Immigration

Well...sure. I mean it’s a very agreeable op/ed isn’t it?

But, at the end of it all, I couldn’t help but wonder what politician, chamber of commerce or media conglomerate would consider, let alone support, Mr. Malanga’s sensible programs?

Certainly not the democrats. They already bought and paid for the ethnic/racial vote. Be it Mexican, Korean or Indian.
Certainly not the republicans. They blame their electoral losses on their failure to reach out to the democrat’s ethnic/racial voting bloc. A failure forced upon them by an unreasoning and maybe even bigoted constituency that they (the republicans) now realize must be left behind.

Look. These sorts of articles are all very well and good, but it doesn’t change the divisive and disastrous effect of imposing another language and culture on the American people.

I ask again, who or what will bring Mr. Malanga’s ideas into the light of day?

#1 tatosian on 2013-02-13 04:49 (Reply)

tatosian: But, at the end of it all, I couldn’t help but wonder what politician, chamber of commerce or media conglomerate would consider, let alone support, Mr. Malanga’s sensible programs? Certainly not the democrats... Certainly not the republicans.

Certainly not many libertarians who see national borders as a barrier to the free market (except insofar as what is necessary for an orderly and secure process). Or many humanitarians who see national borders as a barrier to free association.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-13 08:18 (Reply)

"Open borders" means no borders at all. No passports, no visas.

No nation in the world considers that a good idea, and even the EU is going through hell with their mini-experiment with it.

#1.1.1 The B on 2013-02-13 08:24 (Reply)

The B: "Open borders" means no borders at all. No passports, no visas.

As we said, consistent with an orderly and secure process. Libertarians accept the necessity of government. You're thinking of anarchists.

#1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-13 09:04 (Reply)

Might want to point out that the United States is also an experiment in open borders.

#1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-02-13 09:05 (Reply)

there was also a time when citizens could be better armed than the army. like that time, the days of open borders are over.

but unlike constitutional rights, there's no inherent right for foreigners to be here.

#1.1.1.2.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 14:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Steven Malanga: Not surprisingly, a 1997 study by economists for the National Academy of Sciences estimated the net benefits of immigration at only $10 billion in our $8 trillion economy

The study also said that the following generation should be included in any analysis, and that the contribution of the following generation were very positive—as has been the typical American story for immigrants.

Smith & Edmonston (editors), The New Americans Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Academies Press 1997.

#2 Zachriel on 2013-02-13 08:22 (Reply)

Zach--

Well here's a synopsis of another study from 08-- 'Mexican American integration slow, education stalled, study finds. (UCLA report charts Chicano experience over four decades)'

Key findings from "Generations of Exclusion" include:

The educational levels of second-generation Mexican Americans improved dramatically. But the third and fourth generations failed to surpass, and to some extent fell behind, the educational level of the second generation. Moreover, the educational levels of all Mexican Americans still lag behind the national average.

Economic status improved from the first to second generation but stalled in the third and fourth generation. Earnings, occupational status and homeownership were still alarmingly low for later generations. Low levels of schooling among Mexican Americans were the main reason for lower income, occupational status and other indicators of socioeconomic status.

Adult Mexican Americans in the third and fourth generation lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths. This was due to the high number of Latinos and immigrants moving into these neighborhoods, the researchers said.

Most Mexican Americans identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican American," even into the fourth generation. Only about 10 percent identified as "American." Moreover, many Mexican Americans felt their ethnicity was very important and many said they would like to pass it along to their children.

...and so on. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-of-four-generations-46372.aspx

Malanga mentions some of this in the 7th and 8th paragraph of his piece.

Clearly assimilation is not very high on this demographic's agenda. Clearly they are separatists. A faction based on race and ethnicity.

cui bono?

#2.1 tatosian on 2013-02-13 13:42 (Reply)

tatosian: Clearly assimilation is not very high on this demographic's agenda.

