Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=Jazzman]
Actually, people do change political beliefs and I definitely think they are influenced more by environment than genes. If you want to influence someone’s thinking then don;t shout at them and tell them they are wrong. We have lost the ability to be impartial. It’s either my way of the highway, black or white, republican or democrat. In reality, most issues are shades of grey, but we’ve become egotistical, opinionated bigots and the media loves it.[/quote]
Yes, people can probably change over time, but Brian seems to think that the ideological divide is between those who want to hold onto the past vs. those who want to keep changing things. I think the divide is between those who want to do what’s best for themselves vs. what’s best for society at large. As a teacher and parent, it’s been fascinating to watch how inborn some of these traits are. Some children are naturally selfless, generous, and considerate; and others are naturally selfish, greedy and inconsiderate. I’ve been surprised to see how innate some of these traits are.
You are totally correct about most things being on a spectrum where the majority is grey, yet so many people only think in binary terms. It’s one of our greatest problems when trying to communicate and understand one another, IMHO.
Participant[quote=Jazzman][quote=spdrun][quote=CA renter]I’ve had Mexican-American friends tell me that the Mexicans were going to “take back” their territory in a bloodless war, simply by out-populating the white Americans. [/quote]
Think about what you’re saying.
Real question is, so what if they do and the US west ends up majority Mexican/Latino? How does that affect you? I don’t think that anyone is seriously proposing that Upper California should rejoin Mexico — most immigrants come here to escape bad political conditions down there.
Also, intermarriage tends to be more common among children of Latino immigrants, so we might end up with a “Californian” identity rather than a “Mexican” one in 100 years.
In short, who cares, unless you have some outdated notions of ethnic purity?
And this is an AWESOME trend. One out of five Californians now marries outside their race…
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/interracial-marriages-u-s-hit-all-time-high-4-8-million-article-1.1023643%5B/quote%5D
I have never understood this argument. California was part of Mexico which was a Spanish colony, and was only part of an independent Mexico for about forty years. Interestingly, DNA shows indigenous peoples on the north American continent came from the same place as Europeans. The Asian migration and subsequent influence came later. We all much more related that we realize.[/quote]Agree with this.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, what I said is pretty factual.
Nativist. You’d probably admit to that.
Paranoid. You latch on to some words that some public figure spoke as evidence that there is a conspiracy to take over US territory.
If you believe that our system is so good, then why would anyone want to separate and join Mexico?
Xenophobia. Your insistence that people adopt your language and your culture show exactly that. In reality, culture is fluid and ever changing. Immigrants bring their culture here; and over time, they change and we change.
spd has a good understanding of nationalism. For example Italy used to be many independent states. So was Germany. Previously, the English could accept a foreign king or queen. People could accept their leaders speaking foreign languages and eating foreign cuisine.[/quote]
Those aren’t the words of some random public figure. This is a major movement within the Latin American community, and it’s particularly powerful among those who advocate for “immigration reform.”
No, I don’t believe that it’s wrong to want to maintain one’s culture and way of life. The vast majority of humans would prefer to maintain their culture and way of life, or improve upon their way of life. Nobody (except you, apparently) wants to lose their position in the world’s cultural and economic hierarchy. This is perfectly normal.
And if you want to take a look at the Germans, consider the fact that the Germanic peoples are far more alike than Native Americans are to European-Americans or to African-Americans or to Asian-Americans. Yet, there is still friction among the Germanic people. How can you expect to have people who are far more diverse live together in a harmonious way in a world of finite resources? Can you name an example when/where this has ever worked out in the long run (and example where the REALITY matches the ideology of a truly peaceful and harmonious coexistence)? Has there ever been an instance where the majority population of a host country was dramatically outnumbered and overwhelmed over a few decades by a very disparate population and everything evolved without some sort of conflict? Oftentimes, the conflicts lead to major wars.
But, more than anything else, it’s about economics: WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO TAKE CARE OF THE WORLD’S POOR. We can handle a limited number at any given time, but a major and continuous influx is totally unworkable, IMO.
Participant[quote=spdrun]CAr – outside of CA, commercial property is often taxed at a higher rate than residential as regards value.
As far as schools, I have a really bad feeling about punishing kids for the crimes of their parents by denying them an education. If anything that would increase crime.[/quote]
Yes, that may be the case in other states, but it’s not the case in California.
Agree about not punishing the kids, which is why the kids would be entitled to a public education, but the cost would be borne by their parents’ employers. It would be illegal to employ someone without paying the full cost of luring people here from other countries. The punishment for the crime would involve steep fines and the potential to lose their business assets.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, you sound nativist, paranoid and xenophobic.
So what if the world charges. Future generations will have to choose what’s best for them. If in the future, you don’t like the changes in your neighborhood, you can vote with your feet.
Is it so shocking the Jorge Ramos has his opinions? It’s no sign of a wide conspiracy of any sort. Personally, I’m all for a Schengen type region in North America. That makes the most economic and humanitarian sense.
