Dispatches from the Culture Wars

2

LOL!

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 10:35 AM

4

The key difference, though, is that the American assholes don't *stay* after spring break. They go there, behave like libertine assholes, and then leave. Not so for the vast majority of Mexicans who enter the US illegally.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 11:39 AM

6

@Adrienne
Indeed. The vast majority of Mexicans in America work their asses off 60-80 hours per week at shitty jobs that it's damn near impossible to get Americans to do. This is how those American assholes can have fast food and clean dishes and nice landscaping when they get home from Spring Break.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | July 19, 2009 11:52 AM

8

Oh. And they work hard to learn English, for the most part.

I worked in the restaurant business for years, and was always on friendly terms with the many Mexican immigrants that I worked with. Many of them come from situations of poverty and lack of opportunity that we as Americans really have no concept of. Almost categorically, the reason many immigrants don't speak English on arrival here is because they have not had the opportunity to learn in their home communities. Once they're here, though, they work very hard to become at least conversational in the language, and they seem to learn relatively quickly.

I think it's a completely unrealistic and insensitive expectation that people know something that they have never had the opportunity to learn.

My grandmother grew up speaking fluent German in addition to English, and HER grandparents never spoke a word of English at all. "Assimilation" into a country and culture is often not an instantaneous thing, but rather the work of a generation or two as younger generations have access to different and/or better educational opportunities.

We who are natural Americans now would do well to remember that our grandparents and great grandparents were not "assimilated." How is if fair that we judge our own ancestors so differently than we judge current immigrants?

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | July 19, 2009 12:23 PM

10

The last restaurant I worked at was paying line cooks $12-$14/hour. We couldn't keep an American employed in that position. Even with the recent spike in unemployment, applications at the restaurant were primarily for front-of-house positions as servers and bartenders.

No matter how bad the economy seems to get, I continue to see fast food restaurants hiring at $10/hour, even as the job market presumably gets worse.

I imagine that the "jobs Americans won't do" is often exaggerated, but I think it's AT LEAST as much an exaggeration that immigrants are coming to America and stealing high-paying American jobs.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | July 19, 2009 12:32 PM

12

And once again, by painting immigrants as people who refuse to learn any English, you display a bigotry that goes beyond your claim of only opposing illegal immigration.

OK, to be fair, I don't know the percentage of illegal or legal immigrants who do learn English vs. don't learn English. It could be that you are correct and that the vast majority of them do learn English.

BUT....many of my experiences with Latino immigrants (illegal and legal) in my area, where they are very plentiful, is that most do not know English. Whether they are trying to learn it, I have no idea. But I do know some who have been hired into jobs where they SHOULD know it and don't. For example, salesperson jobs in retail stores, even in fast food restaurants.

It's also nary impossible to communicate with a majority homeowners in your homeowners association when about 1/3 of them can't understand you. This is particularly bad when to authorize, say, a very needed raise in homeowners dues requires a 2/3 vote of all homeowners. Some of the adults have children who can speak English, but it's difficult to get a 7 year old to translate certain complicated concepts to their parents. Some of the families have been here several years--I know this because I have also been here several years--but the parents still don't speak any English at all. No progress over several years. Yes, this ticks me off.

You simply don't know what's actually in the many different individuals' minds, and you don't know how hard they may be trying to learn, but like all bigots you lump all the individuals into one easily classifiable group--assholes who demand that I communicate with them in their language.

You're right, not all of them (legal and illegal) fail to learn English. Some clearly don't learn, though, despite being here many years. What percentage they constitute, I don't know. In fact, I've never seen hard numbers on this topic at all.

The absolute worst is when non-English speakers have been hired into jobs where they should have English proficiency and don't. But then, the latter is the fault of the employer, not the employee.

You normally write quite sensibly on this blog, but on this issue you come across as nothing more than a good old-fashioned American bigot.

Of course, when you can't address the substance of many of my arguments (as you did in that last long bitter thread about immigration), the easiest thing to do is to dismiss your opponent by using the "bigot" label.

You sound like the Republicans who constantly complain about how the evil liberals are bigoted against Christianity.

OK, then, fine. I accept the label. I'm bigoted against many things, in fact: 1) Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Santeria, and other organized religions, especially those that suppress women's rights, 2) Sarah Palin and the people who worship her, 3) anti-abortionists, Christian reconstructionists, Religious Righters, 4) illegal immigration and its defenders/promoters, 5) global warming deniers, 6) multiculturalists, 7) homophobes ...I'm sure I could come up with a few more. But if being opposed to these things makes me a bigot, then so be it. I am proud to be bigoted against stupidity, religious mythologies and doctrine, and other things that make my world a worse place to live.

God forbid that all the children of immigrant parents acclimatize quite as fully as you have into traditional American values.

I think you meant "fail to acclimatize". And yes, that would be a tragedy and is a tragedy when they do fail to assimilate properly. And not just to "traditional" values. For example, is giving women full rights and having the expectation that women will put off childbearing until after high school a "traditional American value"? I'm not sure it is, but it is a value that most of America holds (more or less) and one that it is better if more people adopt.

My elderly grandmother, a lifelong Democratic party supporter, told me a tale whereby she showed a shocking lack of multicultural appreciation. She was standing in line at the grocery store when she saw a women in a full body burqua, complete with eye slits, in the store. She mumbled under her breath, "stupid bitch". The woman next to her in line mumbled, "My thoughts exactly!"

I think they were being a bit harsh on the woman--she's probably not in a position to throw off the burqua easily. But I appreciate the sentiment and I'm glad they think that a culture that doesn't force its women into burquas is better than one that does.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 1:08 PM

14

Bridget @10:
I imagine that the "jobs Americans won't do" is often exaggerated, but I think it's AT LEAST as much an exaggeration that immigrants are coming to America and stealing high-paying American jobs.

Yep, you're right. Undoubtedly there is exaggeration on both sides, just as there is also some truth on both sides. Imagine that--pundits exaggerating things!

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 1:21 PM

16

Inner-city Detroit has an unemployment rate of 40% for example.

What does that have to do with anything? Unemployment is high in Detroit because there are no jobs, not because illegal aliens are taking them.

Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2009 2:05 PM

18

Taz @16:

What does that have to do with anything? Unemployment is high in Detroit because there are no jobs, not because illegal aliens are taking them.

I know that's a bit simplistic, my point is though that there are unemployed low-skilled Americans who would probably do some of these jobs in a heartbeat that allegedly "Americans won't do."

Instead of importing migrant workers from Mexico, why not hire migrant workers from inner city Baltimore, Detroit, and Atlanta?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 2:09 PM

20

Longstreet63 @19:
At the risk of further exacerbateing this topic, I will note that it seems odd to me, who hangs around with Russian immigrants all the time, that the term 'illegal immigrant' is almost totally geared to hispanic immigrants, rather than, say, to European ones.

Because something like 80% of the illegal immigrants in the US come from Mexico and Central/Latin America.

But yes, there are illegal immigrants from other countries too, of course. The US has a significant pocket of Irish illegal immigrants. Not sure about the Russian contingent.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 2:18 PM

22

Because something like 80% of the illegal immigrants in the US come from Mexico and Central/Latin America.

Ah, so 20% of the problem isn't worth addressing.

The history of anyi-immigrant feeling tends to suggest that the targets at any given time are a bit faddish. Just now, it's Latinos. Earlier generations had Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
It just happens that, despite the fact that the criticisms are exactly the same in every case, the only time people pass laws to crack down on immigration that it's the non-whites that are being targeted.
Okay, and the Jews, probably.
Still, we're all past that now, of course.
It's just a coincidence.

Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 19, 2009 2:26 PM

24

Longstreet @63

Ah, so 20% of the problem isn't worth addressing.

Oh no, of course it is. I'm in favor of deporting and cracking down on the employers of illegal Irish immigrants, illegal Russian immigrants, and illegal Latino immigrants.

It's just that in my area, it's basically all Latino illegal immigrants (and gangs) , so that's what my direct experience is with. But I'm against illegal immigration from anywhere and everywhere.

Taz @21:
Because the employers are not willing to invest enough to do it right. They won't pay enough for these "migrants" to actually resettle in a decent manner. What you'd get is a reenactment of the dust bowl days. Poor blacks from the inner city making their way across country by hook or by crook to live in tent cities next to the crop fields. To go where when the season is over - back to the cities?

You're right. It would need massive help from the Fed to make it happen, including the Fed funding transportation. And it would require strict border control and crackdowns on American employer hiring cheaper migrant or illegal labor. But I still think it would ultimately be a better and fairer solution for the US people than relying on temporary or illegal Mexican migrant workers.

Maybe some of them would learn enough job skills and self-confidence to either stay or return to the inner cities and become middle class.

Taz @23:
Also, do you think the poor black migrants from the inner cities would be welcomed with open arms, unlike the illegals from Mexico?

Well, blacks entering the newly desegregated University of Alabama and white lunch counters in the South weren't welcomed with open arms either, right? And yet it was an unequivocally good thing that integration happened, and eventually most people came to embrace it as good and normal. Kinda like what is happening with attitudes towards gay people now.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 2:42 PM

26

I just saw this @15 (James Hanley):
The women either, as you says, isn't in a position to throw it off, or because of her beliefs she wants to wear it. Neither of those possibilities justifies calling her either stupid or a bitch.

I just noticed that little tidbit. Look, if a woman wants to wear a burqua because of her beliefs, then her beliefs are stupid. I'd go so far as to say that wanting to wear hijab in any form because it's immodest to have one's hair uncovered is stupid.

Those beliefs are just as stupid as believing the Earth is 6000 years old or that allowing gay marriage will lead to the destruction of hetero marriage.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 3:07 PM

28

" Look, if a woman wants to wear a burqua because of her beliefs, then her beliefs are stupid. I'd go so far as to say that wanting to wear hijab in any form because it's immodest to have one's hair uncovered is stupid.

Those beliefs are just as stupid as believing the Earth is 6000 years old or that allowing gay marriage will lead to the destruction of hetero marriage."

I think I'll leave it to someone else to get into the false equivalence of that claim. I'll just say it's xenophobic bullshit.

Posted by: democommie | July 19, 2009 3:42 PM

30

Nope. There was opposition in the US to the following immigrant groups: the Irish, the Italians, the Greeks, Eastern European immigrants from Poland, etc., and the Jews. All white, all not welcomed warmly. Lots of fear about Catholics immigrating and taking over the US for the Pope, etc.

