<p>^so you think, but have not yet proved…lol! I am nothing, if not painfully direct.</p>
<p>"Wow. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of New York City described as a welfare state. "</p>
<p>I know you’re being facetious (I won’t say snarky), but you are joking, right? You’ve never heard of NYC described as a welfare state? I can’t imagine that that could be possible, I really can’t. Wow. Where are you from?"</p>
<p>Yup. The fruit of Republican mayors for the past 16 years.</p>
<p>Epiphany, no one on CC, that I’ve seen, has been so clumsy as to make the nativist, xenophobic arguments about immigration but you don’t have to listen a lot to the radio and other places home to the broader culture to hear them. There’s a visceral reaction against “THEM” who are not like “US.”</p>
<p>The point about the immigration laws and nationalities is the ethnic and racial roots. I can assure you that if instead Hispanics the current wave of immigrants spoke with cute English, Irish, French, and German accents similar to those of most of our Anglo ancestors that the national dialog about immigration would have a very different tenor.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of prejudice against Latinos and it’s not much better in many places for South Asian & Middle Eastern.</p>
<p>"so i assume your child goes to college for free? as befits a welfare state? i assume you have free universal health care and total job security and assured retirement with free healthcare and discounts to movies? "</p>
<p>Uh…Are you suggesting that someone else pay for your child to go to college? your retirement? your healthcare? Me perhaps? I am saving for my own childrens education, my retirement, etc</p>
<p>What ever happen to the notion that we are responsible for ourselves?</p>
<p>
To some degree, it’s a self-pleasing fantasy. In an urban technological society, the key notion is “interdependence,” not “independence.” And it follows everything from automobile traffic practices and zoning to internet forums and behavior in restaurants. The number of other people that each urban dweller is dependent upon for existence is very large.</p>
<p>It’s no accident that some of the most angry conservatives are those filling the ranks of the back-to-the-land survivalists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be your opinion but it certainly does not speak for all of us. Many of us see it purely as an economic issue.</p>
<p>
That certainly drives many to cross the border illegally to come work in our fields and kitchens and yards.</p>
<p>Bay, look at the national quotas that have stood behind our immigration laws. Those weren’t economic decisions.</p>
<p>Listen to the subtext on talk radio, if you can bear to listen. The “economic” arguments are filled with ethnic stereotyping. And many proponents of anti-immigration stances wrap themselves in the American flag…against THEM. It’s nativist at best, often xenophobic. </p>
<p>Does everyone who falls into the anti-illegal immigrant camp think like that? No. A majority? From my experience, yes. A lot of them are aware it’s bad manners and they dress their arguments up and spray deodorant on them.</p>
<p>One of the core issues is that Hispanic workers (undocumented and documented) simply work too hard. They have much at stake, including the lives of their families back home, turned into absolute misery by Al Gore’s trade policies. Faced with the choice of whom to hire, even when paying into Social Security and Workers Comp, as is done for more than 75% of undocumented immigrants, employers often choose Hispanic workers. Perhaps they shouldn’t, but they do.</p>
<p>And then there are places like my state, where unemployed white workers - thousands of them in eastern Washington, simply won’t do the work.</p>
<p>
Can you elaborate? Clinton is usually blamed. American trade unionists were against NAFTA, so with Mexico suffering, did Canada benefit? Economists say that on average, everyone benefited. Economists (and economies) like free trade, though not every person in every country benefits. Or do you mean Hispanics south of Mexico? Or are you talking about something completely different?</p>
<p>TheDad: Referencing old immigration laws (Chinese Exclusion Act, National Origins Act) really isn’t relevant to today. Those wrongs have been righted. A LONG time ago. And there is no “promise” on the Statue of Liberty - its a sentimental poem for goodness sake.</p>
<p>There has been a lot of name calling on the issue from the pro- amnesty side. We are not racist or xenophobes because we are against this bill. The problem today is volume, as anyone who lives in urban area today can attest to. This is not America in 1900. That immigration policy (Open Door) was also driven by economic need. Cheap labor then, cheap labor now. Do you think its a coincidence that real wages in this country have been stagnant for about a decade.?