That's not what your citation concluded. They point to institutional barriers.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-13 17:32 (Reply)

"Most Mexican Americans identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican American," even into the fourth generation. Only about 10 percent identified as "American." Moreover, many Mexican Americans felt their ethnicity was very important and many said they would like to pass it along to their children."

10% identified themselves as Americans the rest didn't. Those are all individual choices aren't they?

Where are any institutional barriers referred to in that statement?

There aren't any.

#2.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-13 17:49 (Reply)

We should set a moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal. It should remain in place until all illegal immigrants can be found and deported AND all legal immigrants assimilate (learn English, get jobs and are off the dole). And of course we should spend the time and effort to actually find and deport them. Once this is done we should have a public debate about immigration and then have a national referedum (A VOTE) where every voter can cast his vote and decide if we should even have immigration at all. Does a country with 310 million people need immigrants, especially poor uneducated immigrants who refuse to assimilate. Does a nation with 12% unemployment need immigrants? Does a nation with more people on food stamps then the entire population of Spain need immigrants? Insterad of letting special interests decide or corrupt politicians why not let the people decide?

#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-13 10:53 (Reply)

so you'd deny immigration rights to the foreign-born spouse and child of a US serviceman/woman? immigration rights to a guy ready to make a million dollar business investment in your county? some poor shlub who's a political refugee from a place where removing (deporting) him would result in his imprisonment or execution (pro tip: FDR did this already and it turned out badly for the Jews); citizenship rights to legal permanent residents already in line? foreigners who've been approved to immigrate but have been waiting for their visa number to come up sometimes years, sometimes more than a decade? while you can close the borders, you can't deport 20 million residents, even the attempt would result in your party never winning another election ever.

you didn't distinguish between immigrant and non-immigrant visas -- crucial, crucial distinction -- but there are important non-immigrants who need to be here legally, typically executives, crewmen in transit, even sports figures.

#3.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 12:49 (Reply)

I do not think the purpose; the reason for our existence is to provide a place for foriegners to immigrate to. I think the purpose of the federal government is to serve the citizens. Simple as that. It would not bother me if our immigration policy was more like Japan's. I cannot think of a single reason that we "NEED" more immigrants. Our current immigration laws and policies are designed for special interests not for the benefit of our citizens. In fact it is our citizens/taxpayers who have to take it in the shorts to cover the costs of immigrants. And, YES I truely don't care if a million or two million political refugees have to go somewhere else for their "free stuff". I honestly cannot see any good reason we allow any political refugees here. If you can make a good arguement for allowing any in then tell me why not ALL of them??? Why shouldn't we allow all 160 million Mexicans to move to California or all the people living in the poor countries in Africa or all of the Chinese and Russians who are oppressed by their government? If it were a good idea then why limit it?

I believe it is rational to do the following:
1. Find and deport everyone here illegally today.
2. Assimilate everyone who came here legally.
3. Provide education and jobs to our own citizens before we give it away to foriegners.
4. Secure our border to the extent that not even one person is able to come here illegally; zero tolerance.
5. Once all this is done ask the citizens what they would prefer for an immigration policy and not leave it up to crony politics and corrupt politicians.

Frankly I am stumped as to why everyone wouldn't agree to these logical and simple steps.

#3.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-13 16:33 (Reply)

I responded to your statement that legal immigration should be suspended ("moratorium") until impossible conditions are met (including deportation of some 20,000,000 people) with some specific examples of immigration that should not be stopped, but you addressed none of them.

I'll repeat them, so you can address each one:

immigration rights to the foreign-born spouse and child of a US serviceman/woman?

immigration rights to a guy ready to make a million dollar business investment in your county?

immigration rights to some poor shlub who's a political refugee from a place where removing (deporting) him would result in his imprisonment or execution (I won't mention FDR and the Jews again and which would violate several US laws and at least one treaty)

citizenship rights to legal permanent residents already in line?

foreigners who've been approved to immigrate but have been waiting for their visa number to come up sometimes years, sometimes more than a decade?

here's the ultimate practical reason why you can't "deport" every one here illegally even if that were practical in any real world sense (it isn't). because whatever party you belong to would never win another election at any level, ever again.

