Why is this immigration thing so hot? (will get political)

[Roxanne Appleby]

I was talking to a rather conventional conservative today, very smart guy, quite sophisticated and knowledgable, absolutely not a bigot of any sort. Not a yahoo. He's spent some time in AZ. He said, "We are losing that state." He meant culturally, linquistically, and perhaps eventually - more than that.

Whether one thinks that last outcome is likely, can the possibility be dismissed as totally implausible? No.

So perhaps now I understand better what is driving the passion on this issue. People like my conservative friend have an appreciation of the real meaning of "demography is destiny." I'm sympathetic, but the public policy implications are by no means clear or obvious to me. I think the idea that the US will round up millions or tens-of-millions of people and boot them out is absurd. It's not gonna happen, yet that's what those who are passionate about the issue demand.

I also don't think it's possible to keep out those who are seeking opportunity here - they will find a way. And the notion that we will have a permanent class of exploited people living in the shadows is repugnant.

The problem is, I don't see any good answer. I've said in the past, sure, go ahead and build your Israeli wall, but just hand out work permits like candy, because at least that gives you control of the border. But at some point I realized that this is a dodge, because tens-of-millions of people don't want to come to the US just to work for a while and go home. They want to work for a long time and build wealth here. During which time of course they also want to have families and children. IOW, most (more than half) want to become permanent residents, and probably citizens.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I was talking to a rather conventional conservative today, very smart guy, quite sophisticated and knowledgable, absolutely not a bigot of any sort. Not a yahoo. He's spent some time in AZ. He said, "We are losing that state." He meant culturally, linquistically, and perhaps eventually - more than that.

Whether one thinks that last outcome is likely, can the possibility be dismissed as totally implausible? No. [snip]

Um, Yes.
Utterly and completely implausible.
Almost as implausible as a takeover by Islamic radicals.
Of course, that hasn't stopped the GOP from whipping people up over these near-impossibilities. Ignore global climate change, but save Arizona from seceding, goddamn it! I guess there's something to be said for setting achievable goals.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Um, Yes.
Utterly and completely implausible.

Why? Why so definitive? I didn't say likely, I said "cannot be dismissed as totally implausible." I'm not trying to fear monger or play political games. Extend your time horizon to 50 or 75 years. Change is the rule in history, not the exception. Do you still insist not this change?

~~~~

With regard to the debate on this issue, telling people like the individual cited in the OP that their concerns are without foundation is a non-starter. I think explaining to them that the public policy implications of their concerns are by no means clear or obvious and that their particular policy prescriptions are unrealistic has more potential for creating some dialog and discovering some reasonable policies. I don't think this thing is going away, and turning it into just another eternal political pissing contest seems unconstructive.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think language, culture, and economics are a very time-tested way of gaining control. The more prominent the language, the more pervasive the culture, and the more money that is controlled by one particular group... the more likely that they will have the numbers and control over the local scene.

Not unreasonable, I'm sure any reasonably bright person can think of a few examples of that in recent history (last couple hundred years). In our hemisphere alone.

 

[keeblercrumb]

You know I find the whole immigration thing pretty revealing.....

Rox, I have a lot of respect for you. Unlike a lot of others here, you frequently bring rationality with your opinions coupled with intelligence... Moreover seem to share this universal human "freedom" thing.... But having "blown up your skirt" a little, let me explore this immigration thing..

It just seems to me if you truly believe in universality of human freedom... and, in your case, in a capitalist, minimalist government approach as being a desirable form of government and economy for all...... you would embrace all those who would seek to find it......

But as with many conservatives, you also seem to think of "us v. them"... Them, in this case, being anyone with skin darker than your own Anglo-Saxon heritage (I clearly am assuming here).....

If you believe the "market" will solve all.... why on earth do you not embrace the principal of freedom of travel and employment..... for all those Mexicans who wish to work in the US?

These dire predictions of "losing" Arizona are silly, of course.... unless you mean there may be more of "them" than "us".... at some point in time... So what? They are people, Rox, "they" are "us".

-KC

 

[Jagged]

Um, Yes.