Yes, there was opposition. You can always find someone who objects to someone else, even if they just got off the boat. No, there were not federal laws to prevent their immigration. That occurred only when Asian immigration was seen to be a problem.
Once the quota systems got into place, the quotas were arranged to disproportionately allow the immigration of certain nations over others, in accordance with the preferences of the time, naturally, and they changed with those preferences.
What they do not tend to change with is the prevalence of the sources of immigration. For example, I suspect that 80% of the available visas are not reserved for latino immigrants, though they represent 80% of the volume.
Again, no doubt coincidence.

Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 19, 2009 3:49 PM

32

That occurred only when Asian immigration was seen to be a problem.

Per Wikipedia and what I've read elsewhere, the immigration restrictions of 1924 had to do with Asian and Southern/Eastern European immigration. So yes, it was partly fueled by fear of "inferior" whites.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 3:58 PM

34

I have to agree with Adrienne regarding immigration. Let's revise the immigration laws and set the clock back to 1492 ... in other words, get the fuck out! ;o)

Seriously...

I know that's a bit simplistic, my point is though that there are unemployed low-skilled Americans who would probably do some of these jobs in a heartbeat that allegedly "Americans won't do."

The problem is, the Americans who could do these jobs wont do them for the money that the employers are willing or able to pay. In some cases this is flat out illegal, with employers paying below minimum wage. In other cases, with legal immigrants, it's a matter of native-born Americans not being willing to work for the low wages that immigrants are willing to accept. There is a long, LONG history of this. 150-175 years ago Adrienne would be bitching about Irish immigrants, then Italian, then Eastern European, or in the west, Chinese or Japanese.

The emphasis always seems to be to punish the immigrants (whether legal or illegal) but rarely, if ever, to recognize that the businesses are the ones who create the conflict. It benefits them to have a bunch of balkanized racial and ethnic groups hating each other's guts and refusing to compromise or work together.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 19, 2009 4:17 PM

36

You're right. It would need massive help from the Fed to make it happen, including the Fed funding transportation. And it would require strict border control and crackdowns on American employer hiring cheaper migrant or illegal labor. But I still think it would ultimately be a better and fairer solution for the US people than relying on temporary or illegal Mexican migrant workers.

Adrienne,

This wouldn't help as much as you think. The number fluctuates, but nearly half of the illegal immigrants in the United States arrived here legally with a VISA or legal border crossing permit and then stayed beyond their time limit. That same Pew study that you refer to for the "nearly 80% Hispanic" figure found that of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, 6 million of them entered legally and then overstayed.

You could build a 100' high wall with a moat filled with sharks with lasers on their heads and not eliminate half of the illegal immigrants.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 19, 2009 4:30 PM

38

Ack, last comment should have said, "if you're a union boss", not "if your a union boss".

dogmeatIB @36:
You could build a 100' high wall with a moat filled with sharks with lasers on their heads and not eliminate half of the illegal immigrants.

True, but removing the incentives for them to stay and levying stiff fines and penalties against those who hire them would encourage them to self-deport.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 5:47 PM

40

Yes, I oppose illegal immigration so I must be pro-genocide. Oh, except, that was a joke. Ha ha, you're quite unfunny, Mr. Hanley.

I have never ever advocated any sort of violent action against illegal immigrants or non-English speakers.

As to whether I responded substantively on the prior thread, there's really nothing polite that can be said in response to such a cheap lie.

And there's nothing polite that can be said about your implication that I want to see genocide committed against illegal immigrants.

It's the same old tired trick: paint those who oppose *illegal* immigration as being not only racists but also crypto Nazis.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 6:58 PM

42

And are you arguing that poor unemployed blacks from Detroit wouldn't want to work these jobs if given the chance and suitable opportunity (like, transportation to and from)?

It would be a lot more than just transportation if you're talking about migrant jobs. Most of them aren't close enough to the cities you mentioned to allow the workers to go home at night. So we're talking lodging, food, health care, etc. Basically, full-blown migrant camps with decent conditions. It could work, but it would take a massive government outlay.

Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2009 7:53 PM

44

Adrienne, I think there is a lot more to illegal immigration (particularly from Mexico) that you are not considering.

My brother-in-law was an illegal immigrant from Mexico. He eventually married my sister and is now legal, but I have never in my life seen someone work so hard to integrate. He has about a 7th grade education and has struggled for years to become proficient at English. It's not that he didn't want to learn, it's just that it took him many years to get there. Why would you knock someone for this? Just because a person isn't speaking at the level you think they should does not mean that they don't want to or never will. In fact, if you are nice to them and make conversation in English seem like it might be worth the trouble, maybe they'll be more motivated to learn.

I certainly don't doubt that assholes exist and that they could come from anywhere and emigrate to the US, but your assumptions about other people are not exactly the most generous either. And who knows- maybe when faced with people who are assholes about their English they just decide they'd rather just speak their own language.

I also have a legal immigrant in-law from Portugal who is the complete opposite. She more or less gets by living in an insular Portuguese community that she doesn't leave very often. I think that's sad, but I don't think she's a bad person because of it. Particularly because I understand that it's largely motivated by fear and lack of self-confidence.

That's not necessarily the case for an illegal immigrant who wants to pass, though, so I'd be careful of beating the "speak English" drum too much.

Aside from all that, I hope you'll consider the part that the American and Mexican governments play in making the problem worse. I use Mexico as an example because I'm familiar with it. Obviously not every immigrant, even those from Mexico, are going to have this problem. But a lot of them do and I think it's worth considering.

Would you care to make a guess how much my sister and her husband had to pay in bribes to get his VISA? I'll give you a hint: it's more than I make in a month and I make about 35K a year, give or take. At that, it's probably more than the average Mexican makes in a year. And there's no guarantee that you'll even get the VISA. This is just to get people to file the god damned paperwork. Why bother gambling that kind of money on a freaking lottery when your chances are better, even if incredibly risky, just sneaking through?

Can you think of any reason why Mexican government officials might be so corrupt? I mean any reason besides "because they suck"? Can you think of any contributing factors that might be relevant?

And do you seriously think calling a woman a "stupid bitch" is the best way to motivate her to integrate? Why the hell would she want to after being humiliated by people in the community she's supposed to "want" to be a part of? So she could earn the respect of random nasty old hags at the grocery store Jesus christ, Adrienne, I am no fan of the burka, but that was just out of line. As big of a mouth as I have, and as prone as it is to foul language, that would have embarrassed even me.

Posted by: Leni | July 19, 2009 8:43 PM

46

Leni @44:
I hope you'll consider the part that the American and Mexican governments play in making the problem worse....Would you care to make a guess how much my sister and her husband had to pay in bribes to get his VISA?...Why bother gambling that kind of money on a freaking lottery when your chances are better, even if incredibly risky, just sneaking through?

Hey, I totally agree. The US should be putting pressure on Mexico to be less corrupt and to treat its own people better. The Mexican government isn't stupid. They are actively encouraging their poor to sneak into the US. That way they don't have to deal with them or address their own internal corruption. And the US businesses get all that super cheap labor.

I know, it's a scam. Both governments should be ashamed of themselves.

The best thing the US could do for Mexico is 1) decriminalize marijuana and 2) help/put pressure on/work with Mexico to get rid of its culture of corruption, including the widespread acceptance of it. I think NAFTA majorly screwed over Mexican corn farmers too, so maybe addressing that issue would be a big help to Mexico. We could also institute a wide ranging microloan program to put money directly in the hands of small Mexican business owners rather than corrupt government officials.

Can you think of any reason why Mexican government officials might be so corrupt? I mean any reason besides "because they suck"? Can you think of any contributing factors that might be relevant?

It's a cultural thing. How it started is a chicken-and-egg question. People expect and tolerate corruption because corruption is so historically entrenched that people take for granted that having a corrupt government is just "the way it is". And of course, getting up a rung and starting to benefit from corruption yourself only makes perfect sense too, if that's the only real way to get ahead.

There's also strong racial stratification in Mexico. Most of the wealthy and ultra corrupt governmental and business leaders in Mexico are white or middle-Eastern, and they don't particularly care about the welfare of the mestizos and especially of the indigenous Indians (who sometimes don't even speak Spanish).

It might even have to do with religious roots, though how exactly I'm not sure. Someone made a comment on another blog I read recently that the states in the US union with the most strongly Catholic roots are also the most corrupt at the state government level. He was thinking especially of Louisiana and California. Maybe there was an advantage to having much of one's legal system constructed by Protestants from sects that had loose organizational structures rather than Catholics belonging to a very hierarchical church with all of its attendant nepotism and corruption.

And do you seriously think calling a woman a "stupid bitch" is the best way to motivate her to integrate? Why the hell would she want to after being humiliated by people in the community she's supposed to "want" to be a part of? So she could earn the respect of random nasty old hags at the grocery store Jesus christ, Adrienne, I am no fan of the burka, but that was just out of line. As big of a mouth as I have, and as prone as it is to foul language, that would have embarrassed even me.

Whoa there, my grandmother mumbled a comment under her breath. That's all. And even I dislike the "bitch" part, although I think the "stupid" part is right.

Yes, had she gone up to the woman and said, "Stupid Bitch!" to her face, that would have been way, way, waaaaayyyy rude and out of line.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 19, 2009 9:17 PM

48

I was just down at the grocery store and got completely exasperated because the kid who was bagging my groceries spoke english so badly I couldn't even understand half of what he was saying. I don't know why they have to have employees like that kid; there are plenty of teens who would be willing to work for what he gets paid. I really think I'm going to have to write a letter to the head of the supermarket chain and tell him that I think it is disgraceful that they have such people, people who can't even speak proper english, working with the public. It's people like that kid that impact my life, severely each and every time I go into that store. Or maybe I'll just find another place to shop; there's gotta be some stores around where I live that don't employ people with Down's Syndrome./snark

Posted by: democommie | July 19, 2009 9:29 PM

50

Adrienne:

In the first place, it was snark. In the second place I don't give a shit if the kid speaks the dialect of a Kalahari bushman. He doesn't need to speak english to do his job, he's bagging fucking groceries.