#3.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 17:44 (Reply)

I disagree that my conditions are impossible to meet. I could get rid of 95% of illegals in 6 months. Make it a felony to aid, hire or assist an illegal alien in any way. Offer every jurisdiction (cities, states counties) a bounty of $200 for each illegal turned over to ICE. Require every illegal to be fingerprinted, a picture and DNa sample and deported within 24 hours. Any who somehow seek to delay the process would be charged with the crimes (id theft, illegally in the country, filing false tax returns, etc.) they committed and once convicted deported. Take the entire 60,000 TSA agents and use thenm to pull raids on businesses that usually hire illegals.

As for securing the border I would pick a suitable three star army general and give him a command and put him on the Southern border. No one crosses, every truck and car is completely inspected before crossing, every inch of border is watched. I have great confidence in our military I bet they could secure it within a month.

Your answers:
I would probably make exceptions for spouses but not grant citizenship until all the preconditions I listed were met.

Let him spend his million somewhere else.

Leave the poor shlub alone and let hiom solve his own problems.

Legal permanent residents would stay in place until after the preconditions were met.

Foriegners already on the list but not here are defferred until after the preconditions are met.

Ironically you are correct "why you can't "deport" every one here illegally..." you would "never win another election at any level, ever again" And that is because the special interests own the country not the 310,000,000 citizens. Why would any politicians put some shlub (as you say) ahead of the citizens. Why should I pay higher taxes and all taxpayers pay hundreds of billions in higher taxes so that special interests can import millions of poor shlubs for us to all pay for? Is it even possible that an American made that decision? And why?? Are we running short of poor shlubs who can't speak English or are welfare bums or people who don't want to learn our language and our customs???

Actually I think if someone ran for president making these promises he would win by a landslide.

#3.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-13 18:53 (Reply)

tell a serving soldier that his foreign born wife and daughter can't become citizens until the mass arrests and deportations conclude ... are you serious????

foreign investment visas are given to people who invest large amounts of money in the US economy and must employ US citizens, you think this is bad because?

deploying the army to enforce civil law hasn't been legal for a hundred years. the law permitting use of the armed forces in case of insurrection are a very narrow exception to the Posse Comitatus Act and there's absolutely no way congress would authorize the army to enforce immigration law. this discussion is now in the realm of fantasy.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 20:55 (Reply)

Soldiers overseas have to ask permission to marry a foriegner. It was common in the past to refuse them permission. But you must have missed the part where I said I would make an exception for spouses.

Why should somepne be able to buy their way in?

To guard our border! I dount this would be a problem. Think about it; The 2nd amendment couldn't be more clear "shall not be infringed" and the federal government alone has written 10,000 laws infringing the 2nd amendment. Where is your arguement that there is no way congress would authorize the infringement of our ciuvil rights. If the coast guard can guard our water borders the Army can guard our land borders. Congress entered the realm of fantasy in the 30's when they first started walking all over the constitution. Frankly I would be pleased as punch to restore ALL of the constitution and instead of using the army to guard the land borders I would form a "Land Guard" along the lines of the coast guard and find a three star general to run it. More then one way to skin a cat...

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-13 23:42 (Reply)

you said you'd make an exception for spouses after the mass roundup/deportation. which will take years because everyone caught in your dragnet has the right to review of the intended removal (deportation in your terminology) by the immigration court then the board of immigration appeals and given the outrageous scope of your proposal, by the district courts, then the courts and ultimately the USSC. given the certainty of injunctions, this will take a decade and all the resources of the judiciary because all 20,000,000 will seek this kind of relief. unless you also suspend the writ of habeas corpus. but think twice before you consider giving little barry the power to deport people on the spot, without judicial review, by allowing administrative robots the unrestricted, unreviewed power to deport people.

you got problem with an immigration investment visa, take it up with congress, which passed the law. then explain to the people you want to unemploy why only natural american money is acceptable.

