive.

Yeah, desperate people looking to make a decent living can take great risks to come to a more prosperous country -- but so can drug-runners, gangsters, fugitives from justice, lunatics, and al Qaeda operatives. Trouble is, if they came and enconsed themselves here with no prior vetting, then you have no clue who you're so blindly admiring here. Shouldn't we be taking active measures to make sure the people who come here really are worthy of the respect you offer them?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2009 9:44 AM

106

Oh darn, looks like I'm still getting sucked back into this one.

James Hanley @96:

Respectfully, while I must admit that it is logically possible, my experience is that it is an exceedingly rare combination, and the focus on illegal immigration is often a smokescreen for being anti-immigrant. Or rather, I should say, anti-non-white immigrant.

And this exactly how pro-illegal immigration people shout down completely and overwhelmingly legitimate concerns regarding or opposing immigration by using the "OMG RACIIIISSST" gambit. And everyone shuts up and cowers. Not me, baby. Remarkably similar to some of those who shout, "ANTISEMITE" at anyone who has legimiate criticism of the State of Israel and its policies towards the Palestinians.

Perhaps you don't. But despite your repetition of the words, your vehemence gives the impression that you do.

And golly gee, why might I feel vehement and tend to repeat myself on here? Maybe because I've been accused of being racist either by implication or explicitly over and over while my legitimate points have gone unanswered?

Yes, we've all heard this one, but for me it just doesn't pack much punch. "They broke the law by overstaying their visas" equates a lot more to "he smokes pot" than "he's a murderer and rapist." And "they crossed the border without visas" tells me they're so desperate to make a better life for their family that they'll undertake great risks to do so. I rather respect their initiative and drive. You claim we don't need more uneducated people--I claim we need people with that kind of initiative and willingness to take risks and work hard.

As if legal immigrants or native-born immigrants don't work hard? Some of my colleagues with H1B visas work DAMN hard too. I would rather see a 12 million of people like them "amnestied" rather than 12 million low-skilled illegal immigrants. Oh yeah, and they are "brown" too. And "yellow". And they speak English as well as many other languages.

And your claim that you only want well-educated immigrants who can already speak the language and already have jobs lined up is pure gross snobbery. It's historically ignorant, in that historically the majority of immigration to the U.S. has been by the uneducated, and yet the U.S. has thrived on that immigrant pool.

Yes, it is snobbery. It's elitist. And its the only policy that makes sense. I make no apologies for that. The US's immigration policy should target educated and highly skilled immigrants who speak English, just the way Canada's does. Educated people who speak English are not only poised to take advantage of opportunities here, including interactions with other English speakers, and they are far more likely 1) not to go on welfare (including their children) and 2) to share the values that we in the middle class think are good things: valuing education, valuing not driving drunk, valuing the environment, valuing gay rights.

I don't advocate keeping all poor people out. I support allowing refugees into the country--refugees from all over the world, mind you--as long as they don't swamp the native-born lower skilled people already here. Also, if the numbers of these enclaves are kept small, the more likely the people are to assimilate to those things we in the middle class value. Check out the stories of the Somali refugees in Minnesota. They are creating real problems there. One was a suicide bomber. The men don't respect women in authority, such as their children's female teachers. They practice genital mutilation of their girls. They go on welfare as soon as they get here.

And yet, I still think that it's good we took them in. They came from a terribly impoverished war-torn country. They probably will assimilate eventually. They are forced to interact with other Americans and to deal with people whose values are not theirs. They are learning English. But if we had taken in 12 million of them, I don't think that they would assimilate nearly as quickly, or at all. They'd most likely live in enclaves where they didn't have to interact with the majority population and see and experience other ways of life and values.

AIt's historically ignorant, in that historically the majority of immigration to the U.S. has been by the uneducated, and yet the U.S. has thrived on that immigrant pool.

Yes, and the US had a forty-year pause in immigration which allowed the poor and uneducated to assimilate and move up the ladder. And these poor people came from many different countries and regions in Europe, even though they were mostly European. How about this--we amnesty the 12 million illegal immigrants here and then impose a forty-year moratorium on all further US immigration. Sound good?

As to all the arguments about gangs, I think there are two factors you overlook. 1) Lots of citizens join gangs, too; it's not predominantly an illegal immigrant phenomenon.

Well, duh. I never said it was. But IN MY AREA, WHERE I LIVE, it *is* an illegal immigrant phenomenon. MS-13 is overwhelmingly made up of illegal immigrants. There were no gangs here before MS-13.

Your argument is dumb and fallaciously reasoned. It is roughly equivalent to this:

"Hey, I was just mugged. Every time I go out, someone tries to mug me. I don't like that so many muggers are targeting my neighborhood." "So what, there are muggers everywhere!"

Maybe if our government, at the urging of people like you, didn't make life so damn difficult for illegal immigrants, their kids would be less likely to join gangs because they'd have better prospects.

Maybe if our government did its job and kept them out in the first place, and started deporting the ones here and cracking down on the employers who hire them, they'd be even less likely to form and join gangs in the US because they wouldn't be here at all!

