|
|
Post by GreenFerret on May 13, 2006 3:21:09 GMT -5
Zaab - you need to look further into the "european masses" that came over. My ancestors made that journey with a price of indentured servantude to come to America. They landed on ellis island and reported/recorded themselves with the government as did the majority of europeans fleeing not just oppression but death for their beliefs. [...] Why should the US reform to meet their needs when they "the illegals" refuse to do anything about their situation in their own homeland? So your ancestors were heroes for refusing to stay behind where life was crap, and the Mexicans are a bunch of lazy asses for doing the same thing.  How about this: Your ancestors should have been shipped right back to Europe and told to stand up and fight instead of slinking away to hide in America. They weren't "real" Americans; what right did they have to claim land and wages and life as though they actually deserved it?? Unlike the people who were already here-- they worked hard to get born here after all!  |
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on May 13, 2006 3:31:01 GMT -5
And I'm not a history buff, but I do know that almost without fail, the new wave of immigrants were looked at with disgust and scorn. They were relegated to the dregs of society and given the worst work available. The new wave is always thought to have a corrupting influence on society to the point of tearing it down. It is the same old story over and over again and its sad to see that we never learn our lesson from it and keep on blaming the wrong people for society's ills. I remember seeing some history show where it pointed that out, how at one time the Irish were the terrible newcomers who were "stealing" the jobs from the "real" Americans; at other times there were the Italians, and I believe the Chinese. But somehow the nation survives each time, and eventually people forget how they reviled one immigrant group in favor of the next wave. Now you mention it, it really is pretty silly... |
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 13, 2006 3:51:24 GMT -5
And I'm not a history buff, but I do know that almost without fail, the new wave of immigrants were looked at with disgust and scorn. They were relegated to the dregs of society and given the worst work available. The new wave is always thought to have a corrupting influence on society to the point of tearing it down. It is the same old story over and over again and its sad to see that we never learn our lesson from it and keep on blaming the wrong people for society's ills. I remember seeing some history show where it pointed that out, how at one time the Irish were the terrible newcomers who were "stealing" the jobs from the "real" Americans; at other times there were the Italians, and I believe the Chinese. But somehow the nation survives each time, and eventually people forget how they reviled one immigrant group in favor of the next wave. Now you mention it, it really is pretty silly... I was just reading some history about Irish immigration and it had every single characteristic of what is happening at this very moment with Mexican immigration. Many thought if we'd send all the Irish back that we could rid this country of crime. I don't know how an intelligent person could get tricked into believing that those with no power and rights whatsoever could be the cause of our problems, but we gulp it down hook, line and sinker. And as GF said, eventually the new immigrants assimilate and often make the country a better place, imo. Life goes on and we remain an unbelievably rich nation despite senseless wars and wreckless economic policies (though W is putting us in danger). |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on May 13, 2006 6:06:28 GMT -5
I remember seeing some history show where it pointed that out, how at one time the Irish were the terrible newcomers who were "stealing" the jobs from the "real" Americans; at other times there were the Italians, and I believe the Chinese. But somehow the nation survives each time, and eventually people forget how they reviled one immigrant group in favor of the next wave. Now you mention it, it really is pretty silly... I was just reading some history about Irish immigration and it had every single characteristic of what is happening at this very moment with Mexican immigration. Many thought if we'd send all the Irish back that we could rid this country of crime. the movie "Gangs of New York" explored some of these issues. good film. |
|
|
|
Post by christfollower on May 14, 2006 2:01:05 GMT -5
So your ancestors were heroes for refusing to stay behind where life was crap, and the Mexicans are a bunch of lazy asses for doing the same thing. How about this: Your ancestors should have been shipped right back to Europe and told to stand up and fight instead of slinking away to hide in America. They weren't "real" Americans; what right did they have to claim land and wages and life as though they actually deserved it?? Unlike the people who were already here-- they worked hard to get born here after all! Many of my ancestors did stay, they fought and died as England took their land. No where did I say they were heros - I said they came here legally. I also said I do not care if the hispanics are here legally - I am concerned about the illegals. As I said, the eroupeans that came - did so legally. That is after they kicked my other ancestors off their land. I have a real mix of emotion on that since I have two different heritages on that subject. I also never said the hispanics were lazy.    