sure, the army could seal the border but not legally. the coast guard has law enforcement duties by law (notice how the navy doesn't do this work), the army is barred except in rare instances. if you could convince congress to give the army law enforcement powers ... but good luck there.

if you think any constitutional right is unrestricted, you haven't been paying attention. unless you are a firm believer that child porn flix are protected by the first amendment, which I assume you don't. or that you belive the second amendment right to own an anti-tank gun or a cruise missile, which you might (there are good arguments for this). every individual constitutional right is balanced against public interest.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-14 01:19 (Reply)

"everyone caught in your dragnet has the right to review of the intended removal".
Everyone agrees to be deported and to never enter the U.S. again or takes the other option and is charged with illegal entry, identity theft, tax evasion, etc. Either way they must be removed from the country within 24 hours. Either repatriated to their own country or to a remote location like guantanamo bay. Considering that there are between 12 million and 20 million illegals here I would call it an invasion and declare a state of emergency, perhaps even declare war. That should be enough so that executive actions could be taken to resolve the emergency.

Whatever congress puts into law congress can overturn. I would suggest starting by investigating those who voted for the law and finding out if they profited from it. Surely these millionaires spread their wealth around and that is after all what our poiliticians do; trade their power for plunder.

As I said we could form a Land Guard under the same rules as the Coast guard if there were a constitutional problem. However I think you are dead wrong on this one. Certainly you do not think our military could not legally be used to prevent an invasion! If Japan had landed forces on California's shores you think the police would be the only legal force to fight them? surely you jest. The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Au contraire mon frere, it is because our constitutional rights have been restricted and infringed that I am so animated. As I said I would gladly trade my zeal against illegal immigration for a full restoration of the constitution and thus an elimination of all of the federal government that is contrary to the letter and intent of the constitution. I would be ecstatic with such a result.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-14 10:51 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Considering that there are between 12 million and 20 million illegals here I would call it an invasion and declare a state of emergency, perhaps even declare war.

Oh geez. You're going to declare war on, what, Latin America?

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-14 11:31 (Reply)

yes, we need a Man of Vision, a Caudillo, who can Do What Needs To Be Done. suspend habeas corpus, congress and the judiciary, declare martial law, order mass arrests and deportations within 24 hours paid for by the illegal's legal family (if any). establish a Zone of the Frontier under the command of a Sgt-General, drones, armored fighting vehicles, naval vessels, steely-eyed, lantern jawed Troops all tooling around the southern deserts mad max style looking for foreigners.

this would only be temporary. full constitutional government will be restored when the Emergency passes. I swear it.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 wirraway on 2013-02-14 12:40 (Reply)

Like the war on drugs or thje war on terror the war would be on the act not on a country.

24 hours sounds fair to me. Would you prefer 48 hours?

Mass arrests! Indeed I am in favor of arresting all law breakers. Aren't you? The illegals kill 3000 people every year in this country, doesn't that bother you? Theyrape and child molest in numbers that exceed the average for these crimes by two and three times. 1/3 of Clifornia's very expensive prison system is populated by illegals. I fail to see your reasoning if you have any. Perhaps you are "feeling" something most taxpayers cannot identify with. Perhaps there is a monetary reason for your inane defensive of 12 million law breakers. Perhaps you don't take the constitution and law serious. Whatever it is you seem unable to articulate it so it's hard to respond to. Can you be more specific about your love and empathy for law breakers? Would you give amnesty to all rapist and murderers?

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-14 20:25 (Reply)

hell no! ve we must do this systematically and with strong Will. door to door searches, vere where are ze Illegals hiding? no? zen ve vill burn down zis house. vere are ze illegals hiding?

I now agree, the only way to Control the Situation and ensure Purity is to arrest 20,000,000 people and deport them within hours. I don't see any moral, ethical or legal problems with zis.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-15 10:57 (Reply)

Cute! Would you take the same attutude about rapists or gang members who shoot innocent people on the street? If you break the law then it is a really good thing if the police find you, arrest you and bring you to justice.