I was at Lowe's about an hour and a half ago. There was a gentleman there whose english was very heavily accented and I could barely understand him, but I persevered and I think both of us learned something. Now, he was not an employee but, rather, a customer (probably oneathem HT visa guys)--again, it makes no difference to me what he does, where he lives or how unamerican he and his equally non-english-speaking-with-a-wonderful-mid-american-accent wife sound. We're all human beings and I don't have time to figure out which ones I should or should not interact with, unless they are being complete assholes.

I very much get that you don't like people, whom you feel are not good enough, to be in your country. Well, it's my country, too. You get one vote, just like I do, use yours to elect assholes like Tom Tancredo or others of his ilk who share your theories and beliefs about immigrants. I'll use my mine to elect people who share my theories and beliefs.

I have no problem with people, as long as they do what they're paid to do, live productive lives and don't seek to harm me or my country--whether I've had a chance to verify their citizenship or not. But, then, I give them the benefit of the doubt. You, quite obviously, don't.

Posted by: democommie | July 19, 2009 10:34 PM

52

Yes Adrienne, I'm sure we all remember how the gigantic central American immigration into inner-city Detroit in the mid 70's decimated the job market there. If you want to blame someone for that, blame Reagan, don't blame the people willing to work for what are, to a union worker, pitiful wages to make for themselves a better life.

And the "jobs no American will do" argument is not a bromide. How many migratory Anglos do you know who pick tomatoes for a living? How many who will tile and paint a house, by themselves, in a week? When a white contractor underbids another white contractor its competition, but when a latino does it, and can do it because he's willing to work his ass off, its somehow cheating. What you are saying is the same bs the English said about the Scots, the Scots about the Irish, the Irish about the Italians, and everyone about black Americans. They're willing to work harder, commit less crime, and get paid less than non-immigrants are, and for those reasons they get jobs. All these measures to keep them out do is further criminalize a boarder already dangerous because of our love of selling guns to drug runners so that we can buy their narcotics. As a Texan, I say let anyone come here who's willing to work, give em identification, and let them be on their way. You seem to think that boarders actually mean something, but to people down here all it is is a line on some map that cuts our cities in half.

Posted by: Julian | July 19, 2009 10:41 PM

54

Wow! I make one sarcastic remark about assimilation, and the floodgates of commentary open! Seems I touched a nerve somewhere.

I lived in Louisville, Kentucky, for nearly 25 years. When I first moved there, around 1983, the largest immigrant population were the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. They had a kind of "little asia" neighborhood in the South End where most of them had been placed by Catholic Charities or whatnot.

By the time, I left, it seemed (I have no data, so I could be talking out my ass right now) that the largest immigrant population was now Spanish speaking. Driving along Preston Highway, you could see restaurants, bars, groceries, car repair places, etc., catering to Spanish speaking folks. Businesses that formerly had everything in English now had bilingual signage. It was a gradual progression, and mirrored in many other communities nationally, I am sure.

The signs in Little Asia are still bilingual, too. There's a lot of older immigrants in both communities, and darn it all, learning a new language gets progressively harder the older you get. So the multilingual signage is a courtesy, and eliminates the possibility of misunderstandings.

My credit union was near Little Asia. It had multilingual placards by the teller windows inviting customers to call a phone number for free on-the-spot translation services. The languages offered were the ones most likely to be found in that part of the South End, including Arabic, Persian and a few African languages.

I bring up these anecdotes for a several reasons. First, learning a new languages, even when you are completely immersed in it, is really difficult above a certain age. (I am a middle-aged English speaker in the middle of China, so I speak from experience here.) Businesses and schools accommodating different languages is just good manners. Sure, it would be just dandy if everyone spoke and understood English, now, wouldn't it? But in the real world, they don't. Crossing the border into a new land does not automatically confer the ability to learn the local language, no matter one's willingness.

Likewise, new arrivals do not typically want to shed the customs, languages and traditions of their homeland. Three of my grandparents were Swedes, and they spoke broken English when they had to, and rapid fire Swedish with their fellow countrymen. They hung out with other Swedes, read Swedish newspapers, listened to Swedish music. Their children (my parents), on the other hand, were born in the USA, went to school and learned English. But my folks still kept some Swedish customs, though they never learned the language.

As another commenter pointed out, it takes a few generations for any immigrant group to assimilate (whatever the fuck that means in a pluralistic country). Many want to remember their roots and instill their culture in their soon-to-be Americanized children. Some may also want to learn English, just to make their lives easier, but for another difficulty.

Situations may vary, but the vast majority of immigrants who come to the USA are not exactly wealthy. In order to pay the bills, feed and clothe their kids, these folks are probably working every waking hour. When do they have a chance to take time out to learn English? Ambitious, but poor people do not have what we middle-class types call "leisure time." They may want to learn English, but there are only so many hours in a day.

As for illegal immigrants, I will put my toe in the water and suggest that some may never want to assimilate, or for that matter become citizens of the USA. Their presence here is purely out of economic motivation. They can make more money in the US than they can in Mexico (or wherever), and thus better provide for their families. Is this a bad thing? I suggest it is not, unless you would prefer they spend their pay in the USA instead of shipping it home via Western Union.

Posted by: wheatdogg | July 19, 2009 11:51 PM

56

Leni @51
So maybe you can see why the problem of illegal immigrants is low on Mexico's list.

To Mexico, illegal immigration into the US is not a problem. It's a boon. Remember, the Mexican government printed brochures to help the people sneaking into the US get around here and get government services once they were here. Mexico is all too happy to dump its own unskilled, poor "unwanted" into the United States.

Especially if the prevailing attitude is that these people are lazy, job stealing, non-English learning scum. Does that attitude help solve the problem, or could it maybe perpetuate it?

It hasn't seemed to have caused much of a problem from the Mexican and illegal immigrants' perspective, no. And I'm not of the opinion that they are "scum", even as I do believe their coming here causes the US a whole host of problems. I think the only way to stop illegal immigration is for the US to do something about it. Most US citizens as demonstrated in poll after poll would love to see the US enforce its borders and crack down on the employers who hire illegal immigrants. But I am not advocating violence or degrading illegal immigrants.

I should note, too, most Americans do favor some sort of amnesty for the ones already here, even as Americans would like to see the additional tide of illegal immigrants stopped.

If it's a cultural thing, and that "thing" is largely dependent on the American drug market, which consists of a great deal more than marijuana use, then we probably have a bigger stake in the matter than simply legalizing marijuana.

Yup, I'm not giving the US government a pass on this, as I've already said. We could be better spending the money thrown at the "war on drugs" instead of wasting it the way we do now. We could be spending it in Mexico to help them strengthen the rule of law, for instance. That would probably pay huge dividends for both countries.

Having a strong rule of law and a good educational structure is key in getting a country to develop into "first world" status.

Julian @52:
Yes Adrienne, I'm sure we all remember how the gigantic central American immigration into inner-city Detroit in the mid 70's decimated the job market there.

Strawman. Never said that. And yes, I do blame Reagan for helping to polarize and stratify the very rich vs. very poor in this country.

And the "jobs no American will do" argument is not a bromide. How many migratory Anglos do you know who pick tomatoes for a living? How many who will tile and paint a house, by themselves, in a week?

Yes it is. Americans can and would do these jobs if offered a decent wage. Especially now that we are--hello--facing record unemployment.

They're willing to work harder, commit less crime, and get paid less than non-immigrants are...

Work harder than non-immigrants, huh? I don't believe it. Unless by "working harder" you mean "working cheaper". And committing less crime? Except when immigrants and their kids join gangs that commit violent crimes and other non-violent crimes such as drug/whiskey running and theft. Remember the movie "Gangs of New York"? Irish gangs. The Irish created a lot of problems here in terms of rioting, disorderly and drunken conduct, and crime. Yeah, they were treated badly by the nativists here, but their own conduct didn't help. Rather a bad feedback loop. Eventually the Irish assimilated and settled down, but let's not forget history. Also, there was basically a forty-year pause in immigration from their country that assisted the Irish already here in assimilating. And at least the Irish already spoke English.

chaos engineer @53:
It sounds like your grandmother is a "Dixiecrat". Back in the middle of the last century, many Democrats in the south were shockingly racist. Most of them switched to the Republican Party in years from 1960-1980, but a few of them stayed within the party.

No, she's no Dixiecrat, although she does refer to black people as "colored". I can remember her being very surprised (but not displeased) when I bought a black doll back when I was a tween. But she's very pro-union, she actually thinks gay marriage should be legalized, and campaigned and voted for Obama. She's not crazy about Obama, much preferring Hillary Clinton. But once he was the Democratic candidate, she was behind him 100%.

She's probably just ignorant, not evil.

I'm glad she confidently believes that our culture is superior to woman-hating cultures like the Islamic world. But yes, I already said, she was overly harsh in her assessment. But I can appreciate her sentiment. As a woman who writes a feminist blog put it, "I hate seeing a woman walking around in a bag."

Just about everyone has some kind of cultural tradition that seems stupid to outsiders. I mean, once a year I go out and buy an evergreen tree and then try to cram it into the back seat of my compact car so I can take it home and then I throw it out after a couple of weeks.

Ah yes, very true. But certain dumb customs -- putting up a Christmas tree, wearing a yarmulke -- are much less harmful than others -- wearing full-body bags with eye slits that restrict your movement and your ability to interact with the outside world, carving up your little girl's genitals to keep her from being a slut.

The moral is that when you see people carrying out harmless rituals, it's not healthy to go around muttering about how stupid they all are.

Wearing a burqua is not a "harmless ritual".

wheatdogg @54:

Businesses and schools accommodating different languages is just good manners.

To an extent, yes. But then you potentially open the floodgates of accommodation and even litigation. For example, our homeowners' association can't send out our printed materials in English and Spanish because we'd open ourselves up to potential litigation from speakers of other languages here. True story--a Korean family sued their homeowners' association for sending out stuff in English and Spanish but not Korean. Not sure what the ultimate outcome was, but having to defend oneself against a lawsuit, even if one wins in the end, is not a cheap endeavor. But the cost and difficulty of printing up stuff in every language spoken by other people who live here would be ridiculous, so we can't do it.

I don't support bilingual education in schools, either, given that children do learn languages very quickly and immersing them in the other language is the fastest way to get them to learn it. And they aren't going to be speaking English at home, so the more they are forced to practice it in school, the better. Not to mention that it puts an additional cost and labor burden on schools to have to hire bilingual teachers. I support bilingual tutoring programs for those kids who need help staying afloat in their academics as they learn the language, but not bilingual classroom instruction.