Green Ferret - I do not appreciate the way you place words that were never said to make you appear to have something better to say. Immagrants were looked down upon - that is not what is happening. There are thousands who come here leaglly each year - that is not what people disagree with. It is the ones who come here illegally - not just from Mexico. The illegal immagrants make up more than one nationality. The largest nationality with illegals here happen to be from Mexico. Zaab - your state is the leading state for controlling illegals. The law in your state say that the illegals commit the majority of crimes. And they are not talking about jay walking or a traffic violation. I guess that doesn't bother you. As I said earlier - if it doesn't directly affect you then it is not important to care. Funny - that the stand the northern states had toward the southwestern states until the problem moved into their states as well. The only thing that helps them curve that are the unions. I do not know how patriotic people are these days. It is concerning when I see business' and schools placing the Mexican falg above the American flag. Last I remember - I served the US Army not the Mexican Army. There is a business down the street from where I live that has done this. They say it is protest  |
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 14, 2006 3:15:40 GMT -5
I'll tell you what bothers me, Christfollower, and that's hypocrisy www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1528. US companies are all too happy to set up shop across the border and pay starvation wages and wreck the Mexican environment so badly that it threatens the health of anyone in the general area of the filth, but then we are apalled when the people our companies are exploiting try to flee the horrendous conditions our country played a large part in creating. But, as always, its much easier to blame the victim. And, interesting column www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701272.html , it seems that illegal immigration really boomed after the passage of NAFTA. NAFTA was responsible for driving down the wages of the average Mexican farmer by placing him in direct competition with American agriculture, and how fair is that? We reap what we sow, I guess. (Also it helps makes sense of the anger and the protest you picture above. Wouldn't you be a little peeved if American corporate greed forced you to risk your life and uproot your home to feed your family? Me, I would be pissed off. But it doesn't directly affect you, so why would you care?) Bald faced hypocrisy every direction you turn, sheesh! |
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on May 14, 2006 5:13:08 GMT -5
So your ancestors were heroes for refusing to stay behind where life was crap, and the Mexicans are a bunch of lazy asses for doing the same thing. How about this: Your ancestors should have been shipped right back to Europe and told to stand up and fight instead of slinking away to hide in America. They weren't "real" Americans; what right did they have to claim land and wages and life as though they actually deserved it?? Unlike the people who were already here-- they worked hard to get born here after all! Many of my ancestors did stay, they fought and died as England took their land. No where did I say they were heros - I said they came here legally. I also said I do not care if the hispanics are here legally - I am concerned about the illegals. As I said, the eroupeans that came - did so legally. That is after they kicked my other ancestors off their land. I have a real mix of emotion on that since I have two different heritages on that subject. I also never said the hispanics were lazy. Green Ferret - I do not appreciate the way you place words that were never said to make you appear to have something better to say. Immagrants were looked down upon - that is not what is happening. There are thousands who come here leaglly each year - that is not what people disagree with. It is the ones who come here illegally - not just from Mexico. The illegal immagrants make up more than one nationality. The largest nationality with illegals here happen to be from Mexico. I don't happen to appreciate your idea that your ancestors were somehow more entitled to come here because they wrote their names down in the government registers. I don't appreciate your inability to distinguish direct quotes from rhetorical paraphrasing. You speak of the illegal Mexicans as disgruntled people who "refuse" to change their entire system of government rather than coming here where things are better--ie they are passively allowing bad things to happen back home; while your ancestors "fled" an unfair, oppressive, and deadly situation--so they actively relocated as a positive solution to intolerable conditions. Just reading between the lines. Whether these people are here illegally or not, I don't see how that's relevant to this point. They weren't one of the ones fortunate enough to get a visa, but your lucky ancestors made it and they got the papers to prove it. That makes them more worthy of a better life than anyone who came here illegally? You could have gone with the theory that we only have "room" for a certain number of immigrants, but you can hardly get away with claiming that your European ancestors were entitled to come here, while the illegal Mexicans should be home effecting drastic social and economic change. What should they do; stage a revolution out of their homes? What would you do if you were living in Mexico, had little money and a family to care for, and could not obtain a visa to the US? I think your points about the whole "reaping what you so" thing are important, Zaab... if US policies are responsible for the inability of Mexican workers to make a decent living, how can US policies not be responsible for rectifying the situation? It does strike me as assinine to fly the Mexican flag above the American flag, especially since they're demanding American rights, not Mexican ones--that's the whole