Please feel free to point out any moral ethical or legal problems with enforcing our immigration laws...

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-15 23:51 (Reply)

Dealing with wirraway is like trying to have a reasonable discussion with a profoundly disturbed homeless guy who’s following you around on the el platform.

His nonsensical statements begin in a somewhat reasonable tone but within a couple minutes he’s hopping, foot to foot as he descends into a spittled, Tourette’s like frenzy of name calling, non sequitors and meaningless sounds. Followed by more pretend rationality, followed by more shrieks which force you, and everyone else on the platform, to slowly back away from the guy.

By the way wirraway, is there any chance you can be induced to join those, oppressed 20,000,000 as they slouch towards their personal Armageddon’s?

The poor souls could use someone of your, um, exceptional talents.

Just asking.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 tatosian on 2013-02-16 02:57 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: As for securing the border I would pick a suitable three star army general and give him a command and put him on the Southern border. No one crosses, every truck and car is completely inspected before crossing, every inch of border is watched.

That'll be good for trade with one of the U.S.'s largest trading partners. Wonder how long the lines will be at the border.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-02-14 08:23 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The other half of a sound immigration policy is to eliminate the magnet effect of modern welfare programs. Developed countries uniformly prohibit illegal aliens from receiving social benefits, and many restrict those benefits for legals, too. Australia, for instance, prohibits legal immigrants from participating in social programs for two years.

while possible elsewhere, this would be very difficult to fully accomplish in the US because constitutional rights belong to persons, not citizens or legal residents or legal non-immigrants. like it or not, you can't let illegals starve or tool around whilst carrying plague, assuming food banks and medical care are social programs the author wants to deny illegals.

#4 wirraway on 2013-02-13 12:55 (Reply)

wirraway - "...constitutional rights belong to persons, not citizens or legal residents or legal non-immigrants..."

These examples (there are others) would seem to indicate that constitutional rights belong to citizens rather than persons--

article 4 section 1 -- Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
article 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Article 14
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article 15
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Article 19
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Amendment 24
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Amendment XXVI
1: The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age

#4.1 tatosian on 2013-02-13 14:34 (Reply)

you've got a forest/trees problem.

Article 4 Sec 1 prevents discrimination against citizens of one state by state courts of another and isn't a limitation on access by only citizens.

11A concerns is a technical issue on a basis of federal jurisdiction, again, not a limitation on who can access federal courts.

the 14th Amendment (not article 14), however, is the kicker. the clause "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" refers to persons, not citizens. that's why illegals are entitled to due process and equal protection. how much process is due and what protections are equal are other questions. (due process and equal protection apply against the federal govt via the fifth amendment)

the others refer to voting rights, I'm not claiming that non-citizens should be able to vote, the full spectrum of citizen rights doesn't apply to non-citizens, but the 14 Amendment covers a lot of them.

#4.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 15:39 (Reply)

wirraway -- Forest for the trees problem?

Excuse me but you stated the constitutional rights belong to persons rather than citizens. I think the articles I referred to clearly state the rights of American citizens.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" clearly delineates a constitutional right of the American citizen.

The second part; 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." doesn't negate the Constitutional rights of American citizens does it?

Neither does the second part extend "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" to those persons it grants equality to before the law.

Why is that?

#4.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-13 16:22 (Reply)

you're excused.

in a nutshell, the constitutional rights, almost all of them, belong to persons and are not limited to citizens. the 5A only refers to persons, not citizens, and 14A incorporates those rights, which include due process and equal protection, privileges, immunities, freedom of speech, second amendment rights, etc., against the state interference. due process and equal protection belong to all persons, the degree depends on circumstances beyond the scope of this comment. if you don't like it, blame the USSC.

voting rights and some others belong to citizens only and they are exceptions.

if you don't guarantee persons, meaning non-citizens, due process and equal protection against the fed, against the states, between residents of different states, then no one in their right mind would transact international business, interstate business in the USA; unequal treatment was a problem under the articles of confederation cured here.

regardless, you can't possibly believe that a non-citizen should have confessions beaten out of him or denied the right to buy or sell property or exercise first amendment rights. that's taking nativism to points beyond stupid.

you can disagree with me, but your interpretation contrary to the USSC decisions is meaningless.

fifth amendment:

QUOTE:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphssis mine)

do you see "citizen" anywhere there? cuz I don't.