Utterly and completely implausible.
Almost as implausible as a takeover by Islamic radicals.

No we can just let them go around killing people...they have only killed a handful of Americans. More have died in elevator accidents so it is okay right. Besides those Americans were making money that makes them like evil and many of them were white.


Of course, that hasn't stopped the GOP from whipping people up over these near-impossibilities.

We don't have to try in round them all up. We start prosecuting business owners who hire them and fining and start putting them in jail. The illegals will soon find no work and leave peacefully. One would hope they might rebuild their own country.


Ignore global climate change, but save Arizona from seceding, goddamn it! I guess there's something to be said for setting achievable goals.

Ah global climate change happens all the time..many scientists 20 years ago thought we would enter an ice age and said we needed to prepare. But there are people on the left who will save us and of coarse their answer is raising taxes.

Illegals have drained all kinds of resources in this country and brought down pay rates for once good paying jobs. Meat packing used to pay good wages before illegals flooded in...even farm work. Oh and never mind construction. Lots of people used to find work in that, but now they have been shoved out by people who will work for nothing. Oh it is all okay. The Democrats don't care. After all only millions of hard working African Americans have been put out of good paying jobs.

The right sees illegals as cheap labor and the left sees them a potential voters...nobody will do a damn thing and we will lose our American culture, but what do you all care. You're citizens of the world and ashamed your Americans so it is all good.

Kick out 20 million people? It is hard but we can make them want to leave. They only violated the laws of the United States there is no crime in that because the laws are all racist right? Well don't worry nothing will change. People will keep getting exploited and it will all be okay. None of the canidates will dare do anything because they're worried they will piss of the special interest groups.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Why? Why so definitive? I didn't say likely, I said "cannot be dismissed as totally implausible." I'm not trying to fear monger or play political games. Extend your time horizon to 50 or 75 years. Change is the rule in history, not the exception. Do you still insist not this change?

Yes.
And the burden of 'proof' is not on me here - Can you really come up with a plausible scenario under which the US would allow Arizona to secede in the next 100 years? Where would it go? Mexico? Out of spite? It's a ridiculous notion.

With regard to the debate on this issue, telling people like the individual cited in the OP that their concerns are without foundation is a non-starter. I think explaining to them that the public policy implications of their concerns are by no means clear or obvious and that their particular policy prescriptions are unrealistic has more potential for creating some dialog and discovering some reasonable policies. I don't think this thing is going away, and turning it into just another eternal political pissing contest seems unconstructive.

Why is it a non-starter to tell them that their irrational concerns are without foundation? I mean, I understand that this is an issue of concern, but giving credence to fear-mongering tactics does nothing to advance the rational approach you seem to be advocating.

 

[Pure]

note to rox,

i think keebler made this same point rather well [about your capitalist principles].

Roxanne observed: tens-of-millions of people don't want to come to the US just to work for a while and go home. They want to work for a long time and build wealth here.

as an admirer of Adam Smith, and the free market, including in global application, why exactly does the above bother you?

(and don't just say, 'it's against the law'; you have no problem elsewhere of calling for any number of laws to be discarded in implementing your proposals.)

the real world effectively 'solved' the problem. immigration law, even around something simple, like deportation, is byzantine, and there are numerous avenues of delay, even apart from simply disappearing. so the lawmakers, whether intentionally or not, and from both parties, have insured that deportation is clumsy and not all that commonly used. and even were it done more frequently and more harshly, one can still disappear--- or simply re enter the next day!

 

[Pure]

?

RA's friend, according to RA: He's spent some time in AZ. He said, "We are losing that state." He meant culturally, linquistically, and perhaps eventually - more than that.

'we' being who, exactly?

 

[oggbashan]

"We" lost England to the Romans, then to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, then to the Normans.

"We" were influenced and changed by the Jewish diaspora, the Hugenots, the Dutch, refugees from Hitler.

"We" are being changed to immigration from the wider European Union.