They can make more money in the US than they can in Mexico (or wherever), and thus better provide for their families. Is this a bad thing? I suggest it is not, unless you would prefer they spend their pay in the USA instead of shipping it home via Western Union.

Yeah, the sending the money out thing is not helpful to us, although it is to Mexico, obviously. Obviously illegal immigrants are acting in their own and their families' interest. But yes, I think having large amounts of illegal immigrants, especially when they are coming predominantly from one area of the world, is a bad thing. For my reasons why, refer to the "Stalking Dr. Isis" thread.

Also google the Jordan immigration commission and read its reports and reasoning on immigration (which I fully agree with).

And check out the Numbers USA gumball demonstration.

James Hanley @55:
One of the good things is that immigrant often don't fully assimilate, that is, don't leave all of their culture behind. Roughly speaking, I'd say they're assimilated when they've mostly adapted to the prevailing culture, and the prevailing culture has adopted their food and festivals.

Agreed! I actually do support this form of multiculturalism and diversity. It's the "all cultures and values and cultural practices are equal" business I think is ridiculous.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 7:58 AM

58

Americans can and would do these jobs if offered a decent wage. Especially now that we are--hello--facing record unemployment.

First, record unemployment is about 25% in the U.S. We're at 9.5% right now, very ugly, but not very close to the record.

Second, high unemployment should make people willing to work for less, so it shouldn't take as high a wage to entice them to work.

Third, whether a wage is decent is in the eye of the beholder. Those wages are decent to Mexicans, Hondurans, etc., but not to Americans. So, yes, working for less is working harder, because it means a person doesn't demand as much compensation to go do the hard work. You're setting up some kind of objective standard of a "decent" wage, but all value is subjective.

full-body bags with eye slits that restrict your movement and your ability to interact with the outside world,

Again, much of your bias stems from ignorance. Burquas are not physically constraining. They are normally a light covering worn over regular clothes. They're standard in the Middle East, which is blazing hot in summer, so a light non-restrictive covering is the norm. Next time you see a woman in a burqua, look more closely, and you'll see that it's not tight and restrictive, that she can take normal strides, and if you look down near the ground there's a good chance you'll see that she's wearing slacks and dress shoes (at least in Syria, the footwear of the women tends to be quite stylish, and based on the open displays of very lacy lingerie I saw in the markets, the burqua does not signify constraint as much as privacy).

As to restricting the ability to interact with the outside world, how? The person can see, hear, and speak just fine. What it does is allow the woman to hide herself more from the outside world. There's little sexual thrill to a guy from staring at a woman in a burqua, and it's easy for the woman to avoid eye-contact with men she doesn't want any interaction with. I had a student once who spent a year wearing a burqua in a Muslim country, and she enjoyed it for just those reasons. Live and let live, Adrienne. If a woman prefers to wear burqua, it's her business and not yours, and she's not harming anyone.

I would agree that allowing a man to force his wife to wear the burqua is not harmless, but the free choice to do so certainly is harmless, and it's rather appalling that you would lump it in with female genital mutilation, which causes permanent harm to the body and is always done without the consent of the victim. That you would treat the burqua as closer to the mutilation of a child's genitals than it is to wearing a yarmulke demonstrates that you are not thinking very deeply on this subject.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 9:06 AM

60

Adrienne--
There is immigration, and then there is citizenship/permanent resident status. They are not the same thing.

To be a naturalized citizen, you have to take an English reading and writing test, as well as a civics test. The civics portion can be in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog or Vietnamese.

For permanent residency or immigration, there seem to be no requirements that immigrants learn English, either before or after arrival. But, to obtain a visa, one must have an interview in English (at least for Chinese nationals) at the US embassy or consulate, so there is some minimal gatekeeping there.

I agree that speaking a common language helps knit the country together (though the last 8 years seems to disprove that argument) and facilitates one's interactions with the world around you. I also agree that bilingual education for very young students (elementary age) is not necessary. But I disagree that there should be a legal requirement for all immigrants to learn English, and for that matter that English should become the "official language" of the USA, as some suggest.

People will learn English, to varying degrees, of their own accord out of necessity, just I am having to learn Chinese. If there is a legal requirement for immigrants to learn English, how do we ascertain their skills? Administer a test? What happens if an immigrant fails the English test? They get shipped home?

The status quo, as messy and inefficient as it is, seems to work passably well. Immigrants, or their children learn English. Within two generations of landing here, most immigrant families have at least one generation that is fluent, and one that is bilingual. By the third generation, their descendents lose the mother tongue completely.

The USA has had waves of immigrants throughout its history, and has never required them to learn English. Yet, they do, eventually. And the country is still here, still an English speaking country.

Posted by: wheatdogg | July 20, 2009 9:30 AM

62

Adrienne,

I am not defending the forced wearing of burquas, but the free choice to do so. Only someone with their head planted very deeply up their ass end would think that restricting a woman's right to make her own choice is good feminism.

As you apparently didn't notice, I had a student who spent a year wearing the burqua. I know what she told me about her own personal experience. How many burqua wearers have you personally discussed this with?

There's little point further discussing this, as you choose to take each of my arguments out of context (as well as lying about my comments on the prior thread). You may choose to take pride in being a pig ignorant bigot. Personally, I wouldn't.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 9:43 AM

64

James Hanley:

What did I tell you the other day? Am I right, or am I right?

Adrienne:

Language! My goodness!!

Love your reference to former Maryland governor William Donald Schaeffer's comments on the immigrants at the McDonalds. He's also a champion of women's rights and a huge supporter of those with HIV/AIDS. Yep, a genuine prince among men.

Posted by: democommie | July 20, 2009 10:08 AM

66

Democommie,

Indeed you are right. This is one issue where I am proud to stand by your side.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 12:15 PM

68

From #56.

But certain dumb customs -- putting up a Christmas tree, wearing a yarmulke -- are much less harmful than others -- wearing full-body bags with eye slits that restrict your movement and your ability to interact with the outside world, carving up your little girl's genitals to keep her from being a slut.

On the one hand, Christmas trees and yarmulkes.

On the other hand, burqas and genital mutilation.

Gee, Adrienne, how could anyone ever think you equated the latter two?

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 12:34 PM

70

Adrienne - You posted "if I say 'X and Y are bad things OR X and Y are things I oppose OR X and Y are my favorite things'..."
This implies that these conditions are exclusively true, that is:
(Both X and Y) are in the class of things I think are bad, BUT (both X and Y) are NOT in the class of things I oppose, BUT *both X and Y) are in the class of things that are my favorites... THEN, and only then, is the following clause TRUE (isn't Boolean logic fun!).
Sorry about that logical intrusion to the argument carry on... :D DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 12:47 PM

72

Sometimes laughter makes us step back a bit, only to see how intense (and stoopid) we were getting.
I like to laugh at my own idiocies as much as possible (if only I could do it to 90% of the dumb stuff I say instead of my current 10%), still I if I have say dumb stuff... :) DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 1:12 PM

74

" Look, if a woman wants to wear a burqua because of her beliefs, then her beliefs are stupid. I'd go so far as to say that wanting to wear hijab in any form because it's immodest to have one's hair uncovered is stupid.

Those beliefs are just as stupid as believing the Earth is 6000 years old or that allowing gay marriage will lead to the destruction of hetero marriage."

No equivalency to see here, just move along.

Posted by: democommie | July 20, 2009 1:21 PM

76

DC, that doesn't count because, you rube, I explicitly noted an equivalence there. DUH!

When you say, "over here are W and X, and over here are Y and Z," the reader is entitled to assume you are treating Y and Z as equivalents, at least in relation to W and X.

No, if anything, the reader should be on the lookout for equivalence between W and Y and X and Z, not between W and Y and then again between Y and Z. But context has to play a role too.

Personally, I think most people would find the burqa to be closer to the yarmulke than FGI, in terms of the degree of harm.

Then most people are fools. Not that I'm convinced you're right about what "most people" would think here.

The hijab could be considered like the yarmulke, but even then the analogy fails because the hijab is worn to keep a woman's hair hidden to preserve her modesty. Not so with yarmulkes.

How about some analogies for fun....

Hijab is to burqua as toothache is to root canal.

Yarmulke is to burqua as freckle is to herpes.

Burqua is to FGI as severe cystic acne is to smallpox.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 1:43 PM

78

It's easy to see that Adrienne has a counter for every argument and an explanation for every one of her own inconsisitencies or apparent contradictions. And none of her amazingly rigid mindset about those immigrants that she considers "less than" her ideal immigrant is based on anything but cold hard fact. I can see how dispassionate she is when talking about those folks.

BTW, Adrienne, is that former governor of MD one of your heroes, or just a useful idiot that had one quote you could mine to buttress an argument against those bad immigrants who don't speak standard american english? I'm only asking because he appears to be an embittered old fool.

One other thing, Adrienne. Are you mellowing on this whole "illegals" thing? If memormy serves, it wasn't too long ago that you said--on another thread--that if people came here illegally then they should just go home or be forcibly returned if they're not willing to go on their own, regardless of how long they've been here.

Posted by: democommie | July 20, 2009 1:56 PM

80

Jesus Christ, people. DingoJack is right-- laugh at yourselves. Step back and you might realize that you agree about far more than you thought you did, and you're making up differences in order to trounce each other for them, as people always do when things get heated and pride gets in the way. I know, because this happens to me far too often. It's not easy to see when you're one of the participants, but laughably obvious when you're not.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 20, 2009 2:26 PM

82

Gretchen @80:

Jesus Christ, people. DingoJack is right-- laugh at yourselves. Step back and you might realize that you agree about far more than you thought you did, and you're making up differences in order to trounce each other for them, as people always do when things get heated and pride gets in the way.

Hey, didn't you realize my analogies game was an attempt to bring some levity and silliness into the matter? Not to mention DJ's quip re: Boolean logic.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 2:32 PM

84

DJ @79
Weirdly, way back in the mists of time, I was having a conversation with two friends* about female circumcision. It was pointed out to me that many women in the cultures involved don't feel like real women unless they are circumcised.