#4.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 17:29 (Reply)

Ah.

You have correctly adjusted your original "...constitutional rights belong to persons, not citizens or legal residents or legal non-immigrants..." to the new and improved "...constitutional rights, almost all of them, belong to persons and are not limited to citizens..."

I agree.

And exactly where did I suggest that "... a non-citizen should have confessions beaten out of him or denied the right to buy or sell property or exercise first amendment rights...?" Or due process and equal protection before the law should be denied to, um, persons?

I merely pointed out that the privileges and immunities of the American citizens exist.

This makes me a nativist? Ouch. That hurts.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-13 18:55 (Reply)

I'd be embarrassed to be called a nativist, given the history of nativism (e.g., the KKK), but YMMV.

the privileges and immunities clause addressed a historical issue in dispute when the constitution was drafted. Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 181 (1868)

QUOTE:

It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.

this applies only to citizens vs states they're not citizens of. limited stuff, there's nothing here that necessarily enlarges the rights of citizens vis a vis the rights of non-citizens, who can assert the same rights through any number of other constitutional provisions.

5th and 4th amendments guarantee speak of rights guaranteed primarily to persons, not only citizens, with some exceptions like voting. see the texts, observe how they talk about "persons" for "due process" and "equal protection". voting rights issue as a red herring.

strip constitutional rights from non-citizens and non-citizens can have confessions beaten out of them.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-13 20:31 (Reply)

You seem obsessed with confessions being beaten out of non - citizens.

Does that happen a lot out by you?

And what means ymmv?

#5 tatosian on 2013-02-13 21:54 (Reply)

it means, Your Mileage May Vary. which means while most people might be offended by the "nativist" label, considering is historical connotation, others might well embrace it for that reason.

I have a professional interest in beatings. while I've never beaten any illegals, I have represented them in civil rights lawsuits (1983 actions) against some of California's finest. and man-o-manichewitz its been a lucrative gig.

#5.1 wirraway on 2013-02-14 01:26 (Reply)

As a general rule I don't get upset when this or that statist resorts to hysterical name calling right off the bat. It's the internet after all. One expects a certain lack of emotional control from you enlightened types.

Tell me, would you consider my opposition to separatist, illegal alien foreign nationals squatting on American soil a violation of that groups civil rights?

They have a right to be here illegally do they?

Is that in the Constitution also?

And given that a vast majority of so called Mexican Americans do not define themselves as Americans and continue to live a separatist existence in ethnic enclaves 3 and 4 generations after their forbearers crossed the border, couldn't I consider their hostility to my country and culture (for what else could their refusal to assimilate represent?) to be a violation of my civil rights?

Also, why are Mexicans (and others) encouraged to speak their own languages and live according to the cultures they brought with them. What gives them that right?

Do those ill defined privileges and immunities accorded to American citizens demand my acquiescence to this repugnant separatism?

You know what? I like this country. I like the American society and culture. I like Americans. I grew up with them. They are an open, straight forward, forgiving people.

They are, in fact, the exact opposite of the roiling hatred and resentments that those separatist enclaves represent.

When has ethnic or racial separatism not led to violence and misery?

Why would I, or any other American, approve of that?

#5.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-14 08:35 (Reply)

I can't say I've really noticed much of that mex-american separatism where I live (in the southwest). yet we both seem to live in America. there's the gardener I've got at home, and the guy who handles the transaction side of the practice, but they aren't fuming with anger over anything from what I can tell. for all I know they're both illegal. and that would make me a felon twice over. maybe I'm mex, and that would make me a triple sec threat to your piece o' mind.

its a white anglo-saxon free country. mexicans can speak any language they want to, watch mex films, play soccer, watch mex soap operas, play their mariachi music, I hear we even let them worship as Catholics in their own churches. what's this country coming to! next they'll be legalizing interracial marriage. outrageous!