If my neighborhood and area were flooded by native-born people and legal immigrants who, say, believed women should be veiled at all times or are only good for having babies or who think that anyone voting for Obama is a pinko commie who should be shot, I wouldn't like that either. But at least people like that would have a legal right to be here. Illegal immigrants have NO RIGHT TO BE HERE. I shouldn't have to put up with gangs and drunk drivers and loiterers who have no right to be here in the first place.

Not to mention that large numbers of the Hispanic illegal immigrant population are really not helping themselves. No, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot and setting themselves up for more poverty by not valuing education (very high high-school dropout rates) and by having a high percentage of Latina teenagers having babies and becoming single mothers. They also have this very nasty tendency to drive drunk, because this is a good "macho" value in Mexican culture.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 8, 2009 10:31 AM

108

Anna @101:

Yeah I dealt with a daily barrage of hooting and whistling daily on route to school and the house across the street was home to three families at once - it did not hurt my way of life.

So you don't feel that being verbally sexually harassed and leered at didn't hurt your way of life. How nice for you. Some of us feel differently.

As for MS 13, they have moved into several countries and contrary to Adrienne's assessment that these people don't take care of their own probems, Honduras and Mexico have taken significant steps against them.

I never said any such thing. Having fun making strawmen?

This example is not one of the average immigrant legal or illegal, she is talking about a pretty organized crime group that should be dealt with under rule of law - and that isn't an immigration issue either.

When most of the members of MS-13 are illegal immigrants, then hell yes it is an immigration issue. It's a "failure to keep them out of the US" issue.

Democommie @97:

I still think you're a pissed off young woman who doesn't like folks she thinks are getting something for nothing.

It's not so much that they are getting something for nothing. It's more like "they are causing problems here, both locally and nationally, and they shouldn't be here at all in the first place."

And yeah, I'm pissed off, probably because it has affected me directly.

But then you choose not to address some of mine, the ones for which you don't have a pat answer.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but there aren't "pat" answers for everything (yes, on both sides of this issue).

You say you used to be a liberal? Was that until it became an exercise that cost you something?

Yes, and I've detailed exactly what it's "costing" me over and over, so I'm not going there again.

You KNOW this, or you think this

I know this. The local major paper has reported on this issue several times. I'm not going to link because I don't want to give out too much info on where exactly I live.

Not that it matters, you conflate scary anecdotes about "gangstas" into a problem that may or may not be entirely due to those filthy El Salvadorans.

Then the local journalists must be in on the racist xenophobic cabal too, because there have been several stories regarding what MS-13 is doing around here. Besides the theft and the drug running, they are actively recruiting at local schools, including elementary schools. Oh, and they like to hack their enemies up with machetes. Nice guys.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 8, 2009 11:04 AM

110

James Hanley wrote:
And your claim that you only want well-educated immigrants who can already speak the language and already have jobs lined up is pure gross snobbery. It's historically ignorant, in that historically the majority of immigration to the U.S. has been by the uneducated, and yet the U.S. has thrived on that immigrant pool.

And you know what? The U.S. is different now. It used to be that you could make a decent living wage at a low-skilled job doing logging or factory assembly or meatpacking or the like. You could still buy a house and raise a family and be middle-class even if you weren't well educated.

Those times are gone, and libertarians like yourself helped to end them.

The low-skilled jobs in the US are overwhelmingly in the service and construction sectors, IIRC. Well, you can't make a decent middle-class living working in the service sector, much less raise a family. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickled and Dimed
for her very eye opening account of her experience trying to do just this. I would imagine construction is the same, especially when illegal immigrant labor keeps driving the wages for construction workers down.

To keep on trucking as a "first world" country, the US needs far more educated and skilled people than it does people who are low-skilled, illiterate, and barely educated.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 8, 2009 12:27 PM

112

Adrienne -

If they want to fight so hard for what they can't have, then why in Hades are they not holding their own governments accountable for the terrible corruption there that causes so much poverty?

Besides the fact that they likely have no means to do so, or they probably wouldn't be coming here.....You brought up MS-13, I told you that other countries were dealing with them harshly (and that is why they keep moving) - the fact that we are providing a hospitable environment for them says more about our law enforcement, than immigration law and you call this a strawman? The criminals don't stay here without help and support. I don't buy that that reporting on issues caused by a violent group makes one a fellow xenophobe but linking MS-13 to an entire group of immigrants as you have does.

I grew up in LA county - I can name any handful of places where you could live. But it doesn't matter how many figures you throw out, they pale in comparison to those you are choosing to ignore. You have a clear problem with people from a particular culture and it is clear to everyone here except Raging Bee (he has the same problem you have in broadly generalizing groups - but that is a past debate) You are not just talking issues regarding immigration as you claim, if so, you wouldn't be getting such a vitriolic reaction. I'm done.

Posted by: Anna | July 8, 2009 2:40 PM

114

Adrienne,

As if legal immigrants or native-born immigrants don't work hard?