We don't get to say how they feel about anything (and they don't get to stop us saying what we think about it), it's up to those involved to decide, no matter how foolish (or harmful) we may think it is (or not).

If female genital mutilation were limited to adult females or even older teens who actually *chose* the procedure, I could go along with this. But it's typically done to girl children and without their consent.

Let's get this out of the way--in no way am I equating male circumsision with FGM/FGI. But...I have the same problem with circumcising boy babies too--they have no choice in the matter, and part of them is being permanently removed.

So, DJ, I agree with you as far as not having a problem with adult women choosing to have their genitals slashed up or partially removed, as long as it's a free choice. That being said, I think it's a remarkably stupid choice and I can't respect the decision, but I wouldn't call for a ban on it any more than I'd call on a ban for the weirder "body mod" things people do to themselves here in the US.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 2:38 PM

86

@DingoJack:

I agree that there are complex issues around cultural norms that other cultures find difficult. I have in other fora argued in favor of not interfering with pain and blood based rites of passage for young teens, in the appropriate cultural context.

But I don't think female circumcision falls into that category, for one simple reason.

It is a permanent removal of an important functional body part, that has as its consequence the permanent maiming of important function, done often (probably most often) to girls who didn't choose it, and didn't have the ability to either give or refuse informed consent.

Choosing with adequate knowledge to do a Plains Indian Sun Dance, with its moderate risk of infection and almost certainy of mild to moderate scarring, as a rite of passage - sure.

Tattooing and cutting as rites of passage - with the full cultural support and the active participation of the people undergoing those rites and their movement toward a place of pride and growth and MORE strength in their culture - sure.

Having your clit forcibly (or at least, without you having real choice) removed because your culture doesn't like women to have the sexual power associated with having a clit and wants to remove that source of enjoyment and power from you - not so much.

If a sane adult woman chooses with adequate information and consent to undergo it for social or spiritual reason - it's her choice. Emphasis here on sane informed choice, which is the critical factor. I don't seem to see a lot of adult women lining up for that under their own volition - which makes the "it's their choice" argument seem more than a little off target.

I actually make the same argument for male circumcision, but the evidence that the procedure maims sexual function is much stronger in women than in men.

Posted by: Lee | July 20, 2009 2:43 PM

88

Lee - FYI: Clitorectomy is not equal to female circumcision.
Do Jewish men (and even younger non-Jewish ones) get to make informed consent too? Is there (ahem) hard evidence that cutting the skin around the Clitoris or Glans Penis actually reduces sexual function? If deliberately scarring someone is 'mutilation' before the age of 'informed consent' (and when precisely is this?), is it not 'mutilation' after this magic age? Who gets to say what is 'multilation' or not? - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 3:07 PM

90

Good lord, Adrienne, you're spinning so fast you're making me dizzy. Nobody will ever pin you down on logic, that's for sure. But when you're defending bigotry, logic isn't exactly your best friend.

I should have listened to Democommie. I'm a slow learner, though, and I always think that somehow we can reason with the unreasonable. Democommie, shout louder at me next time, please.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 3:22 PM

92

Anna wrote:
How dare immigrants inconvenience you by speaking in the language that they grew up learning!...etc.

No, it's more like, "How dare the US government fail to secure its borders, which is what the vast majority of its populace wants it to do? How dare the US not impose hefty fines and penalties on employers of illegal aliens? How dare the US not catch and deport illegal immigrants?"

A bipartisan commission assembled by our own government studied immigration matters for seven years, and recommended doing all of these things, including cutting down on the overall number of legal immigrants. These were not some bigoted crazy yahoos. I already posted the link to the Jordan Commission Report once in this thread, so if you really care about knowing and at least understanding the many rational anti-immigration arguments, go read it.

As for the "we should welcome illegal immigrants just trying to make a better life" bromide, see the Numbers USA gumball demonstration video. I posted a link to that earlier in this thread too.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 3:26 PM

94

Speaking from personal knowledge I assume. ;)

Yes, actually. My Latino father was not fond of blacks or Jews. Blacks especially. He had that macho expectation that his wife would always cook for him and take care of him even if she had a full-time job too. Drove my mother nuts.

My Mexican grandmother didn't like or trust blacks either. I'm not sure how she felt about Jews. I never asked and she never said. My Filipino/Spanish/Argentine grandfather died before I was old enough to really know him, but he had seriously toyed with becoming a priest. Given that this was before Vatican II, and that his mother was half Spanish, I imagine he was probably at least a little bit anti-Semitic.

But you know there are all sorts of opinion polls to find out how different groups think. Remember white gay activists' surprise to find out how many blacks in California were against legalizing same-sex marriage. Different groups may agree on some things, but differ very much on others.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 3:31 PM

96

Sometimes I sarcastically suggest that the U.S. should just invade Mexico and take it over-- that way the same laws would apply to everyone as well as the same tax burdens, nobody would have to get a passport to take a vacation in Cozumel or Baja California, and the people who just think that Mexicans are subhuman full stop would not longer be able to avail themselves of the "anti-illegal immigrant" argument. Plus we'd have much easier access to authentic Mexican food-- I mean, look what invading India did for British cuisine!

But in the end it's a joke, because that kind of manifest destiny is frowned upon in this day and age.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 20, 2009 3:35 PM

98

Since the US invaded the northern territories of Mexico, couldn't Americans be considered illegal immigrants into Mexico? :) - DJ
PS: Adrienne - you were aware I was not being completely serious weren't you? I am aware that Latino are generally more conservative than other groups, but that they are more (or less conservative) is not an argument for not allowing them to become US citizens. If it were we could simply disenfranchise Republicans and deport them across the borders. (on second thoughts ...) :)

Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 3:44 PM

100

Gretchen, Adrienne, see the first sentence of #98 - DJ
A HUNDRED!!

Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 3:51 PM

102

Adrienne - "Latinos become a majority, do you think they will welcome large amounts of immigrants from Europe or Asia? Latino attitudes are noticeably more anti-black and anti-Semitic on average than that of middle-class whites."
I think one could reasonable infer that a bigoted America is not something you desire, thus ... DJ
PS I didn't characterise you a bigot, don't characterise me uncomprehending. Thanks.

Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 4:12 PM

104

Anna, if you're so in love with illegal immigrants and their culture, please move to Mexico to join your spiritual brethren. You can be surrounded by the people, language, and culture you are so in love with. Obviously, the culture and social fabric and language of this country are far inferior to Mexico and Latin America's.

Ironically, this proves exactly what Anna stated in her original comment (viz. Raging Bee/libertarians and MrRoberts/homosexuality). Is that really the best Adrienne can come up with--a childish, "If you love them so much, why don't you marry them" retort? I think that Gretchen made a very good point about standing back and laughing at the wonder/absurdity of it all, but James Hanley was the first in this thread to hit the nail on the head, and his first comment is getting validated with each passing one by Adrienne on this topic.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 20, 2009 4:31 PM

106

"See, this is why it's so hard to argue on here if you maintain an unpopular position. Nobody reads just what you say...they project their own biases into what you do write, so that they come up with a completely different idea of what you say. Then they accuse you of logic, bigotry, etc."

sounds like projection.

Your father and your grandmother were apparently bigots, no wonder you don't recognize it in yourself.

Posted by: democommie | July 20, 2009 4:36 PM

108

Adrienne - you obviously missed the sarcasm. No I don't believe that Hispanics would be any more welcoming than we are -- that's the point. Why else would you be worried about becoming the minority?

Posted by: Anna | July 20, 2009 4:41 PM

110

Apparently your father and his mother (your grandmother) were/are bigots.

Yes, I believe that is true.

sounds like projection.

Yep, lots of projection from the immigration enthusiasts on here. You all act like a bunch of Christians claiming that atheists and Democrats hate and persecute you.

Your father and your grandmother were apparently bigots, no wonder you don't recognize it in yourself.

Well, if you say I'm a bigot, why then it *must* be true.

I grew up with that, and learned quite early on that color, language and custom have nothing to do with the innate character of anyone.

Oh, and you're so MODEST about this accomplishment too. Please do pat yourself on the back a few more times.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 4:45 PM

112

Sadie:
Now you're really reaching.

LOL, yeah, right. See what democommie has been posting.

This is a status game. The one who can prove he/she is the most "enlightened" and least racist/bigoted whatever wins. Gets to feel oh so superior. Hanley's, dc's, Anna's posts absolutely reek of that superiority complex, of that "enlightened" smugness.

Anna:Why else would you be worried about becoming the minority?

Who says I am worried about becoming a minority? But maybe I should be, then? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 4:50 PM

114

I grew up with that, and learned quite early on that color, language and custom have nothing to do with the innate character of anyone.

So the Muslim custom of honor killing daughters who are alleged to be "sluts" for waving at the wrong boy doesn't tell you anything about the innate character of the fathers and brothers who beat these girls to death?

What about those Africans who burned a bunch of fellow villagers as witches. Put them in the middle of fires and let e'm scream for mercy as they roasted alive. That custom doesn't tell you anything about the witch burners' innate character?

Or the FLDS church, which has the custom of marrying off 12- and 13-yr old girls as multiple wives to the powerful clan leaders? That custom doesn't tell you anything about the innate character of the men who take 12 year old girls as brides against their will?

If you are that much of a cultural relativist, democommie, you're even more foolish than I originally thought. Maybe the Nazis just slaughtered Jews as part of the Germanic custom of Jew-hating? That doesn't mean the Nazis were bad people, though, right?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 4:59 PM

116

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Posted by: W.O.P.R. | July 20, 2009 5:11 PM

118

If he had said that, that would have been a hell of a comeback. I bet the imaginary James Hanley is just reeling from that counterargument.

Posted by: Sean Micheal | July 20, 2009 6:04 PM

120

Adrienne

Interesting - You only equate other cultures with the negative aspects of that culture. There are aspects of every culture that I do not condone but that doesn't make them somehow inferior or unfit for being part of our society. Are you seriously connecting Nazism as part of German custom? Do you really think that Americans would just give up their freedoms or condone the injurious behavior like those you described? Nice try at a scare tactic.

By your own example of Christian Scientists and the FDLS, Americans are guilty of allowing harm to children. Should our entire culture be culpable and classified by these groups of Americans? Should others view all of us as barbaric for allowing this as part of our culture? You seem to find it easy to generalize whole cultures and to use this type of example for much of your arguments against immigration.