QUOTE:

Tell me, would you consider my opposition to separatist, illegal alien foreign nationals squatting on American soil a violation of that groups civil rights?

absolutely not. free speech and the right of petition are guaranteed to you. if you can convince congress to go along with your Plan, more power to you. one of the posters upthread wants mass arrests and deportations, maybe that's your solution. like I said, its a free country, petition away.

#5.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-14 12:21 (Reply)

Oh. I see. No indication of any of the things I mention surface during a business transaction with your lawn guy therefore the realities I refer to don't exist. Brilliant.

Are those lawn guys your neighbors? Live right down the block do they? Do you sometimes find yourself moving to the beat of the mariachi band but wishing they would turn down the volume a bit?

Certainly mexicans can speak whatever language they want. At home or in their local catholic church. That's been the case with nearly every immigrant group that's come here.

But like it or not, this is an english speaking nation. Always has been.

Who, exactly benefits from the imposition of the spanish language on an english speaking nation? Right you are Bartleby, the speakers of that imposed language. The Hispanics. So, we have millions of your persons who have rejected the language (and culture) of the country they reside in in favor of their own.

Is that assimilation? Is that an effort to become American, like all those who immigrated here during the 40 or so years after the immigration act of 24? Clearly not.

I asked if you thought illegal aliens have a right to be here. You wanna answer that?

#5.1.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-14 19:19 (Reply)

actually, I said maybe I was mexican, actually, I might be Black, which is even a worse stain on the Racially Pure American Wetdream. be that as it may, its not important. Just assume I'm Anglican.

I don't know where my gardener lives, maybe with the rest of the gardeners, my law partner's got a nice house though.

who speaks what I just don't care. except when those mex catholics speak latin in church, holy shi'ite that really tars my feathers. we only speak Natural American King James-style English in my church, with a pronounced mid-America prairie twang.

illegals might have a properly adjudicated right to be here. it depends on individual circumstances and prosecutorial discretion (because no one really gives a rat's ass about gardeners, either). my personal favorites have been the political asylum seekers. you'd hate them -- totally asian, pure illegal, and now living among us on the road to the privileges of immunities of pure citizens.

out of curiosity, your version of assimilation is what, something borg-like? we're part of a group-think American collective?

#5.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-15 11:21 (Reply)

You got add or something?

I never asked about your heritage.

From your post - "I don't know where my gardener lives, maybe with the rest of the gardeners, my law partner's got a nice house though."

What?

Well, certainly there are Asians are granted refugee status. The Hmong come immediately to mind. Don't know if they're the majority of refugees currently in the US. I understand there are a large number of Somalis, Middle easterners and others currently stashed in their respective colonies.

You can check here - http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

As to my thoughts on assimilation, well, perhaps it is a group think sort of discipline.

We have been called a proposition nation and while imperfect, I don't disagree. How could I when by committing to those propositions I guarantee me and mine such things as equality before the law (sans racial/ethnic or political considerations), equal opportunity (ditto), free speech (see above), mobility (also too), the right to practice religion or not and other sorts of propositions.

You can't really commit to or act within the constraints of those propositions if you're demanding special dispensation according to your race, ethnicity, religion or what have you.

And if you can't commit to those propositions, if you can't play by the rules then you're the problem. Not me.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-15 21:59 (Reply)

Uh, by 'you' in the "And if you can't commit to those propositions, if you can't play by the rules then you're the problem. Not me" I meant those who cannot and will not commit. Not you personally.

Although YMMV, huh?

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-15 22:05 (Reply)

you've convinced me. mass arrests and deportations of all nonwhites.

I think the problem is solved and the thread done.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-15 23:34 (Reply)

man-o-manichewitz! Why didn't I think of that.

you...you...you're good.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 tatosian on 2013-02-16 01:23 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 12. 2013