To deny the tremendous cost to pour society is disingenuous. Our schools are overwhelmed and our medical system is hemorrhaging $. This issue is a lot more complicated than just calling names and insinuating motives to people.</p>
<p>
EXCEEDINGLY WELL STATED, deezmom!!! Kudos to you. </p>
<p>Coming out with a double-barrelled attack of:
1.) Insistence on adherence to American law being “jeer-worthy”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Coupled with
2.) Every other objection to amnesty being attributed to “xenophobia” or “racism” (not to mention some extremely crude references to bodily functions on the part of those hearing “languages other than English”)</p>
<p>adds up to a futile effort to discount every rational argument on the other side of the issue–but with rather condescending, accusatory, and “hissy fit” tactics rather than with cogent, effective arguments.</p>
<p>It isn’t for <em>any</em> one American (or even group of them) to decide which laws should be upheld.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>"ZM: two of the phrases I learned in Hungarian, based on forewarning, were “enough!” and “too much!” </p>
<p>The first three things I try to learn in many languages, not that I’ve done it for all for which I have smatterings, are: "</p>
<p>TheDad, I think you’re ready for a trip on the number 7 train. Come on down!</p>
<p>“That certainly drives many to cross the border illegally to come work in our fields and kitchens and yards.”</p>
<p>I’m sure that’s true and it is a tragedy for those left behind in the home country. But it’s not a full picture. Here in my borough, we a Mexican Consular office specifically set-up to help illegal immigrants recieve social services here in New York. It is absolutely, unquestionably a magnet for some of the people who come here.</p>
<p>“it is a tragedy for those left behind in the home country”</p>
<p>The separation from family is, but financially it’s a benefit, not just the money sent home, but the resulting lower unemployment rate.</p>
<p>“set-up to help illegal immigrants recieve social services here in New York”</p>
<p>Are these legal or illegal social services?</p>
<p>"The separation from family is, but financially it’s a benefit, not just the money sent home, but the resulting lower unemployment rate.</p>
<p>The solution is not to accept fractured families, but to help them thrive at home. </p>
<p>“Are these legal or illegal social services?”</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>Thank you, deezmom and berurah. Tired of the broad-brush name-calling, or next to it, against those of us who look with a realistic eye to capacity, while maintaining a view of compassion and welcome. But we can’t welcome the entire world. There are exponentially more tired, hungry, huddled masses then there were when the Statue was built. I’ve only said this maybe 12 times, but those who are driven by sentiment and subjectivity prefer to focus on either the narrow (“the nice immigrants I know, I work with, I’m related to, who work for me”), or the abstract separated from the concrete.</p>
<p>The issue, the policy, and the national practices surrounding immigration are not about individuals’ personal relationships with immigrants. I have no doubt that there are millions of deserving strangers in countries I’ve never visited who are nice people and who “need” to come here. Because I don’t want to exchange the conditions of my country for theirs (thereby eliminating the advantage in coming here) does not make me or any other poster xenophobic. </p>
<p>And with regard to the issue of language, it is not about “not wanting to hear other languages.” TD, your replies on this sound just a little reactive to me. Yes,you have heard in your community or on “Right Wing Talk Radio” a lot of super-nationalism. But even many multi-lingual Americans are passionate about maintaining a primary, unifying language for the country. Any historian can tell you it was one of the central factors in encouraging loyalty, for the earlier waves of immigrants, and in strengthening national unity. This is critical to the health of a nation in many ways: economically, culturally, politically. Like today, the immigrants of yesteryear were hardly required to discard their former national roots, & often maintained those languages in their homes & communities.</p>
<p>Further, a common language promotes the widest possible political/civic participation: fostering communication to that end, and helping us to transcend our differences,that we may speak & act cooperatively.</p>
<p>Literacy and fluency in a national language also promotes the economic advancement of the immigrant within that country. Clearly the same would apply to any of us emigrating somewhere else. And in this regard, it does no good to blame immigrants necessarily for this. Rather, they are being encouraged by others to view English as their permanent second-class, non-fluent language by practices, policies, & attitudes that reinforce that. When you combine that with the existing educational deficits that they most of them arrive with, the full integration, assimilation, upward mobility, & contributions of arrivals are threatened. I fail to see this as compassionate.</p>