Isn't it amazing that we still remain we and that the children of first generation immigrants living in Liverpool speak Scouse? Our sporting teams and heroes come from a wide variety of cultural roots yet they play for "England" and sing "Land of Hope and Glory" even if they sing out-of-tune.

The United States has been accepting mass immigration for generations - because people want to better themselves and aspire to the American dream.

Now where's that Polish plumber when I need him? Who knows? He might be a distant relation of my wife's ancestors.

My dentist is British. I know he is. I signed his naturalisation papers as a sponsor.

Og

 

[cantdog]

Ah global climate change happens all the time..many scientists 20 years ago thought we would enter an ice age and said we needed to prepare. But there are people on the left who will save us and of coarse their answer is raising taxes.

Illegals have drained all kinds of resources in this country and brought down pay rates for once good paying jobs. Meat packing used to pay good wages before illegals flooded in...even farm work. Oh and never mind construction. Lots of people used to find work in that, but now they have been shoved out by people who will work for nothing. Oh it is all okay. The Democrats don't care. After all only millions of hard working African Americans have been put out of good paying jobs.

The right sees illegals as cheap labor and the left sees them a potential voters...nobody will do a damn thing and we will lose our American culture, but what do you all care. You're citizens of the world and ashamed your Americans so it is all good.

Kick out 20 million people? It is hard but we can make them want to leave. They only violated the laws of the United States there is no crime in that because the laws are all racist right? Well don't worry nothing will change. People will keep getting exploited and it will all be okay. None of the canidates will dare do anything because they're worried they will piss of the special interest groups.

Capitalism requires trade unionism if it is going to be a prosperity system; in the absence of trade unions, it devolves into a mass of poor and a skim at the very top of super rich-- essentially a slave system. What's dumped the middle class jobs is the campaign against organized labor. There's nothing inevitable about Mexicans or any other national group being desperately poor and representing cheap labor. There are ponderable reasons for their condition.

The facts are, though, that they are pauperized at the moment. Clearly we are using them as cheap labor-- twenty millions? Not an accident, surely. And if they fear deportation, there can be no group less likely to organize, or even to object to working conditions individually. Great setup for somebody.

Our Free Trade empire has a lot to do with the loss of middle class jobs, too, but the impulse to that comes from the same people who have crushed labor's ability to organize. Those men actually like it this way. Your 'left'? If by that you mean politicos, then you have to be shitting me. Those are the guys who work to implement this system. Leftish ones may have spasms of conscience and act as a brake. Clinton pushed NAFTA through. Most everything he accomplished was on the Republican agenda, and worked to the advantage of the same rich blokes.

You are not supposed to have access to good jobs, dude. You have no one to look to who gives a rat's ass. You're supposed to barely squeak by and take any job you can get at any wage you can get. They like to tell you it's self reliance and even freedom. Hope you're happy with it.

God knows you all seem to be happy with it. Oh, you'll bitch and moan, but you don't wanna do anything about it but squabble with the other victims of the same system. Blaming a Mexican for your problem-- real bright, that is. I'm sure if you look into that Mexican's dark past you'll find he made the job market this way just so he could be exploited by it even worse that you are. Do you find him living in luxury because he was so blasted clever as to cause your trouble?

 

[DesertPirate]

There are a couple of things that bother me about this situation. I grew up in Southern NM and most of my friends were Hispanic. There are many of them that are very upset at the illegals because they did things the right way and talk of amnesty makes that a joke. No other group has had things made so easy for them, getting Govt. forms printed in Spanish? This is the Liberals taking things too far. Keep your culture, speak your language amongst yourselves, learn English and assimilate at the same time, like every other group has for 300 years!

The oldest capitol on the continent, Sant Fe, NM 1575

 

[cantdog]

I was talking to a rather conventional conservative today, very smart guy, quite sophisticated and knowledgable, absolutely not a bigot of any sort. Not a yahoo. He's spent some time in AZ. He said, "We are losing that state." He meant culturally, linquistically, and perhaps eventually - more than that.

Whether one thinks that last outcome is likely, can the possibility be dismissed as totally implausible? No.

