Minite-man border fence

[Guard Dog]

It's funny how this thread is basically people saying the same thing over and over again. THE US RELIES ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. BUILDING A WALL WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. Seriously, go read a book on Mexican immigration before you act like you have an informed opinion. The best bet is working with Mexico. We don't have a problem with the Canadian border, do we? So maybe the US should worry less about protecting its comfortable place in the world and worry more about helping others reach the same place.

 

Also, I live in a predominantly hispanic community. I teach in a predominantly minority school. I probably have a few illegal immigrants living in my condo. complex. It's pretty funny to hear people from Canada and England talking about Mexican immigration like its really an issue for them. This is not the Roman Empire. The US is a culture of many cultures, and anybody who thinks that Mexicans are going to destroy American identity is forgetting their own history.

First of all, Josh as I said, I have no issue with a REGULATED work visa program. And Hurlshot brings up a very important point here I'd like to expand on. Mexico has a decent education level (third highest in spanish speaking countries world wide) and great sections or arable land in the south (by landmass larger than the states of Florida and Georgia combined). They have oil, silver, and other resources in abundance. They have everything they need to build a robust economy. So what is wrong? Corruption? Disorganization? What is it about Mexico that is it so fundamentally flawed?

 

Now, Hurlshot as to the last line of your post, you should read this. There is a growing faction of Hispanics that want to take over the Southwestern States and California by electoral fiat, then secede from the US and form a new "Hispanic Homeland" called the Republica de Norte. "By any means necassary". Josh, I'd bet you at least have heard of this, frequent California gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante is a member.

 

Republica de Norte

 

The US is what it is because of immigrants who come here and want to contribute to the country and culture. People who want to be a part of it. It does change and become stronger because of them. But what we have today is a growing faction that does not want to integrate but tear off a part and turn it into something it is not.

[J.E. Sawyer]

They have everything they need to build a robust economy. So what is wrong? Corruption? Disorganization? What is it about Mexico that is it so fundamentally flawed?

Corruption and disorganization are part of it. It doesn't help that their northern neighbor is an agricultural juggernaut.

 

Now, Hurlshot as to the last line of your post, you should read this. There is a growing faction of Hispanics that want to take over the Southwestern States and California by electoral fiat, then secede from the US and form a new "Hispanic Homeland" called the Republica de Norte. "By any means necassary". Josh, I'd bet you at least have heard of this, frequent California gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante is a member.

Well, that's fine because Cruz Bustamante is terrible.

 

It is worth noting that if we do want to use a guest worker program, such programs will need reform to prevent a repeat of the abusive bracero programs of the 1940s-60s.

[alanschu]

Are governments supposed to force people to act a certain way, or represent the people of the constituency?

You didn't answer the question, which leads me to believe you are just being argumentative.

 

And you didn't really answer mine The question was asked in response to your question, since it provided an alternative viewpoint of the perspective. I was also hoping that it would demonstrate the notion that I do not feel the two were compatible situations.

 

It's not a matter of government, but a matter of customs, culture, and manners (or lack thereof). If the majority of immigrants were of that African ethnicity that encourages female genital mutilation, should the government just legalize it because "the government should represent the constituency"? An extreme example no doubt, but valid still, since it's ultimately an example of culture clash. Furthermore, the extent and validity of the "constituency" you refer to is in dispute as well, since illegals by definition are not a part of that.

The situations will still exist even with just legal immigration, unless you severely curtail immigration. Which, ironically, I think would be going against part of the values of the United States.

 

So I'll reformulate. If you were an exchange student living with a family abroad, would you adapt to them or force them to do things your way?

 

 

I suppose that would depend (since I like to make things fun and interesting in an argumentative way). First off, if I was an exchange student, I'd likely be an exchange student because I want to learn more about the host country's culture, and part of the best way to learn about it would be to experience it. If I was someone that wasn't particularly willing to adapt, I probably wouldn't be looking for a temporary opportunity to learn abroad. Having said that, I'd be surprised if the host family didn't offer any concessions in my favour either.

 

You can also look at it the other way as well. If you were a host family, would you force the exchange student to do everything your way? Assuming your family had a tradition of going to a Christian Church every Sunday, would you force your Hindu exchange student to do the same?

 

 

The problem with the example posed in your question is that your scale is too small. It's possible for someone that does not know how to speak English very well to still go to parts of America and integrate themselves very nicely. Even a legal immigrant could still struggle reading English Only government documents that are often laced with obscure legalese that many ESL people would not be accustomed to. Another problem with the example would be whether or not the role of the government is equivalent to the role of the host family in the student exchange situation. Part of the reason why my own family took part in the student exchange program with our local High School was to get a perspective of Canadian Culture from a different part of the country. He was from Amos, Quebec. If we weren't willing to make concessions for the Quebecer coming here in certain ways, we probably would never have been accepted. Heck, we probably wouldn't have even gotten involved in the program to begin with.