Someone with as much disdain for other cultures (particularly Hispanics) like yourself, should worry about being the minority because if the contempt you appear to have towards them is as evident to them as it is to me, I wouldn't be surprised if you became their object of contempt.

Posted by: Anna | July 20, 2009 6:33 PM

122

My arguments have been logical, you are just too biased to really try to understand them.(@95)

...honestly, many of the commenters here read and respond about as carefully as the freerepublic commenters do when somebody dares to raise an unpopular opinion there. (@101)

when pro-immigrationists are confronted with facts and rational arguments, all they can do is scream "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!", smugly pat each other on the back for being so "enlightened" and non-bigoted and "non hating", and say absolutely nothing else of substance or rationality. (@109)

Gets to feel oh so superior. Hanley's, dc's, Anna's posts absolutely reek of that superiority complex, of that "enlightened" smugness. (@112)

you haven't posted one coherent logical argument or thought to this thread. Just a lot of emotionally laden nonsense. (@115)

Please do pat yourself on the back a few more times. (@110)

(chuckle)

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 7:25 PM

124

I have no firm idea why you're so pissed off at Latinos but it's as obvious as it could be.

I'm not "pissed off" at Latinos. I am "pissed off" that my government has allowed so many illegal immigrants into this country and that a large segment of these illegal immigrants have now taken up residence in the area where I live and are causing problems. I don't like the changes they have brought--gangs, overcrowding, drunk driving, and loitering to name a few. The inability to communicate is yet another factor I don't like. I'm not crazy or bigoted for opposing these things.

But my not liking any of these things doesn't make me "pissed off" at Latinos. Maybe I get "pissed off" occasionally at individual Latinos, like the guy who housed 14 other people in his house and caused a roach problem that spread. At least I was able to call the county health department to adress that issue, and the county ordered Mr. Landlord to get rid of 10 of his 14 "buddies" from his house.

But it's not their "Latinoness" itself that bugs me. What does bug me is the following combination: the fact that they are here illegally, the bad things they do, their inability to communicate with those of us who speak English, and their local gang presence.

I'm sure if it were a group of Irish illegal immigrants I'd be complaining about the noise, the fighting, the drinking, and the driving drunk, and maybe the local Irish gang. At least they'd speak English, though.

What Anna said about your habit of focusing on the negatives in various cultures is pretty obvious to me, I've mentioned it before.

This is your own confirmation bias. I said lots of positive things about Asian and Jewish culture in the last thread wherein we argued about this.

That's true, as long as they are content to have people like you think they're stupid, lazy and criminal.

I never said that I think they are "stupid, lazy, and criminal". Another strawman. Look, you're caricaturing my position here when you're not severely distorting it. It's confirmation bias--anything I say that could potentially fit into your mental frame of "she's an anti-Hispanic bigot" gets remembered and even embellished. Anything reasonable or rational I say gets ignored.

Because you have to see me as the "bad guy" here. Your own preordained conclusion is that anyone who opposes illegal immigration for whatever reasons is wrong and bigoted. Therefore you are only interested in picking out what to you seems to bolster your argument. You're not genuinely interested in a factual or rational debate.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 7:55 PM

126

I'm not sure what a "tight-assed" upbringing is, but if my father and grandmother were indeed bigots when it came to blacks and Jews, then why would I have grown up to be bigoted against other Hispanics instead of blacks and Jews?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 8:12 PM

128

BUT...if a particular group of people do certain things routinely and consistently based on their culture, AND those things have negative effects not only on people in that culture but on people outside of it...then it's a fair game to examine if those practices are helpful or harmful when considering whether or not to let large groups of these people immigrate into your country.

This is the crux of the problem. You seem to believe that the majority of hispanic immigrants possess particular qualities and attributes you find offensive or harmful but of all the examples you've given, none of them apply to the "majority" as you suggest. As I told you, I'm from Southern California, I interacted with, lived by, and went to school with predominantly hispanic immigrants. You claim that I am emotional, yet my direct experience is as valid as yours and your numbers and characterizations only verify what you believe to be true. I am not a fan of everything hispanic however if you are going to assess people as immigration worthy, you should also look at the positives that they may bring and you seem to want to ignore that when it comes to hispanic culture and their influence and contributions to our culture.

Posted by: Anna | July 20, 2009 8:44 PM

130

It also shows that she has internalized the very harmful idea that she is to blame for any unwanted sexual attention (or worse) she gets should she ever not wear the full-body bag.

Well, that's an exceptionally shallow way of looking at it.

I know the underlying argument you're making--no women should ever be subjected to unwanted sexual attention, and it's not her fault if it happens anyway--and I agree with it, 100%.

Likewise, no person should ever be subject to violent physical assault, and it's not their fault if it happens. So it wasn't my fault when I was attacked riding through the projects in San Francisco.

Nonetheless, these things will happen, so is it necessarily wrong to look for ways to minimize what you can't prevent? I had every right to ride through the projects--was I internalizing the idea that it was my fault that I got attacked? Not at all--my benefit/cost calculus upon reflection was that taking the longer way home had a better benefits to cost ratio.

So was my student necessarily internalizing the idea that she was responsible for unwanted sexual attention? No, she wasn't, and your half-assed armchair psychologizing doesn't make it so.

Again, you don't know her, yet you are arrogant enough to state with authority what was going through her mind. Again, I decline to assume the arrogance to know what's best for other people, or to assume I have deep insight into their psychological motivations. And while you may arrogantly assume that mantle of knowledge, the reality remains that anyone who presumes to know what's in another's mind is full of shit.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2009 8:52 PM

132

Anna @128:

This is the crux of the problem. You seem to believe that the majority of hispanic immigrants possess particular qualities and attributes you find offensive or harmful but of all the examples you've given, none of them apply to the "majority" as you suggest.

OK, maybe not the majority then. BUT there are certain traits that are manifesting in my area. Maybe the illegal hispanic immigrants in my area behave worse than the average ones, I don't know.

So let's examine a few of these negative cultural practices:

Drunk driving: Fred Reed of fredoneverything.net relocated from the States to Mexico. He notes that it's a common idea where he lives in Mexico that driving drunk is no big deal and even proves how macho you are. Talking with coworkers who lived in Mexico City for a while confirms this.

In that other thread I linked to an NPR report showing that Latinos are disproportionately overrepresented in drunk driving accidents in the US. That's also true for my area (checked crime stats).

Witnessed one car accident where the Hispanic perps who caused the accident ran off into the woods to flee the scene. Were they drunk? Or illegal immigrants driving without a license? Either way, bad news.

Littering: another common Latino practice. Everywhere you see the groups of Latino guys hanging out loitering in my area (which is quite a few spots), lots of litter around.

Loitering: Already talked about the guys hanging outside the library, where they also like to urinate outside. Lots of other places too. I went to a mini mart at 7 AM on a Saturday, there were about ten Hispanic men loitering right outside and leering at me as I came in. I told the Korean owner that it was uncomfortable as a single woman to have to pass a bunch of strange men to get inside. He agreed, went out, and chased them away. (Hooray!)

Overcrowding houses: another common practice among Latinos, especially illegal ones. Been directly affected by that. Lots of local news stories about this problem, as it's become a rather common problem around my general area in the last few years. Causes problems with pests and sanitation and is a fire hazard, not to mention shortages of available parking spaces.

Gangs: already discussed this extensively. Only gang in my area is relatively new, and it's Hispanic, and it's mostly made up of illegal immigrants.

Teenage births and dropping out of high school: this is a problem among Latinos nationwide. I don't know if it's especially bad among the illegal immigrants vs. legal, but the point is...Latinos as a group are not doing well on two vital social indicators: teenage birthrate, and high school graduation rate. This is a bad thing, because it perpetuates poverty for the teen moms and their kids, and greatly increases chances of these kids joining gangs.

And this one is directly related to culture. Mexicans and Latin Americans do not, in general, place a high value on education and being educated. Meanwhile, a Latina girl of 15 or 16 is considered "grown up" and fair game for dating and doing those things that lead to early pregnancy. Latino men are also not big on using birth control like condoms; they think it's the woman's problem. This is what I hear all the time from the women's clinic I volunteer for. Maybe not all Latino men and women are like this, but the ones in my area are.

As I told you, I'm from Southern California, I interacted with, lived by, and went to school with predominantly hispanic immigrants.

Yes, I'll grant your experience is valid. But it doesn't negate my own direct experiences here. Perhaps the immigrants you were around had different lifestyles. You said you went to school with them, but did you actually live in their neighborhoods? Were they middle-class or were they the severely unskilled working poor?

Your numbers and characterizations only verify what you believe to be true.

I don't just believe it to be true. I have lived it and my research confirms it. Latino groups are quite embarrassed about the high school dropout rates and high teen birthrates. They put out bulletins and warnings about it. I linked to a couple in the last immigration argument thread we had.

I wish all of these things weren't true! Oh how I wish they weren't. I wish 1) there weren't lots of illegal immigrants around to begin with and 2) that the legal Hispanic immigrants were acting more like Jews, Asians, and my own damn Hispanic family (which wasn't rich)...getting highly educated, moving up the ladder to the middle class, staying in school, not joining gangs, and not having babies too early. Even if the illegal ones were doing these things, I'd feel better about them because at least they'd be making progress and not creating more social pathology. But that's not what is happening.

I am not a fan of everything hispanic however if you are going to assess people as immigration worthy, you should also look at the positives that they may bring and you seem to want to ignore that when it comes to hispanic culture and their influence and contributions to our culture.

I fully acknowledge that there are positive elements they and their culture bring. For me personally, the negative have outweighed the positive, although I like the pupuserias around here. But I'd rather have no pupuserias and no gangs.

Also, the overall effect of *illegal* immigration--whether it's Hispanic (who represent the largest group of illegal immigrants by percentage) Irish, Russian, whatever--is negative.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 20, 2009 9:35 PM

134

Adrienne:

Comfort yourself with your hatred. Like I said, I'm happy to not be you. I would not like living in a place where I think so many people are scum. Come to think of it, I never really have. If I don't like people who live somewhere, I move.

Posted by: democommie | July 20, 2009 10:52 PM

136

Sorry to hit-and-run, but a brief opinionset from a mildly interested onlooker:

Anna, you rock.

DJ, democommie, you make me chuckle.