So perhaps now I understand better what is driving the passion on this issue. People like my conservative friend have an appreciation of the real meaning of "demography is destiny." I'm sympathetic, but the public policy implications are by no means clear or obvious to me. I think the idea that the US will round up millions or tens-of-millions of people and boot them out is absurd. It's not gonna happen, yet that's what those who are passionate about the issue demand.

I also don't think it's possible to keep out those who are seeking opportunity here - they will find a way. And the notion that we will have a permanent class of exploited people living in the shadows is repugnant.

The problem is, I don't see any good answer. I've said in the past, sure, go ahead and build your Israeli wall, but just hand out work permits like candy, because at least that gives you control of the border. But at some point I realized that this is a dodge, because tens-of-millions of people don't want to come to the US just to work for a while and go home. They want to work for a long time and build wealth here. During which time of course they also want to have families and children. IOW, most (more than half) want to become permanent residents, and probably citizens.

Arizona was wrenched from Mexico. It came that way. It's been here 150 years that way, and while a lot of people are still Hispanic, there's no secession movement, is there? What kind of 'losing' are you talking about?

As for the immigrant thing, if all the guest worker programs in the world were in place and there was an armed wall bristling with guns, would there still be a significant flow and a shadowy pop of exploited people? Isn't the debate about the wall versus the guest worker programs? Wasn't the one supposed to obviate the need for the other?

 

[Jagged]

Yes yes....the rich we should just hang them all. Well they're part of the problem, but I have seldom found unions to be the great solution people hold them out to be...In Michigan for example which was once the home to our auto industry employed many people, but unions kept asking for more and more. There were guys getting a base paid of $100,000 to put screws into a car. Come on...hard work deserves good pay, but that is over the top. Now there are less jobs and everybody is blaming the evil factory owners.


The solution isn't a simple one by any means, but having millions of slave laborers come here can't be the answer. It is morally wrong and it is unfair. Maybe you don't think the law is fair, but that doesn't give you the right to break it. Amnesty is a joke because it isn't really a penalty. You can still pay the "fine" and still pay thousands less then someone who did it legally.

We have a mess and nobody wants to clean it up. Oh and yes the United States has had mass immigration before, but previous waves wanted to be Americans. People learned English, paid taxes, and loved their new home. People running from military service in one country would join the military here because they loved it here so much.

I remember one Mexican American talking about the two proudest days in his life. One was receiving the Medal of Honor and the other was becoming a citizen. He came to the United States legally to work and he jumped at the opportunity to serve a country that gave him so much. I reall another man profiled in the news. He came to the United States legally to work as a bus boy. He wanted better and while in Texas he learned English and got educated. Now he owns two pizza franchises of his own and his children are in college. The American dream is there for anyone who really wants it and is willing to do the right thing.

Granted those who want to take the American South West back from the United States for Mexico are small in number we shouldn't allow violent racists into our country. Also when you come here legally you have the opportunity to stop criminals from entering the country.

The process isn't perfect and I know from several friends it isn't easy, but the end reward is great.





Oh and cantdog I remember you now...You were the one who told me go put out a trash can fire when I said I was a volunteer firefighter. Funny it didn't seem any different when I took a pay check for it. Yeah it did. The union sucked.

 

[elsol]

I was talking to a rather conventional conservative today, very smart guy, quite sophisticated and knowledgable, absolutely not a bigot of any sort. Not a yahoo. He's spent some time in AZ. He said, "We are losing that state." He meant culturally, linquistically, and perhaps eventually - more than that.

Whether one thinks that last outcome is likely, can the possibility be dismissed as totally implausible? No.

Stop worrying about the population fight and start winning the culture war.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Language and culture-culture vs. political culture.

Some of my hard-core libertarian friends hold the view that’s been implied in some posts here, that no one should care if a part our nation changes from English-speaking to Spanish-speaking, and from “American” culture to Hispanic culture, as long as the inhabitants of that region have fully absorbed the political culture and embraced the US “civic creed.”

Further, it has been suggested that if one does care, that is necessarily evidence of racism/bigotry. (This suggestion is usually accompanied with insulting sneers in which variations on the phrase “little brown people” often appear.)