point. Like a lot of Stupid Political Symbols, it looks like just another public display calculated to shock and annoy. I'm not sure why anyone has ever thought these kinds of tactics were a good idea--from rhyming chants and ubiquitous puns and epithets, to throwing paint on people wearing fur coats, to going a day without speaking. I could really rant about these kinds of things and the doofs who come up with them. Just like in the case of the Day of Silence (wtf (quick rant)... how does clamping your mouth shut for a day help gays forced into the closet? Grow up and actually DO something about it instead of sitting there like a bump on a log, pissing off your homeroom teacher), the cause might be worthy but the symbolism lacking--at least to me. I guess it makes sense in some ways, but it doesn't cease to get on my nerves anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 15, 2006 13:21:58 GMT -5
I don't see illegal immigration as stricly being a Mexican problem; i don't know how this turned into an Anti-Mexican debate, but for some reason it did.  As for the Irish and all the other immigrant groups that came here to the US in the 19th and 20th centuryes, not all of them were permitted entry. if we're gonna talk about Ellis Island of the early 20th century, some 3 million people passed through that immigration checkpoint, some of which were turned back for various reasons, many of which seemed to involve the risk of spreading contagions like smallpox. Smallpox was still a really big problem then; not so much now. No matter what the Statue of Liberty might say, the US govt has never allowed or permitted everyone and anyone to immigrate to the US just because they want to. Immigration controls were established to pohibit the flood of immigration that we are now talking about, no matter who they are or where they come from. Yes, it is true that millions of Irish came to the US in the 19th century, and yes it is true that many of them were turned away. Just as it was with the Italians, Germans, Polish, and just about every other major ethnic group you care to think about. The precedent for controlling immigration is well established, and is not likely to change anytime soon. The US is not the only nation on earth to control movements into its borders, so i'm not sure why we're even having this argument about this in the first place. It can also be argued that of the many immigrant groups that came here to the US, many of them also came from countries that actively encourgaed emmigration in the first place. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Italy, and Prussia all encouraged their so called 'undesierables' to leave the new nation states forming up if they would not submit to the new govt's authority. It even got to the point where the Prussian govt was paying shipping companies to round up those so called undesireables and ship them to the Western Hemisphere. Bottom line, i don't blame the immigrants for wanting to come and live in the US. I have nothing against them or their descendants. However, our nation here is run by a collective association of citizens, one that runs by active citizen participation, and this includes civil participation on all levels. Immigrants that come here legally are in effect demonstrating a tacit respect and acknoweldgement of this civil authority; that is why they are permitted entry in the first place. Illegal immigrants do not, and so are refusing to recognize the authority of the US govt. The Govt requires people to obey the law, no matter who they are, because the law is for everyone. This is why illegal immigration is so hotly controversial, because those that immigrate illegally are in effect snubbing the govt of the nation and refusing to acknowlegdge the law. In order for the law to be fair and justly applied, it has to be applied to everyone. Just by coming illegally, these illegal immigrants are showing disrespect for the law and so are rightly considerred to be law breakers in the eyes of the govt. And all lawbreakers are subject to varying levels of punishment. Even people who are born here in the US, technically US citzens, are expected to obey the laws of the country, as well as the laws of the state, county, and city, depending on where you live. If you break the law, no matter who you are or where you come from, you are subject to the consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by christfollower on May 15, 2006 22:55:01 GMT -5
Well written Russman.
Zaab - I agree with you on the American companies taking advantage of people in foreign lands. Still, you can not hold those companies solely liable. There has to be a reason for the companies being able to do this. I would say that the economic pay is either what is being paid or lower and that there are no other places to work for people to even decide to work for those companies. It also goes to the government’s lack of representing its people or the government would demand that those companies pay higher wages.
What would the people do or should I say where would they work if the American companies were not there? I would consider the possibility that it would be an even worse economic situation than what is there at the present.
No Company = No Work
No Work = No Pay = No Economy.
It is despairing to see people living in such horrid conditions, but can you single out American companies for creating this problem? I do not believe so, but I guess you can say that the American companies are not helping to improve the way of life - they just let it exist at a slightly better circumstance.
Did anyone catch the President's speech on immigration reform tonight? I liked what I heard - emphasize "heard". But will the government do this or was it just a political move to try to improve ratings for his party? Only time will tell.