Adrienne... you make me a sad panda. Not because of your silly Gish gallop arguments, but because you have such negative beliefs about a culture which is, by your own admission, part of your heritage.

:/

Posted by: Muse142 | July 21, 2009 4:57 AM

138

Thoughts on something I posted earlier:

"my Hispanic grandparents and father transcended the negative parts of that culture."

They didn't totally, in that they didn't care much for black people or Jews. BUT, to the best of my knowledge, neither one ever did anything legally discriminatory or outright antisocial (calling a black person "n****r" to his or her face. I know of no instances where their attitude caused any concrete real-world problems for the groups they didn't like.

My Mexican grandmother did live next door to a black family that she liked and got along with. I think for her it was a case of liking certain black people on the individual level but not as a group.

My dad occasionally muttered nasty things under his breath about black people. And, OK, Hanley and Leni, I'll concede that that's a bad thing to do too. I was mistaken for defending my other grandmother's "stupid bitch" remark, although I still appreciate the sentiment behind why she said it. I regard non-burqua wearing as objectively better than burqua wearing, especially compulsory burqua wearing, but I also agree that it's up to the burqua wearer to decide for herself what to wear.

At least I have transcended that negative aspect of Hispanic culture, even if my Mexican grandmother and father did not.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2009 8:28 AM

140

Spartan @139

I'm concerned that you are not following the key thing that keeps one from being racist: statistics about groups of people say zero about any particular individual who is in that group.

Of course I realize that. Absolutely. I have no problem with Hispanics, per se. There's a Latin American doctor in my neighborhood who speaks English well enough to interact with me. I welcome Hispanics (or Nigerians, or Indians...etc.) like him.

You bring up story after story of your negative interactions with Hispanics, but you do realize that indicates almost nothing, correct? As you said, 'the plural of anecdotes is not data', which leads me to wonder why you bring up these stories at all, although it would appear to indeed be in an effort to provide supporting data for your, well, what appear at least to be prejudices.

When one ethnic group in my area 1) constitutes the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, 2) constitutes the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers and gang members and 3) constitutes the overwhelming majority of loiterers and 4) constitutes the overwhelming majority of house overcrowders and 5) constitutes the overwhelming majority of mortgage defaulters, that's not a coincidence.

The crime and mortgage default data in my area, as reported in several sources including the local papers, reflects my own personal experiences. I'm not the victim of some amazingly cosmic stroke of bad luck whereby all of the "bad" Hispanics just happen to live in my neighborhood.

I have lots of Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Nigerians and Iranians in my area too. I dont' see groups of Nigerians loitering in front of restaurants. The one big gang in our area is not made up of Koreans or Indians.

No, group statistics don't tell you about any one individual. There are no doubt Koreans who loiter and serial killer Jews and Indians who join gangs. But the behavior of individuals does not negate an overall pattern.

Obviously, if there were no value to looking at statistics over a group, then Latino and educational advocacy groups would not be reporting about the high level of teen births and high school dropout rates.

The black community is concerned and angry about the disproportionate overrepresentation of black men on death row. There are white and Hispanic and Asian men on death row too, but that doesn't negate the overall pattern.

And, contrary to what people like democommie keep asserting, it's not the illegal immigrants' "Hispanicness" that bothers me. I would feel the same way if all of the illegal immigrants and loiterers and mortgage defaulters and high school dropouts and teen mothers in my community and the nation at large were Irish illegal immigrants. But they aren't. It's not racist or bigoted to point that out.

But is that really an artifact of being Hispanic, or is it more likely that people who grew up a generation or more ago lived in a quite different society where racism was more systemic and prevalent and accepted...

http://www dot ajc dot org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/Hispanic_Attitudes_Jews_042007 dot pdf

The prime external explanation that has been offered for the less positive evaluation of Jews by Hispanics in general and foreignborn Hispanics in particular is that they have been exposed in Latin America to a more traditional and more anti-Semitic form of Catholicism than prevails in the U.S.

Yes, maybe the anti-Semitic attitude is improving. That report says that foreign-born Hispanics entering the US are much more anti-Semitic than American born Hispanics. So yes, you are correct, that cultural attitude is improving.

Maybe it is towards blacks as well, although a recent study of diversity found that the main ethnic blocks in LA, the country's most ethnically diverse city -- white, black, and Hispanic-- actually disliked and distrusted the other groups. Sorry, can't find a cite. But the author was disappointed to find out that diversity, at least in LA, was actually working against fostering harmony in the different groups.

I think there are a lot of people's grandparents who had distrustful at least attitudes towards blacks and Jews, regardless of their ethnicity.

Yes, that's a good point.

I don't disagree with you that there are problems caused by illegal immigration, but I don't consider loitering or the incredibly whiny, 'the cashier at the store I like to go to doesn't understand English' to be among them.

OK, fine, that's your perogative. I thougth rather the opposite when faced with trying to return a $500 item. But perhaps I was being "overly sensitive", as after all, I was able to find another employee in the store who spoke English and was able to help me. But that's a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things, true.

The large number of non-English speakers in my housing development bothers me a lot more, for reasons I've already covered.

You do realize the incredibly obvious, right, that the fact that you see a lot of Hispanic loiterers is because you freaking live around a lot of Hispanics and thus the people who loiter are bound to be Hispanic?

They are mostly illegal immigrants who loiter. And yes, of course I realize the obvious. Duh! I don't consider "tendency to loiter" as a Hispanic cultural trait, if that's what you're saying. It's a function of the illegal immigrants looking for jobs.

But really, the biggest immigrant group where I live is Koreans. A lot of Koreans live here, a LOT. And we don't have a problem with Korean loiterers, because the ones here are legal immigrants with jobs.

I live near Detroit (the city's unemployment rate is around 25% by the way I thought; I haven't seen citation of the 40% you indicated above), and the 'loiterers' here are predominately black. Doesn't have anything to do with them being black, and has most everything to do with the fact that lots of black people live here.

Right, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought "tendency to loiter" and maybe even "tendency to litter" are Hispanic cultural traits as opposed to fallout from the local illegal immigrants' methods of looking for work. I have heard many anecdotes about littering being a common practice in Mexico and Latin America. But again, I can't cite statistics on that one.

Apparently, it's just fine that you have no alternative than to live where you are due to forces outside of your control, but you don't seem to grant that excuse to Hispanic immigrants.

The other people living near me--legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, Hispanics, and non-Hispanics-- who didn't default on their mortgages are negatively affected too. I never claimed otherwise.

Maybe they want to move. A story in the LA times chronicled one family of formerly illegal but amnestied Hispanic immigrants who moved away from the heavy concentration of illegal immigrants in southern California to Nashville, TN, a place where they face much less illegal immigrant competition for jobs.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2009 10:54 AM

142

They are mostly illegal immigrants who loiter.

See, here's the kind of thing that bothers me. Do I believe this statement is probably true? Yes, I do. But does Adrienne actually have evidence to support making such a categorical statement? Has she checked for their green cards? Can she actually state as a factual matter that she has definitive evidence that most of the loiterers are illegal? No--she's making assumptions. And even though I agree the assumption is likely true, I recognize the possibility of error.

And does Adrienne know why they're loitering? If someone came along in a pickup truck and yelled, "I need 3 guys to do some yard work," would they still be loitering? Does she think Mexicans illegally sneak across the border--often paying large fees to guides to get them across--with the goal of loitering?

It just seems that there's likely so much more to these people's story than she's willing to admit when she just says, "all they do is loiter." She persists in a very shallow, superficial, interpretation of people. As I've said before, she treats them as a homogenous lump. It's the same criticism Spartan made, and while Adrienne says she recognizes that the group does not define the individual, that recognition never really gets displayed whenever she writes about immigrants--instantly all illegals become the some, all non-English speakers are an amorphous lump with no individuality.

Look, I recognize problems with immigration, too. I think Adrienne overstates the problems, but that doesn't mean problems don't exist. It's the denial of individuality that I despise. It's how white supremacists see blacks, how anti-semites see Jews, how Japanese see Koreans, etc. It's ugly, in whatever form it takes and wherever it shows up. And Adrienne can't seem to break away from it, even though at times she clearly admits it's not right. Racism probably isn't the right term for Adrienne, but it's a form of "groupism" all the same, and it's ugly.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 21, 2009 11:25 AM

144

James Hanley @142:
See, here's the kind of thing that bothers me. Do I believe this statement is probably true? Yes, I do. But does Adrienne actually have evidence to support making such a categorical statement?

The local paper has done many articles on the day laborer population around here. I'm not going to link because the last thing I need is one of the "BIGOOOOT!! GENOCIDER!!! RACISSSST!!" types looking me up to harass me.

Per the paper's reporting, yes, they are mostly illegal immigrants.

Can she actually state as a factual matter that she has definitive evidence that most of the loiterers are illegal? No--she's making assumptions.

No, I'm not. See this. Granted, that's from a California paper, but what it reports mirrors what I said about where I live.

You're the one making assumptions about me making assumptions! Just because I don't always give a cite doesn't mean I haven't researched the issue. Although you are right to ask me for citations. I will try to provide when I can.

Does she think Mexicans illegally sneak across the border--often paying large fees to guides to get them across--with the goal of loitering?

Of course not. Nor have I said anything like it. But remember, whereas they had plenty of work until about three years ago, they don't now. An LA paper reports that only about 5% of the day laborers are getting steady work now.

The fact is, the less work there is, the more of them are out and about loitering, and for longer periods of time.

It just seems that there's likely so much more to these people's story than she's willing to admit when she just says, "all they do is loiter."

Strawman and mischaracterization. I NEVER EVER said, "All they do is loiter".

Of course there is more to their stories. I have said as much numerous times. I have said I understand their motivation for wanting to come here (although now they have higher unemployment rates than the rest of us). But that doesn't mean I welcome them or want more of them coming here. They are still here illegally and I still oppose that. Obviously, you don't, and that's your right. But it's mine to hold an opposing view, which--contrary to your propaganda--is quite rational and well-reasoned.

It's the same criticism Spartan made, and while Adrienne says she recognizes that the group does not define the individual, that recognition never really gets displayed whenever she writes about immigrants--instantly all illegals become the some, all non-English speakers are an amorphous lump with no individuality.