I’m not so sure. Ogg: "’We’ lost England to the Romans, then to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, then to the Normans.”

Yes "you" did. The Celts lost their language and culture in those first two examples, and the Old English lost theirs in the second (more precisely, had it altered so radically as to become something totally different.) Question: Should those peoples not have cared about that?

There is a difference: They also lost whatever they defined as “freedom” in the political realm - which applies much less or not at all in the current example - but try to set that aside in answering whether they should have cared about the supplantation of their language and culture over a significant portion of their range. (The loss of sovereignty applies equally both then and in a hypothetical that’s one of the scenarios we’re exploring here.)

Hypothetical: You are a British Celt in year 55, and old Claudius plods ashore saying, “Salve, Celts – we’re here to make your culture and language into antiquarian curiosities, but the rights recognized by your Celtic Bill of Rights will he honored, and it may be good for the economy, so don’t be concerned.”

Hypothetical: You are British Celt in year 550, and old Hengist tromps up saying what Claudius did, except that you get to keep Wales.

Should Sean Q. Celt be OK with that? *

“Should” is kind of a silly question, because there is no way that any group of people is ever going to be NOT concerned about the potential for anything like either of those, so wagging your finger at them and calling them “bigots” isn’t really very conducive to devising reasonable public policy.

Before anyone starts to fulminate, please revisit my OP, specifically where I said, “but the public policy implications are by no means clear or obvious to me. The idea that the US will boot out millions is absurd, and I also don't think it's possible to keep out those who are seeking opportunity here.”

I’m trying to establish a rational and reality-based basis for discussing a genuine public policy dilemma here. Telling people they should not be concerned is not a basis for that, and telling them their concern is evidence of bigotry just polarizes the situation.


*Or Sean P. Celt in the second example. (Sorry -couldn't resist. Insiders linguistic joke.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As for the immigrant thing, if all the guest worker programs in the world were in place and there was an armed wall bristling with guns, would there still be a significant flow and a shadowy pop of exploited people? Isn't the debate about the wall versus the guest worker programs? Wasn't the one supposed to obviate the need for the other?

The question is do those obviate the concerns about how to deal with tens of millions of permanent immigrants supplanting (or marginalizing) the "native" populations in regions of the country? See my previous post.

I'm not so sure, because I don't think it's realistic to expect those "guests" to operate as atomistic economic units on this side of the border, with all their family ties on the other side, to which they "commute" at different times of the year, or return to after retirement. People will want to live and raise families at the same time they are trying to build wealth. The will want to "make a life," not just "get a job."

Does an unlimited temporary guest worker address that? Does it lower the numbers enough to defuse the issue? I'm not so sure.

 

[Liar]

I'm confused.

Isn't AZ filled with hispanic people who came there because they wanted to come to America? And if it is as row said (The will want to "make a life," not just "get a job.")... is that a bad thing? And why would they then want to become not Americans? Is there a separatist movement that I'm not aware of?

From what I can see, the United States of America is a political unit, not a cultural one, and has always been made up of different regions with different cultural variations and dominance. It never was the United Anglo-Saxon States of America. Sure, I can see the culture-clash problem with a (relatively) new group of Americans taking over a region and dominating it culturally. But secession? Itn't that against "their" (since we're in us-and-them mode here) own interrests?

 

[gauchecritic]

I still can't see what the problem is. People are flocking to the US just exactly as you want them to, some of them taking advantage of the law because those there are willing to allow them to. (employers)

It's not the seekers of a new life or menial labour that are at fault here.

From the sound of it the unions have priced the people they represent out of a job.

The Hispanic communities are becoming what seems to be a problem because they aren't wasps or whatever is the common acronym these days.

Which leads us back to the first problem. You wanted them, but you don't want them to affect your lifestyle in any significant way.

Seems to me you have two choices. Another civil war or learn to speak Spanish.

Personally I'd go for the bi-lingual option and be prepared for change. Assimilation is not a one way street.