There are competing ideas and may the best win!
Btw, unauthorized immigrants are not getting welfare benefits. But kids do get to go to school. That’s good.[/quote]
Brian, the “racist, xenophobic, bigoted, paranoid, nativist (as a negative)” labels are overused and worn out. They have been used as a means to censor those with dissenting opinions; therefore, they are 100% invalid. Name-calling doesn’t work; try arguing with facts and logic, instead.
And your claim that everything is better since Reagan’s amnesty is not backed by reality. The wages and purchasing power of American citizens is down; our infrastructure is crumbling; our social welfare systems, prisons, and schools are overwhelmed; and our housing prices are far above what American citizens can afford because illegal immigrants compete for housing, and can often pay more than American families from the same socio-economic class because they are willing to live with multiple families/generations in a SFH. And neighborhoods that have a high percentage of illegal immigrants tend to have much higher crime rates. No, things are not better because of rampant, unchecked illegal immigration. I have no idea where you get that nonsense from.
Participant[quote=spdrun]How would a “benefits entitlement” card even work, considering most schools are local or state funded and immigration is nationally controlled?
In most states outside of CA, school funding is largely from property taxes. Commercial property is taxed higher than residential, generally speaking. Therefore any employer that has a place of business is already paying more school tax.
As far as welfare beenfits, I could see denying them to non-citizens. But not unemployment or social security, if the guest worker has worked for the requisite time period and paid into the system.[/quote]
The fact that immigration laws are federal doesn’t change the fact that states are the ones to shoulder most of the burden. The way I envision it, it would be a state-run program. The average per-capita cost of our infrastructure budget (roads, publicly-funded water distribution and reclamation costs, prisons, public safety, prisons, etc.) would be reflected in the price of the benefit card. Schools could be an add-on if the worker has minor dependents, with the full per-capita cost of the student(s) being added to the price of the card. Any student trying to enroll in a public school would be required to either show proof of citizenship or a benefit card.
Unemployment would be an entitlement only if the employee paid into the system, and any abuse would result in deportation. I’m mixed on Social Security. Personally, I would not require them to pay into the SS system, and they would not be entitled to any SS benefits.
No welfare for anyone other that American citizens.
BTW, I’m not aware of commercial/industrial property owners paying a higher property tax rate. In fact, they often pay a lower rate because of the corporate loophole. And agricultural properties are often taxed at an even lower rate.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I have quite a few conservative friends — some of them are even open minded enough to enjoy arguing about politics 🙂 As long as they’re respectful about it, and are truly conservative vs being bigoted, they’ll remain friends.
As far as religion, I’m more of an agnostic, but I’m seeing someone who’s a somewhat religious Catholic, went to see the Pope and all that. Tolerant, but religious nonetheless.
I disagree that safety nets and open borders are incompatible. Require ID for government services, don’t provide them to non-citizens. Open borders =/= open citizenship. There should still be a naturalization process.[/quote]
Who doesn’t enjoy arguing about politics? 😉
What about infrastructure costs? Who should have to pay for that? What about schools? Should we educate the children of illegal immigrants at the cost of ~$10,000/year? Who should pay for that?
I’ve long suggested that having a guest worker program here should incorporate a “benefits entitlement” card for the worker and all of his/her dependents. The employer should have to pay the cost of this card, and the cost of these cards should reflect the true cost of the public services and infrastructure being used by the guest worker and his/her dependents. All employers would be mandated to use the E-Verify system, or risk steep fines and possible forfeiture of their property.
If employers had to do this, the real cost of their employees would be made obvious, and they would quickly realize that they could hire American citizens for the same money or less. They are only hiring the illegal immigrants because taxpayers (and other workers) are subsidizing the costs.
Participant[quote=spdrun]That’s just the ease of travel and mass communication. Last I checked, the last time state borders were closed was during the Civil War.
There’s something to be said about congregating with those who are similar. Maybe that’s why as a 2nd generation American, I feel more empathy with Latinos who are either immigrants, or children of immigrants, than with people whose distant ancestors came off the Mayflower.[/quote]
Yes, it’s the ease of travel and also electronic communications. But that’s what open borders would facilitate.
And I also understand the perspective of immigrants because I’m a first-generation American on my mother’s side, but an 11th generation American on my father’s side, going back to the early 1600s (accident of accidents, my paternal grandparents were born in the 1800s). I’ve grown up with immigrants and most of my friends are immigrants or first-generation Americans.
But I’m also a realist, and know that open borders and generous social safety nets are completely incompatible. Since I strongly favor generous social safety nets (and workers’ rights and well-being), I favor highly-controlled immigration policies.
ParticipantLet’s even consider political persuasions. You’re pretty liberal. What would you say the ratio is between your conservative and liberal friends, particularly those you would consider close friends?
I believe you’re an atheist, right? How many extremely religious people are on your short list of really good friends?