<p>“Can you elaborate? Clinton is usually blamed. American trade unionists were against NAFTA, so with Mexico suffering, did Canada benefit? Economists say that on average, everyone benefited. Economists (and economies) like free trade, though not every person in every country benefits. Or do you mean Hispanics south of Mexico? Or are you talking about something completely different?”</p>
<p>Gore was the architect of NAFTA and Clinton’s so-called “free trade” policies. Hundreds of thousands of families were kicked off their lands in southern Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador, with U.S. capitalists and a small Mexican “comprador” class being the prime beneficiaries (the secondary beneficiaries being joint U.S./Central American druglords and politicians).</p>
<p>There is no such thing as “on average” when millions of people are kicked into utter destitution. The “on average” reflects the massive increases in drug trafficking and its net positive effects on national wealth. </p>
<p>Not ALL economists believe that free trade is beneficial. But neo-liberalism has swept over our eyes so completely it is virtually impossible to see the total economic impacts. Try figuring out that total economic impacts of, for example, global warming, and the degree to which it is attributable to so-called “free trade” and, all of a sudden, the equations don’t look so positive. And, if you believe they are negative, try adding in the costs of so-called illegal immigration into the U.S. starting in the mid- to late '90s as a result of Al Gore’s trade policies, and put that into equation, as well as the costs of “building the fence”. All of a sudden, the equations start looking even less positive. (When you’re done with that, we can start with the political/economic impacts of the trade deficit with China, or the impacts of rising energy demand. Gross national products may rise, but people are actually poorer as a result, and those two statements are not contradictory.)</p>
<p>While I certainly can understand and respect the concerns of those who oppose amnesty, it is a fact not every person’s objection is based merely on their interpretation of the economic and social impact of unchecked immigration. </p>
<p>All you have to do is google the words illegal immigration and you will find pages and pages of anti-immigration websites where no one bothers to hide racism and xenophobia sentiments that fuel their opposition to any bill that might provide relief to immigrants, legal or illegal. So rather than take TheDad’s words personally, or as an accusation, it would be more helpful to address the reality of that facet of this argument.</p>
<p>As far as selective application of the laws goes…do we just condemn the illegal immigrant picker for not being a law abiding citizen? How about the grower who hires the immigrant or the consumer who purchases and serves up the ‘fruit’ of this illegal enterprise? We are all parties to the crime, whether we want to admit it or not.</p>
<p>“…or the consumer who purchases and serves up the ‘fruit’ of this illegal enterprise? We are all parties to the crime, whether we want to admit it or not.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately there are not separate labels, signs in produce sections of stores, indicating which was gathered by illegal immigrants, which by legal. (And I believe only something like 5% of produce is harvested by “illegals,” now.) Therefore, the consumer cannot distinguish the differences, but many would in fact be happy to choose. (Just as many choose “Fair Trade” coffee currently, over what is under the corporate name but picked by Third World workers.) Let’s stop with the incendiary “criminal” language against posters on this board, shall we, ldmom? I’m not a criminal, nor am I complicit in crime. If you choose to call yourself a ‘criminal’ (“we”), do not include me in your group.</p>
<p>I have “condemned” no one. When broad statements are made, relative to a general discussion on <em>this</em> board – not “right wing talk radio,” not “googling” certain phrases, but College Confidential Parent Cafe – I take an incendiary, emotionally laden, heavily rhetorical reply as an inappropriate response to specific points brought up <em>here</em> not “there.” This is about the discussion in the Parent Cafe, not a discussion elsewhere that repliers have no control over and did not necessarily contribute to.</p>
<p>I <em>have</em> addressed TheDad’s comments, quite pointedly, impersonally, “with the reality of that facet of the argument.” That is just too bad if you think I took it “personally,” but thanks for once again obscuring the particular issues and particular responses with generalized rhetoric.</p>