 

[cantdog]

The question is do those obviate the concerns about how to deal with tens of millions of permanent immigrants supplanting (or marginalizing) the "native" populations in regions of the country? See my previous post.

I'm not so sure, because I don't think it's realistic to expect those "guests" to operate as atomistic economic units on this side of the border, with all their family ties on the other side, to which they "commute" at different times of the year, or return to after retirement. People will want to live and raise families at the same time they are trying to build wealth. The will want to "make a life," not just "get a job."

Does an unlimited temporary guest worker address that? Does it lower the numbers enough to defuse the issue? I'm not so sure.

Well, it'll take more than a few tens of millions to marginalize anyone. I don't see the point about having relatives in the 'old country.' Most of us call that our heritage, and we might book a plane to Scotland or Ireland. I don't really find it makes us a whole lot less atomistic.

What temporary guest worker ideas seem to want to accomplish is to have the labor without having an actual immigrant to deal with. Pretty much doesn't address that, no, unless you count pre-empting it. Everyone certainly has every right to make a life, I'd have thought. That's why I don't think they're so cool an idea.

There's a good deal of potential for the holders of such permits to be legislated against. They'd likely already be subject to deportation, and it might be fairly arbitrary. You could have a robust system of fair and equitable hearings necessary before they could be deported, but if they have to be working to have a 'worker permit' then their emplyer could cause them to be deported by simply firing them. A union shop would protect them from arbitrary dismissal and deportation. But what are the chances it will even be legal for them to form a Bridge Club, let alone a union? Nope. Anyone who wants a special class of docile workers is likely a skunk, or working for one.

 

[cloudy]

Some of my hard-core libertarian friends hold the view that’s been implied in some posts here, that no one should care if a part our nation changes from English-speaking to Spanish-speaking, and from “American” culture to Hispanic culture, as long as the inhabitants of that region have fully absorbed the political culture and embraced the US “civic creed.”

Further, it has been suggested that if one does care, that is necessarily evidence of racism/bigotry. (This suggestion is usually accompanied with insulting sneers in which variations on the phrase “little brown people” often appear.)

I’m not so sure. Ogg: "’We’ lost England to the Romans, then to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, then to the Normans.”

Yes "you" did. The Celts lost their language and culture in those first two examples, and the Old English lost theirs in the second (more precisely, had it altered so radically as to become something totally different.) Question: Should those peoples not have cared about that?

Language and culture are constantly evolving. For most people, change is a hugely scary thing (apparently including you, Rox), but change isn't always a bad thing.

Supposedly, this country was founded with immigration as one of its core values, and although it doesn't surprise me that people are now yelling "mine!" at the top of their lungs, they really ought to study their history before they become so ungrateful. Unless they're full-blooded native, everyone in the states came from immigrants - even me (to some extent).

My, how we've changed:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

 

[oggbashan]

The UK has the same problem on a different scale.

With the expansion of the European Union members of all states can travel, work and live wherever they want to. Many want to work in the older states of the Union because wage levels are higher.

We also have significant numbers of illegal immigrants often from African states. Some call them "economic migrants" because they are seeking higher pay but in their own countries any employment at all may be absent. Seeking to work to support themselves and their families instead of starving isn't much of a choice.

We are having difficulty assimilating such large numbers from both sources over a short period. There are added costs in providing services such as education and health care. There are benefits in that the immigration is changing the demography of the country increasing the numbers of people of working age. At the same time many people are emigrating from the UK for example to Spain and France. Those people tend to be older.

Before mass immigration we were heading for an increasingly aging population for which services couldn't be provided by the taxes on the working population. Is that still true? We don't know. The government has no real idea how many people have entered the country to work. Every worker is supposed to have a National Insurance Number yet the total number of NI numbers issued is greater than the wildest guesstimate of people of working age.

On a micro-level, in individual towns and cities, we know that there are increased numbers of immigrants because they are obvious. On a national level the figures don't add up.

Is our population increasing at a higher rate than the difference between births and deaths? Probably.

How many more people? Don't know.

Are more people arriving than leaving? Probably.