How about Brian? How many conservative:liberal friends? Religious vs. non-religious friends? Dirty vs. clean friends (close friends whom you choose to spend time with)?
Some people like to live in a very clean, quiet neighborhood, while others like a lively environment with people coming over every day. Can these two types of people coexist peacefully?
I think it would be more beneficial if we acknowledged that people have different preferences and let those who want to live in a particular way find others like themselves and form communities of like-minded individuals (countries, states, cities, etc.). And for people who really like diversity, let them live in very diverse regions with others who enjoy the same things. Forcing one group to live with another group really doesn’t solve any problems. If anything, it tends to reinforce stereotypes and cause more friction between the two groups. We should just let everyone live the way they would prefer to live, with people who are most similar to them (even in their diversity).
Participant[quote=spdrun][quote=CA renter]We prefer to have different cultures, governments, economies, etc. so that people can choose something other than what they currently have. Migration has always been a part of human history, and I would never want it to be otherwise, but eliminating borders and consolidating governments, currencies, trade rules, economies, religious preferences, ethnicities, (even races) etc. is not a positive thing, IMO.
[/quote]Open borders won’t eliminate diversity in the way that you’re thinking. The US is very regionally diverse, yet has open borders between states.
The EU is also reasonably diverse and has open borders for citizens of any EU country. European borders were also practically open between the Napoleonic Wars and WW I.[/quote]
People tend to congregate with others who are similar. It’s perfectly natural.
But open borders are indeed erasing regional differences. These days, it’s much more difficult to tell if someone’s from Texas than it was ~30 years ago. The accents have largely disappeared, and the cultural differences (if you can call it that) between states has been muted.
The Europeans are worried about losing their national and cultural identities, too. It’s 100% natural, and there is nothing wrong with that. People can call it nationalism (not saying that’s a bad thing), or even racism, but it is as much a part of human nature as greed and hoarding. It’s a survival instinct.
Participant[quote=spdrun]It also seems to give scholarships, promote cultural events, provide academic help to those who need it.
I highly doubt that the majority of its members care a union of California and Mexico. Especially since Mexico is a conquered region as well, and far from the ideal of Aztlan.[/quote]
I beg to differ on that. If you take a Chicano Studies class in California, you’re likely to understand it a bit more.
BTW, this is why those “white racists” get so riled up about the Mexican flag being flown in the U.S., often in a defiant fashion. They are well aware of this movement and the intentions behind the symbolism. I’m honestly surprised that more white people (and people of other races) aren’t aware of it.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Question is, if we had truly open borders worldwide, would that be such a bad thing? Everyone would have the choice of what sort of government they’d want to live under. It would make tyranny and bad government a lot harder to enforce.
Open borders and globalism should be long-term ideals, since no one should be stuck because they had the misfortune to be born in one region of the world or another.[/quote]
You are a bit misguided, IMHO, about everyone having a choice of what government they would want to live under if we had open borders. To the contrary, the globalization movement’s goal is to eliminate the differences between countries — cultural, governmental, economic, etc. That is **precisely** who so many of us oppose open borders. We prefer to have different cultures, governments, economies, etc. so that people can choose something other than what they currently have. Migration has always been a part of human history, and I would never want it to be otherwise, but eliminating borders and consolidating governments, currencies, trade rules, economies, religious preferences, ethnicities, (even races) etc. is not a positive thing, IMO.
We need to encourage the differences between cultures and countries and let people live where they feel like they would most fit in. Trying to force everyone into the same mold has never worked.
Participant[quote=spdrun]OK, but do the majority of immigrants from Mexico/Latin America actually believe in this stuff?
There’s plenty of crazy to go around — ever hear of white separatism?[/quote]
Yes, the Chicanos and Latin American immigrants that I’ve known throughout my life are familiar with this. MECha is on many (most?) college campuses in California. This is completely mainstream knowledge in Latin American communities, especially communities where there is a lot of activism WRT illegal immigration. It is part and parcel of that movement.
ParticipantQuote [bold is mine -CAR]:
“Historical Foundation
The Chicano Movement of the late 1960’s helped spark cultural and historical pride in our people. Chicanas/Chicanos demanded to be treated as equals and denounced acculturation and assimilation. Brown pride began to express itself through poetry, literature, art and theater. The contributions of the Chicano Movement are numerous and continue to be very valuable to our society.
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) is a student organization that promotes higher education, cultura, and historia. MEChA was founded on the principles of self-determination for the liberation of our people. We believe that political involvement and education is the avenue for change in our society.
In March of 1969, at Denver, Colorado the Crusade for Justice organized the National Chicano Youth Conference that drafted the basic premises for the Chicana/Chicano Movement in El Plan de Aztlán (EPA). A synopsis of El Plan stipulates: 1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation); 2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture; 3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation; 4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement; 5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and 6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the sentiments of the Chicana/Chicano community.“
————
For those who aren’t familiar with the concept of Atzlan, read this and check out the map:
-
AuthorPosts
