We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, October 7. 2015
It's not just that humans are tribal, although they are. I am almost always curious about people with other backgrounds and stories, but I am most "at home," most relaxed, with people whose backgrounds and stories are similar to mine. You can help me explain all of the reasons for that, but part of it is social predictability. For example, it is difficult to build trust when you do not know or understand another person's definition.
A good degree of cultural homogeneity is good for a society because there is a shared context, shared values, shared referents, and shared meanings. This goes far beyond language itself, so assimilation into a culture takes several generations, with real effort, if it is to happen at all.
I suspect that the only places into which I could assimilate would be Canada, England, Oz, and Germany. In other places, I visit more as an amateur anthropologist, an outsider, and I know I will never really get it. Mind you, I live in NYC which is a United Nations of immigrants, a tower of babel. It's fun, but there is a right amount of it.
I think I am in the mainstream to hold the simple view that a society/culture can handle a modest or moderate degree of immigration, but not an invasion. Borders and armies exist primarily to prevent invasions. Today in a few parts of the world we see unarmed invasions, and many governments do not seem to know what to do. Suppose that Charles Martel had met 200,000 unarmed Muslims thronging towards Poitiers on their way to Paris?
The greater the cultural disconnect, and the fewer the cultural connections and traditions, the more likely one will feel like a stranger in a strange land and the more likely that the immigrant will be viewed as one. Whatever the multicults claim, there is a shared American culture from California to New Jersey, from Michigan to Alabama. Lots of subcultures, but an overarching set of shared ideas and assumptions.
Europe and the US seem to have had enough. I think it's a combination of the volume and of the feeling of being exploited. My basic question to legal immigrants would be "What will you do for America?" (I question myself every day about what I do for friends, family, community, God, and country. Scouting brainwashed me that way. Whenever I ask what is done for me, I squash the thought). For illegals, I tend to be with Trump. I guess that makes me a meany.
Europe Finally Gets Serious About Illegal ‘Migrants’ - "All measures must be taken to ensure irregular migrants’ effective return, including use of detention as a legitimate measure of last resort."
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I like the sentiment of "what will you do for America?" but fortunately that isn't the metric by which legal immigrants are judged.
How about a Constitutional approach to immigration?
Laws restricting immigration must serve a compelling government interest. They must be narrowly tailored and use the least restrictive means to accomplish their goals.
My association with people (immigrants legal or otherwise, literally ANY individual) should be classified as a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights as a logical extension of the 1st Amendment freedom of speech.
Honestly, I don't think the government approach to legal or illegal immigration survives strict scrutiny.
did you find a con law book somewhere and pick up a few phrases that you don't actually understand? cuz that's what my money's on.
are you seriously arguing that undocumented aliens have immigration rights comparable to first amendment rights and that the Immigration and Nationality Act itself should subject to something greater than rational review??? you're talking about the INA and 8 CFR, not state legislation??? holy shi'ite you are so wrong. congress could shut down all immigration and be within its constitutional rights.
by the way, if you're going to make that kind of a half-assed claim, the particular first amendment right is "freedom of association", not "freedom of speech".
Yo, Donny, tighten up:
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
pay attention, young padawan learner ...
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged first amendment right of association)
I'm trying to make #2's failed argument less incoherent by suggesting his desire to import foreign vermin is more related to the first amendment's protection of the right to associate than to the right to speak freely.
I'm still having trouble with legal versus illegal immigrants.
Cognitive dissonance abounds.
If the two terms are both acceptable they can be done away with. Let everyone that walks, crawls, flies, hitchhikes or in any way gets themselves over the vague border to just come on in, catch a bus to Omaha or St. Paul or wherever, and pitch a tent.
It would be as a two-edged sword: the difficulties with legal immigrants would be done away with and the stigma of illegality would be removed from the illegals.
A move like that would free up Border Patrol agents to chase down drug smugglers and sneaking terrorists and to compile data on any of us that get near a border checkpoint.
Welfare and Children's' Services could work out of portable office buildings placed near border crossings to facilitate enrollment and voter registration. Oh, wait. They're doing that already.
the constitution gives congress the authority to decide who gets in, how long they can stay, and whether or not they get to stay permanently and receive citizenship.
I don't mind foreign workers who eventually go home, or foreign students who eventually go home, or that foreign wives of US citizens get to become citizens or that an investor can buy a green card with a certain kind of investment.
I don't want half the population of central america wandering in, or MS-13 gang members, or criminals. if congress decides there are visas for 100,000 immigrants, I want them divided among 50 different countries or regions.
You are almost there. My argument has always been that strict scrutiny analysis should apply to immigration laws BECAUSE they abridge a fundamental right. It may be hashing vocabulary here, but it is important to know that we have no express 'freedom of association' but that it is within the penumbra of rights granted by our 'freedom of speech', which you so correctly cited the case law for.
So yes I, as a small business owner should be allowed to associate my business with any manner of vermin, irregardless of where they may happen to have been born. It is [b] MY [b] fundamental right of association as a citizen, not the other way around, im not asking for rights for non-citizens.
Why is it conservatives resist this approach?
With 330 million people it would be hard to argue we "need" more people. If we had full employment perhaps an argument could be made that we need more employees, but that isn't the case. If all our poor, homeless and needy people were taken care of than perhaps spending trillions to take care of total strangers might make sense. If we simply didn't have enough uneducated, non-English speaking, America hating people than again it might make sense but we seem to have too many of them. Perhaps the leaders think we aren't taxed enough and raising the taxes to give non-Americans a luxurious life style is just what the country needs. But I feel like I am taxed enough already (TEA party). Maybe we need more immigrants/refugees/illegals to bring the murder rate up, after all in communities made up of citizens of European descent our murder rates are the lowest in the world, we need Syrians and Africans and Mexicans to prop up this falling murder rate.
I am really stumped for a single good reason to have any immigration; legal, illegal or refugee...
I still can't wrap my mind around your insistence that the foreign born wives of US servicemen shouldn't be allowed US citizenship.
where does that hard-ass argument actually work?
My father in law (who passed away 5 years ago) lived and worked in the U.S. for 42 years. He kept his Canadian citizenship and was perfectly happy doing so. Why does a foreign born wife/husband have to become a citizen?
My very good friend is married to a Japanese women, she was a Japanese citizen when he married her and she retains Japanese citizenship even though she has lived here for 35 years. I might point out that if they were to move to Japan he could never become a Japanese citizen. Japan manages just fine without selling or giving away citizenships.
congress says alien spouses of US citizens are eligible for green cards and ultimately citizenship. I picked "servicemen" as an obvious example of people who should be allowed to naturalize their foreign spouses. if you ask a kid to be ready to die for his country, and he wants to marry a foreigner, a certain degree of humanity not to mention common sense should tell you that the country should treat his choice of wife no differently than if he married the girl next door. this is commonplace.
I suspect you'd gleefully keep her out of the country rather than even give her a green card.
you'll also be disappointed to learn that their kid, even if born abroad, is also a USC.
your friend's Japanese wife lived here as a legal permanent resident, why isn't that offensive?
what I'm really curious about is whether anyone supports your position.
I doubt it.
Suppose that Charles Martel had met 200,000 unarmed Muslims thronging towards Poitiers on their way to Paris?
apparently, he only ran across 50,000 or so armed muslims, gave them battle, and defeated them, thereby giving Christendom time to pull itself out of the Dark Ages and Feudalism, on through the Renaissance and Enlightenment, before falling into the current nihilism that has infected "the West" for at least the past century... not that islam wasn't continuing attacks on Europe during those years
Charles the Hammer and Vlad the Impaler.
They knew how to deal with Muslims.