 

I suppose the government can do the same thing with immigration, if they feel that their culture or whatever is in danger. Though IMO the thing that I find fascinating about American (and even Canadian) culture is the fact that it's a sum of the plethora of cultures that make it up.

[Hurlshort]

Ah, found my other really good book. This one is very readable, whereas some of the others I mentioned read like textbooks. It's a national bestseller, so hopefully a few people have heard of it. It's called "Distant Neighbors" by Alan Riding. Again, it focuses more on the problems of Mexico, but that is the root of the border issue.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Hurlshot

[213374U]

This book is an excellent one just on the Mexican political system, and it explains a lot about why people head to the US for work in the first place.

 

I've heard good things about this book. I haven't read it yet myself, but I have it sitting on a shelf for the summer, or the next CA history class I end up in.

 

This book is actually about the Dust Bowl migration, but I think it parallels well with the subject, and it was a great read. It shows that this is not a new problem, and that resisting entire cultural groups never pans out in the end.

 

This textbook is on CA history, really, but there is great information on labor and minorities.

Ah, found my other really good book. This one is very readable, whereas some of the others I mentioned read like textbooks. It's a national bestseller, so hopefully a few people have heard of it. It's called "Distant Neighbors" by Alan Riding. Again, it focuses more on the problems of Mexico, but that is the root of the border issue.

That's a lot of literature. Most of them seem focused in either Mexican or US History and politics, rather than immigration itself. I'll see if I can find any of them in Spanish, since I'm not too keen on reading textbooks in English. Thanks for the references.

 

 

And you didn't really answer mine The question was asked in response to your question, since it provided an alternative viewpoint of the perspective. I was also hoping that it would demonstrate the notion that I do not feel the two were compatible situations.

Um, I think I did answer it, if not explicitly, maybe. Okay then, I'll be more clear. No, the government is there to enforce the law, and preserve the culture of those that elected the government, as well as those people themselves. If people aren't happy with that, or the ethnical or cultural composition of the majority changes, then people will elect a different government that will change the law. That's democracy for good or ill...

 

And why aren't the two situations comparable? Does it not come down to forcing others to accomodate you instead of the other way around when you are the alien?

 

 

The situations will still exist even with just legal immigration, unless you severely curtail immigration. Which, ironically, I think would be going against part of the values of the United States.

Yes, but legal immigrants are far less than illegals. Therefore, their impact on the culture is diminished. Also, and as GD pointed out before, you are actually required to know something about the US when immigrating there legally.

 

 

I suppose that would depend (since I like to make things fun and interesting in an argumentative way). First off, if I was an exchange student, I'd likely be an exchange student because I want to learn more about the host country's culture, and part of the best way to learn about it would be to experience it.

So I guess that you mean some illegals care nothing for the country they are going to get their livelihood (and possibly their families') off. This is at best selfish, and at worst, an incitation for xenophobia. So, why should any government accomodate to these people, again?

 

 

Having said that, I'd be surprised if the host family didn't offer any concessions in my favour either.

Such as speaking in English during dinner? Come on.

 

 

You can also look at it the other way as well. If you were a host family, would you force the exchange student to do everything your way? Assuming your family had a tradition of going to a Christian Church every Sunday, would you force your Hindu exchange student to do the same?

That's a strawman. BUT. Would I have them address us in our language? Yes. Would I have them have breakfast, lunch, and dinner with the rest of the family? Yes. Would I have them help with home chores? You bet I would.

 

 

It's possible for someone that does not know how to speak English very well to still go to parts of America and integrate themselves very nicely.

No doubt. But in those cases, there's at least a will to try.

 

 

I suppose the government can do the same thing with immigration, if they feel that their culture or whatever is in danger. Though IMO the thing that I find fascinating about American (and even Canadian) culture is the fact that it's a sum of the plethora of cultures that make it up.

I guess that depends on how you define "danger".

[alanschu]

And why aren't the two situations comparable? Does it not come down to forcing others to accomodate you instead of the other way around when you are the alien?

 

Because I expect a group of individuals (say a family) to act at least somewhat selfishly, for their own needs. I do not expect government to act selfishly on its behalf, but rather on behalf of the people they represent.

 

 

Such as speaking in English during dinner? Come on.