Lovely strawman.

the US had a forty-year pause in immigration which allowed the poor and uneducated to assimilate and move up the ladder.

You have a poor grasp of demographic processes if you think this is how it works. Families who come in normally begin working their way up the economic ladder generation by generation. It's not a stop and go process, whereby you let in a bunch, then close the gates so that group can move up, then let in a few more, etc. The fact that you seem to have such a weak grasp of the processes of assimilation and economic advancement doesn't bode well for the rest of your arguments.

The U.S. is different now. It used to be that you could make a decent living wage at a low-skilled job doing logging or factory assembly or meatpacking or the like. You could still buy a house and raise a family and be middle-class even if you weren't well educated. . Those times are gone, and libertarians like yourself helped to end them.

The fuck they are. That's complete Lou Dobbs-style bullshit. People have been proclaiming the end of the middle class for decades now, and it's never happened. I live in one of those blue-class neighborhoods, and that's exactly how my neighbors make a living, raise their families, buy their houses, buy their Harleys, etc.

And how it would be libertarians' fault if it is happening is all a bit mysterious, considering our miniscule effect on public policy in the U.S.

If they want to fight so hard for what they can't have, then why in Hades are they not holding their own governments accountable for the terrible corruption there that causes so much poverty?

Now you just sound like a serious lunative, wildly divorced from reality. Do you really think the Mexican government is real responsive to its citizens? The Haitian government? What you're asking is "why don't they perform a miracle instead of taking practical steps to improve their lives?"

You've aptly demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of American demographics and economic structure. Ergo, I conclude you don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to rant on.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 8, 2009 4:03 PM

116

Families who come in normally begin working their way up the economic ladder generation by generation. It's not a stop and go process, whereby you let in a bunch, then close the gates so that group can move up, then let in a few more, etc.

No, it's not a "stop and go process," and Adrienne idn't say it was. Whassamatter, Hanley, no comprenday the Ingles? What she said -- and what you once again ignored -- is that the more immigrants you admit in a given period, the harder it is for them to assimilate. And she gave an example of another bunch of immigrants -- Somalis in Minnesota -- assimilating successfully and thereby improving their own lives; and you ignored her example. Once again, you deliberately misrepresent her arguments; and once again, you use your own misrepresentations as an excuse to run away from issues you clearly don't want to address.

Quite frankly, IMHO this argument is pretty much over. Adrienne and I have made our points in plain and readable English; and for the most part, the other faction have misrepresented what we said and ignored the rest. All we can do now is repeat what we've already said for people who ignored it the first time; which is pointless since the first iteration is still up there for all to read, the central points unrefuted. And besides, both Hanley and Anna have indicated they're done.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2009 4:32 PM

118

Um, the affluent, well-educated ones do, maybe.

True, but as a group, they are affluent and well-educated.

Generalize much?

Generalizations can be very useful, yes.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 8, 2009 4:40 PM

120

Sorry, I couldn't let this go.

"Umm, the Russian czar wasn't responsive to his people either. Guess what happened?"

sez Adrienne, in response to thia:

""Now you just sound like a serious lunative, wildly divorced from reality. Do you really think the Mexican government is real responsive to its citizens? The Haitian government? What you're asking is "why don't they perform a miracle instead of taking practical steps to improve their lives?""

from James Hanley.

And everyone knows just how well the Russian Revolution and its aftermath worked out for the average russian (aside from the 20 million or so who were murdered, starved or killed in the two world wars), that was a hell of good deal for the peasants, kulaks, intelligentsia and various other groups.

The mexicans absolutely should do what the russians did; assasinate their rulers, start another civil war and then maybe let it bleed over into Texas, Arizon, New Mexico and California. That'll make everything jake, you betcha!

Posted by: democommie | July 8, 2009 10:06 PM

122

Democommie @120:

And everyone knows just how well the Russian Revolution and its aftermath worked out for the average russian (aside from the 20 million or so who were murdered, starved or killed in the two world wars), that was a hell of good deal for the peasants, kulaks, intelligentsia and various other groups.

Yeah, the Russian Revolution had some seriously bad effects. But not all of them were bad, especially at first. If the more moderate Mensheviks had been able to get and hold onto power, it probably would have helped the overall outcome greatly.

But some revolutions do work out. The French was a particularly bloody one for a while, but the ultimate result was positive. The US revolution worked out pretty well.

The mexicans absolutely should do what the russians did; assasinate their rulers, start another civil war and then maybe let it bleed over into Texas, Arizon, New Mexico and California. That'll make everything jake, you betcha!

You know, they wouldn't necessarily have to assassinate their rulers, but if your country's rulers are screwing you over in a major way, why not refuse to cooperate and revolt. At least it's a change. If you know the status quo is sucky for you and won't ever improve, then at least you know a revolution might actually lead to some long-term improvements.

Even Iran, Islamic theocracy that is, wasn't able to totally squelch the public dissatisfaction over the recent elections. It was clear that all of the protesting unnerved the government.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 7:22 PM