I have never denied their individuality. Never. However, I have talked extensively about their behavior as a group. Just because they are individuals with individual personalities doesn't negate the fact that the ethnic and socioeconomic group they belong to does and doesn't do certain things that are much different, and sometimes inimical to, the general population. That is not "shallow".

And Adrienne can't seem to break away from it, even though at times she clearly admits it's not right.

Just because my posts here have focused on group behavior, that doesn't mean I am denying anyone's individuality.

The focus of my argument is and has been that I oppose illegal immigration, both in my area and nationally. It happens to be that, yes, most of the illegal immigrants to the US and in my area are Hispanic. But it's their illegal status and the very real negative things they introduce to this country--teen births, gangs-- that I oppose first and foremost. In my area, illegal Hispanic immigration has brought a lot of problems. That's fact. If all of a sudden my area had a huge wave of illegal Irish immigrants who did the same things the illegal Hispanic immigrants were doing, I'd feel no differently about the Irish.

Again, nobody has touched my hypothetical scenario about whether or not they'd oppose a large group of neoNazis/white nationalist immigrants moving into their neighborhood.

Spartan @143:
I can see how someone can take, maybe mistakenly, some of what you've said and see it as bigoted.

Oh gee, you think? First time I mention I oppose illegal immigration. "RACIST! BIGOT! HATER!". That's why the people who favor illegal immigration have such an easy time of it. Because it's easy to shut down rational discussion on the matter by shouting down your opponent with those accusations. I'm not letting anyone shut me down.

Loitering in most communities is against the law, call the cops.

Spartan, if the cops wanted to stop the day laborer loitering in my area, that's all they'd be doing all day. There's just too many groups of loitering day laborers. As I said, there's one area where literally every one to two blocks there's a group on the sidewalk.

I suspect that as long as they stick to public property and don't harass other people, the police leave them alone. Which, actually, I think is a good policy.

Question though, if we change your complaint to be, "I don't like to have to walk through a group of strange black men to get into the library", do you see how that could be construed as racist?

DUH.

Yes, you somewhat have the tie-in with illegal immigration with your specific complaints about Hispanic loitering and gangs which is different than black citizens, but does that statement even raise an eyebrow with you?

Again, DUH. But however unfortunate or "un PC" certain facts may be, that doesn't mean they're any less valid.

The point ultimately being that at some point, these connections from the groups to the individuals become silly. I'm sure we can find all kinds of interesting statistical anomolies about people named 'Adrienne' and complain about those also.

And let's say you found that an overwhelming majority of people with that name spoke French and lived in France or French-speaking areas. Would you think that was a just a big coincidence? Or would it tell you something about the linguistic group that favors naming their girl children, "Adrienne".

Look, analyizing group behavior is nothing new. Politicians like to know about who is likely to vote for them and what is important to those people. That's why, during election seasons, polling becomes REALLY important.

Disadvantaged groups like to point to statistics that show their group is doing worse in some way relative to other groups in order to get some extra help or funding or whatever. Is that mistaken?

We hear all the time about how few women are in Congress relative to the overall membership. Do you think that's just an accident? Does it say anything meaningful about the Congress or the American electorate? Is it an unlucky coincidence that we've never had a female president? Is it just a fluke that women, on average, receive lower pay per hour than their male counterparts doing the same jobs? If you dismiss all of these things as coincidence, then you basically tell the people who worry about women's underrepresentation in Congress or equal pay for equal work that their concerns are meaningless and have no basis in fact.

Are you concerned around white men as they are overwhelmingly the 'group' that serial killers arise from

Funny you raise that. I was going to point that out as an example of a valid generalization in my last reply to you.

If an educated middle-class white man in my neighborhood had a habit of petty arson and being cruel to animals, hell yes I'd avoid him. I'd probably keep an eye on the comings and goings in and out of his house, too. The clincher would be whether or not he's a bedwetter, but I probably wouldn't have access to that information.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2009 1:05 PM

146

Question though, if we change your complaint to be, "I don't like to have to walk through a group of strange black men to get into the library", do you see how that could be construed as racist?

Question for you, Spartan and others: why would you ever think to construe that statement as racist?

Why wouldn't you take it at face value without making other judgements on the speaker's beliefs and motivations for saying it?

Seriously.

Is it because you think that many (most?) people who complain about having to interact with and be around black men are unfairly and irrationally bigoted against all black people?

Are you making an assumption or at least calculating a statistical likelihood about a single individual's belief? Drawing a statistical inference, maybe?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2009 1:28 PM

148

Question for you, Spartan and others: why would you ever think to construe that statement as racist?

Why wouldn't you take it at face value without making other judgements on the speaker's beliefs and motivations for saying it?

Because, as I pointed out with the statement of yours that I quoted that did not have an ethnic or racial qualifier, the fact that they are black doesn't appear to have anything to do with it. Again, it's that it's a group of strange men that you have to walk through, and I presume they're maybe making catcalls or being crude or whatever. Without some tie-in to their ethnicity, what does being black or Hispanic or white or anything have to do with it? I'd say nothing, so it leads me then to logically question why one would mention that they are Hispanic or black in the first place unless they are also making some general statement about men in those ethnic/racial groups.

What is racist to you then? You can't seriously be arguing that there aren't racist white women who would say the exact same quote I created. What are the reasonable alternatives that are not racist for making that statement and mentioning they are black?

As far as your neo-nazi comparison, there's not much to respond to because it's apples to oranges; people *choose* to be neo-nazis, and don't choose to be Hispanic or black. I am 'bigoted' against neo-nazis because the definition of that 'neo-nazi' contains what I don't approve of.

Posted by: Spartan | July 21, 2009 1:48 PM

150

Hanley @145:
And that's why your claim to be the only logical person in this debate is nothing more than laughable.

You're right, I'm not the only person debating logically here.

DJ, Taz, chaosengineer, wheatdogg, Leni, Spartan, even you sometimes have argued logically.

Spartan @148:
Again, it's that it's a group of strange men that you have to walk through, and I presume they're maybe making catcalls or being crude or whatever. Without some tie-in to their ethnicity, what does being black or Hispanic or white or anything have to do with it?

You're right, and the reason I mention their ethnicity here is because they are Hispanic day laborers. They're in front of the library hoping to get picked up for work.

That's the only reason I mentioned their ethnicity. In fact, when I first mentioned them, I'm not sure I even mentioned their ethnicity, just that they were (probably) illegal aliens. Then the predictable barrage of "You don't like walking past brown men" followed, of course.

There probably are Irish or Nigerian or Russian day laborers somewhere, but again, in my area, I've never seen a black or white day laborer. All of the day laborer groups I've ever seen in my area are all Hispanic.

So I'll just say what I mean. I don't like having to walk through a group of strange men. Period. Whatever color they are.

What is racist to you then? You can't seriously be arguing that there aren't racist white women who would say the exact same quote I created.

Of course there are. I'm not denying that. The point I was trying to make is that someone saying that is likely to hold negative attitudes towards blacks. As in, pointing out a statistical likelihood of belief based on a single statement.

You were criticizing me earlier for relying too heavily on probabilities based on the characteristics or actions of a large group, and I was trying to point out that sometimes you can make an inference about someone based on a small amount of data.

If a woman says, "I don't like walking past black men," she's likelier than not to hold racist attitudes. That's the point I was trying to make.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2009 2:35 PM

152

"I have no problem with Hispanics, per se. There's a Latin American doctor in my neighborhood who speaks English well enough to interact with me. I welcome Hispanics (or Nigerians, or Indians...etc.) like him."

After several bushels of Adrienne's Word Salad, this is what your arguments boil down to. You don't like hispanic people that loiter, speak english badly or don't speak it at all and toil at menial jobs.

You can't move because your house is worth less than it was before. I would guess this would piss me the hell off it I had it happen to me. No wonder you don't like those folks, they be hurtin' YOUR american dream, because they default on their mortgages. Let's blame them, instead of the bankers and brokers; yeah, that'll work.

Posted by: democommie | July 21, 2009 2:38 PM

154

Spartan @153:

Exactly, which was my original point, that it is quite reasonable for people to suspect racist or bigoted motivations in some of the points you've made. When I can take your original statement, change 'Latino' to 'black' and have you agree that it is likely that people saying such a statement are racist, I think it's evident then why some of the things you've said may also be viewed in that racist or bigoted light.

Yes, and I don't disagree with you on this.

I likewise feel the same way about simple data points like 'Hispanic' and 'illegal immigrant', outside of the things you've already listed that I don't think are racist at all that have to do with the negative effects of the illegal immigration of anyone.

Yes, alright, you can certainly draw negative statistical inferences as well. Agreed.

FYI, here's a good article that summarizes the two-faced attitude that the United States has regarding illegal immigration.

Let me point out another reason that I'm illegal immigration and against amnesty for illegal immigrants (at least those who've come here after the year 1999): it's fundamentally unfair to immigrants from other parts of the world.

And speaking of individual stories, here's one for you who accuse me of being bigoted:

I work with a Palestinian woman who's here on an H1B visa. She's desperately trying to get a green card via the Diversity Visa lottery. This is her second year trying for the DV.

She's a highly skilled professional, so I don't know if she'd live a poor material existence if she had to go back to the occupied territories. Certainly it would probably be materially poorer than the life she has here. But she'd be going back to a political system where she is systematically discriminated against because of her nationality and religion. Her homeland is regularly bombed, invaded, and otherwise degraded by its occupier.

She works hard. Really hard. She also really, really wants to stay here and make a better life than she would back in the occupied territories. I think the DV has already happened for this year, and I don't know if she got her green card. I really hope she did. But she was not planning on overstaying her visa if she didn't get a green card.

Why shouldn't she be "amnestied" instead of people who knowingly came here illegally and/or are staying here illegally? Wouldn't she bring "diversity" to our country? If Obama puts through some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, who again are mostly from Mexico and Latin America, it's a slap in the face to people like my coworker who have respected the law and played by all the rules to come here.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2009 8:32 PM

156

Adrienne:

You seem to have an answer for everything. You contradict yourself with some of your more recent ones, compared to others that you've offered earlier, but, you always have an answer.

Posted by: democommie | July 21, 2009 9:38 PM

158

Poor Adrienne, she's just so misunderstood.

You say shitty things about other folks and they unfairly smear you; tsk, tsk.

Evolving thoughts = moving the goal posts.

Posted by: democommie | July 25, 2009 8:15 PM