Hey, my Aunt (a French teacher) spoke French with her exchange student from France when they were alone, so it's not like it's impossible. Since only my brother spoke French (and our exchange student was fluent in English), we spoke English. Also, since the only language I know fluently is English, if I were to decide to become an exchange student, I'd request that my hosts be proficient in English. If the host country I was interested in didn't have anyone that met that criteria, I'd look elsewhere. Just like how a Spanish speaking immigrant (illegal or legal) can find places in the United States where people know Spanish. In any case, it's the people that a person interacts with that will determine the need for whether or not someone will learn a language, not the government. If someone works and lives with people that predominantly speak a different language, they will learn that language, as people are inherently social creatures.

 

So I guess that you mean some illegals care nothing for the country they are going to get their livelihood (and possibly their families') off. This is at best selfish, and at worst, an incitation for xenophobia. So, why should any government accomodate to these people, again?

 

I'm sure some don't. I'm sure some legal immigrants don't either. Many foreigners do see America as "The Land of Opportunity" though. And given subsections of society in the United States (and Canada) that sprout up reflecting (and preserving) various minority cultures, it's easier for them to take advantage of said opportunities. I know that when I go to Chinatown, I no longer expect English to be the primary language spoken, despite Chinese being none of the two official languages of Canada. Now Guard Dog commented about how he's fine with people doing their own thing outside of government interactions, in allowing people to behave this way will only lead to a situation where a government agency will conclude that it's best to offer multilingual service. Refusing to do so could be doing a diservice to the community that the government is trying to serve.

 

And yes, it is selfish. You were expecting people to behave in a different way?

 

No doubt. But in those cases, there's at least a will to try.

That would certainly explain why cultural segments of cities sprout up so frequently. Chinatowns, Little Italies, and so on.

 

That's a strawman. BUT. Would I have them address us in our language? Yes. Would I have them have breakfast, lunch, and dinner with the rest of the family? Yes. Would I have them help with home chores? You bet I would.

 

How is it a strawman? It's simply a situation where a concession would be made. And it's still an issue of scale and circumstance. If the host family was multilingual and happened to know English as well, it's actually not unreasonable that interactions with them would occur in English (especially since I have seen it happen).

 

 

 

I was kind of all over the place as I posted this message, so hopefully it's coherent and I didn't leave any unfinished sentences lying around.

[213374U]

I do not expect government to act selfishly on its behalf, but rather on behalf of the people they represent.

The first and foremost duty of the government is to preserve the status quo. All other considerations come later.

 

Also, you have twice dodged the point. The legitimate government does not represent illegals. Nor should it try to.

 

 

Hey, my Aunt (a French teacher) spoke French with her exchange student from France when they were alone, so it's not like it'simpossible.

At the detriment of general use of English? Did the rest of the famliy have to learn French so they could still communicate in the family?

 

 

Just like how a Spanish speaking immigrant (illegal or legal) can find places in the United States where people know Spanish. In any case, it's the people that a person interacts with that will determine the need for whether or not someone will learn a language, not the government. If someone works and lives with people that predominantly speak a different language, they will learn that language, as people are inherently social creatures.

Yep. Thus forming isolated (in many ways) communities of immigrants. Is that desirable?

 

 

I know that when I go to Chinatown, I no longer expect English to be the primary language spoken, despite Chinese being none of the two official languages of Canada.

Never been there, but are you still able to make yourself understood in the official language of the country? If not, that is a problem.

 

 

And yes, it is selfish. You were expecting people to behave in a different way?

So, let me get this straight. They can be as selfish, rude and purposefully oblivious as they want, but we have to be selfless, help them fit in, and accomodate to them?

 

 

]That would certainly explain why cultural segments of cities sprout up so frequently. Chinatowns, Little Italies, and so on.

That's not what I would call "integrate themselves very nicely". I don't know about you, but I don't like to feel like a foreigner in my own country.

 

 

How is it a strawman? It's simply a situation where a concession would be made. And it's still an issue of scale and circumstance.

It's a strawman because the point is only valid because of the absurd proportions it's been taken to. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental human right. Not only you are not breaking any human rights by requiring people to know the language of the country they want to live in, it's established that way in the Constitution, I think.

[Guard Dog]

Not only you are not breaking any human rights by requiring people to know the language of the country they want to live in, it's established that way in the Constitution, I think.

 

 

The Constitution takes no stance on the issue of language. If it did this thread would have been a lot shorter!

[Hurlshort]

I don't know if it's been stated yet, but the US actually doesn't have an official language.

[213374U]

I didn't know that. No official language for the country?

 

What a mess.