How many more people? Don't know.

Can we cope? Probably but someone has to do the sums and allocate resources to the places where population is increasing.

An example of how fucked-up the system is:

Schools in England are funded and school places provided on the basis of the existing population plus an allowance for newly-built houses. There is no provision for sub-division of existing houses into more than one family unit yet it is happening all over our town centre. The school places system assumes approximately 1.8 children per family but actually only counts the children registered when each one becomes age 3 - if the parents register their child with the school when they should. There are allowances for families moving from one town to another but the net effect is assumed to be zero.

If say ten families move into our town from the wider EU and those ten families have children of school age - the authorities go into panic mode because those children will be of all ages from 3 to 16 and there may be more than 1.8 children per family. If, because recent migrants have less money, two families with say 4 children each occupy a single house that used to house a single family with 1.8 children the system can't cope. The funds allocated to the schools that take those children won't be increased until the next financial year by which time another ten families might have arrived...

The local authorities that provide education are aware of the funding problem and do their best to provide education for all children resident in their area, including remedial English if required. What is missing is a national appreciation of the impact of immigration on education and the will to allow the local authorities to fund schools for the children there now.

In the longer term I'm optimistic that the vast majority of those coming to this country will be assets. Our country will change and adapt but it has been doing that for hundreds of years.

In the short term our political leaders have to recognise that the population is changing and that change requires a different allocation of resources.

I'm not so optimistic about the wisdom of our elected representatives to appreciate or manage the necessary changes.

Og

 

[3113]

What's going on here is what's always been going on. People get here. They build themselves a really nice life and live high on the hog. Their kids live well, too. Now a bunch of other people come and start to vie for everything--land, resources, room, their country clubs, golf courses, schools, jobs. And the kids of the people who have the nice life say, "I don't want to give a share of my nice life to these people and risk (1) making that nice life less nice, (2) risk losing it altogether for myself and my kids, (3) feeling like I'm in danger from people who out-number me and don't speak my language and don't care about me and my family."

It's selfish, and it's human, and it's been happening since some primitive cave tribe marched into the richer, better cave of another tribe because their own cave wasn't as hospitable. The haves don't want to share, and the have-nots want what the haves have. Simple.

Here's the bottom line: No one nation on Earth has everything that it can give to everyone and save the planet. And both conservatives and liberals should recognize this IN EVERYTHING. However, certain nations, working together, could be more equitable with their riches, which would certainly stop immigrants stealing into their countries desperate for work. If you don't want the beggar breaking into your home and stealing your bread then you'd better give a little of your wealth to support the soup kitchen down the street.

More important, however: Over population damages the quality of life for everyone. That's top to bottom. From kids in overcrowed classrooms where they don't learn, to pollution destroying the oceans that keep us oxygenated and fed. EVERYTHING on this planet is a limited system. Like an enclosed box with only so much food, water and air. You put in rats and let them breed uncontrollably and they'll get to a point where they're fighting over that food and water and oxygen, and then finally, they'll all die because there's not enough. PERIOD.

So next time someone says to you: "We're going to lose that state" or something else, ask them: "What are you doing to stop overpopulation?" Ask them if they support birth control, sex education and abortions--not just in the U.S. but everywhere. If there are less people in the other countries fighting for work and a way to feed their family and live well, then they won't be coming to this country looking for work and a way to feed their family and live well. It's as simple as that. And the only way to get that, in the long run, is to teach people to use birth control, not just for themselves and their happiness, but for the sake of everyone.

 

[Pure]

and old refrain

in rox's friend, if not in her, is the old refrain,

"our freedoms may be lost."

let me reconstruct the syllogism.

A. the US is the most free country in the world and in human history.

A' every other country and culture is less free.

THEREFORE: If the US--or portion thereof-- is influenced by any other country or culture it can only be in the direction of LOSS of freedom.

 

[cantdog]

Elsol is right, as he ordinarily is.

And the culture war isn't going to be won by those Nashville motherfuckers in the hats.

And the Italians won the culture war about food long ago, along with the Germans, strangely enough.