BTW - Green Ferret - my son has Ashbergers - and he is just like me. One of the traits is not having the ability to distinguish direct quotes from rhetorical paraphrasing as you put it and not getting idioms.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on May 16, 2006 7:52:55 GMT -5
what is happening is that the 'american companies' basically found a way to ignore all THIS COUNTRY's labor laws by setting up shops outside and hiring cheap illigal labor. the working conditions in this country are better because of a long struggle to make them this way - and by using outside labor and hiring illigal immigrants they are erroding what has been done. There is an immediate economic gain, but in the end, instead of quality of life improving everywhere, it will just go down in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 16, 2006 21:31:32 GMT -5
Yup, what lsdima said. And furthermore the huge and powerful American government has ways of persuading troubled foreign economies to do things their way. So in the past many Mexicans earned a modest living because their government set up a protectionist economy. Free trade (NAFTA) was enacted under no doubt strong pressure from the United States, so, for example, there is no way in hell a Mexican farmer can compete with a large American agribusiness that has the latest technology and tons of capital at its disposal. The farmer loses his job and is forced to either work for a place like a maquiladora (which may be the next best thing purely by default) or to jump the border. The companies are not solely liable. It is a symbiotic relationship among big business, our government and the Mexican government each one trying to maximize the cash flow into their pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 18, 2006 3:36:55 GMT -5
Yup, what lsdima said. And furthermore the huge and powerful American government has ways of persuading troubled foreign economies to do things their way. So in the past many Mexicans earned a modest living because their government set up a protectionist economy. Free trade (NAFTA) was enacted under no doubt strong pressure from the United States, so, for example, there is no way in hell a Mexican farmer can compete with a large American agribusiness that has the latest technology and tons of capital at its disposal. The farmer loses his job and is forced to either work for a place like a maquiladora (which may be the next best thing purely by default) or to jump the border. The companies are not solely liable. It is a symbiotic relationship among big business, our government and the Mexican government each one trying to maximize the cash flow into their pockets. First the Mexican govt needs to roll back all the Socialist land devolution they implemented in the 1930's, and allow farming to get back on its feet for profit. If this is not done, then the country will never be able to feed its people. Food first, jobs second.  The socialist land distrubution wiped out much of Mexico's export famring, such as the hennequen industry. When the crop exports decreased as a result, people starved, because food became too expensive to buy, let alone for export. The Partido Revolucional thugs did nothing but destroy the emerging Mexican economy. Before them, Mexico could feed it's people and still have plenty left over. Jobs came because of foreign investment, and wages up till the 1920's were relatively high for skilled workers there. Now that the PAN are in power, things might change, but only if they can dispose of their predecessors' left wing garbage where it belongs. I should also add that we are looking at Mexico from an American point of view, and not looking at Mexico as an entity in itself. We look at Mexico as a entity created thus by American exploitation. Is this true? Absolutely not. Mexico existed long before Americans and other foreigners entered into their economy, and they make the decisions themselves. In order for Mexicans to supposedly "come out from under the American exploitive rug" as i've heard it called, the Mexicans themselves have to be willing to change. They are not. Mexican philosophy teaches people to live in contentedness with whatever their situation may be. Economic disadvantage is second nature to them, but so is living in contentedness. We need to stop looking at Mexico from an American standpoint, and judge them for what they are. If Mexico is to change, the change must come from within, and not from without. Mexicans by nature are very resistant to any kind of change, because change brings unpredictability, and this is undesired. El respecto por el derecho. I have used this famous phrase before. Derecho means "law" but it can also be translated as " the way" or "reality." This means accepting whatever life brings to you, because it is reality. Bottom line: The native philosophy of Mexico prevented them from developing any strong economy or infastructure of their own, thus the govt filled with intellectuals welcomed foreign capital and investment into their land. Because the people are not willing to take charge of their own self determination, they will not learn to run their own country. Hence, the extreme corruption and what we percieve as backwardness. The solution? First, the Mexicans must learn how to change first, then actually implement it. Because change to Mexicans is bad, and is something to be resisted. They must learn that there also is good change, change for the better. |
|
|
|
Post by airburst on May 18, 2006 22:07:07 GMT -5
I remember reading a thread like this on another board I frequent. One poster said that the only way to solve the immigration problem is to eliminate the incentive to come here in the first place and I agree with that. We share a much larger border with Canada, but do you see tons of Canadians crossing illegally into the country each year? No, because you can live a good life in Canada. I think if it were the same way in Mexico, we wouldn't be dealing with the problems we have today.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on May 18, 2006 23:05:03 GMT -5
I don't think mexicans will change
|
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 18, 2006 23:46:35 GMT -5
How about if the American government supports workers rights in Mexico, unionize the maquiladoras, restrict free trade in the areas where it would help the Mexican economy and overall enact measures that would make it possible for the average Mexican to live and support his family in his homeland. It would never happen because the truth is the big companies that support the government want the cheap labor provided by both the maquiladoras and the illegals working in our farms and factories so keeping the Mexican laborer close to starvation works in the favor of big business. Its a very hypocritical notion if you think about it.
And on the subject of Mexicans living in contentedness in their impoverished situation, clearly they are not otherwise there would not be thousands upon thousands risking their lives each year to enter this country.
|
|