[Hurlshort]

Eh, English isn't really running the risk of becoming a dead language. The majority of people who come to the US, whether legal or illegally, want their children to learn English. That's one of the reasons they come here, to ensure that their children recieve an education and a chance at a good quality of life. People trash the educational system in the US, but it can be amazing to watch children whose parents only know their native language, thrive and become bilingual in public schools. People will keep learning English because it's a dominant language, and that isn't changing. It doesn't need to be enforced or official to make that claim. We have people on this board from all over the world, and yet we are using English to communicate. I'm not claiming English is better than other languages, but that's just the state of the world. On the other hand, I don't think that you need to speak only English to be an American. I think it's important to maintain that link to your cultural roots.

 

My father-in-law was born in Mexico. He's proud of his Mexican heritage, but he's also extremely proud to be an American. In fact, I'd say he has more patriotism than I do, and I can trace my roots back to the Mayflower. Mexicans aren't going to swallow the US, but the more people try and resist Mexican Amricn culture, the larger the rift between the two sides will be.

[Walsingham]

Er... I agree with Josh about Britain and Switzerland being good examples of multi-cultural countries embiggened by their diversity. In fact I should point out that Welsh is actualy an official language, and signs etc are shown in Welsh already, and have been for years. No discernible deterioration in teh health of the Union. beyond encouraging the usual gagle of opportunistic nitwits eager to become big fish in a smaller pond.

 

What I don't agree with Josh on is the notion that just because US citizens don't want to work under certain pay and conditions that means the s.o.b.s who are putting forward those terms should get tehir way. Constructoin is a big and profitable businesss, even in places like the UK which has a lot more controls, and where margins are very fine. as a further point is it really such a terrible thing to suggest that rampant land development could use some cooling off?

 

 

Finally, as an extra point to tug into this, you all are familiar with teh fact that the US cheerfully pumps unsafe waste over the border into Mexico? You think maybe you could pay more attention to neighbourlinesss on your side?

 

 

N.B. I'm writing at home recently and I have to squint at the screen, being seated a good three feet away, which is why so many more typos are getting by me.

[Guard Dog]

Finally, as an extra point to tug into this, you all are familiar with teh fact that the US cheerfully pumps unsafe waste over the border into Mexico? You think maybe you could pay more attention to neighbourlinesss on your side?

WTF??? Where did you get that from? The US has some of the toughest waste disposal regulations in the industrialized world. These days anyway. We might screw up royally from time to time but we usually learn from it. No more "Love Canals" these days.

[Calax]

Finally, as an extra point to tug into this, you all are familiar with teh fact that the US cheerfully pumps unsafe waste over the border into Mexico? You think maybe you could pay more attention to neighbourlinesss on your side?

WTF??? Where did you get that from? The US has some of the toughest waste disposal regulations in the industrialized world. These days anyway. We might screw up royally from time to time but we usually learn from it. No more "Love Canals" these days.

you realize that waste cleanup numbers change yearly.. For example Aerojet is cleaning up a groundwater contamination that was caused by rocket testing. Within the past eight years the number for "clean" has changed about 15-20 times. and I think it currently sits at about 3-5 parts per billion.

 

So, Stringent yes, But some contamination sites might not be legally contaminated this year so they just pump it out.

[Walsingham]

Personal family source. Was in Tijuana and did some poking around in the way my family seems incapable of NOT doing. You can see the outflow pipes with your own eyes, but the administartion makes official statements saying there is no problem. Investiigating journalists in Mexico have turned up dead.*

 

 

 

*It seems these days that a story ain't true until someone kills a journalist. I think we shoudl form a suicide cadre of journalists whose sole purpose it get killed and draw attention to things.

[blue]

It's a binational problem.

 

Historically, the U.S. & Mexico have had open-border policies regarding hazardous waste. In recent years, regulatory actions by both governments have helped reduce some pollution levels but enforcement is spotty and significant problems remain.

 

U.S. companies operating in Mexico dump toxins into river systems that pollute U.S. ecosystems and raw Mexican sewage contaminates California neighborhoods & beaches. Meanwhile, migrant workers in California's Imperial Valley breathe pesticides and those same agricultural operations affect air and water quality in Mexicali. Landfills and scrap tire piles dot both sides of the border, providing breeding grounds for disease while leeching contaminants into groundwater.

 

Pollution doesn't respect political boundaries.

Edited February 6, 2007 by blue

[blue]

I think we shoudl form a suicide cadre of journalists whose sole purpose it get killed and draw attention to things.

Wouldn't work. Most folks don't pay attention.

[Walsingham]

Josh: I know I'm writing from an island, but coastlines are tricky too! Unless you take the Aussie approach of sinking anyone who mucks around with them.