Why does the media prefer the term "undocumented" rather than the more accurate term "illegal" or "law breaker"? Unless these folks lost or misplaced their papers? Did they come here legally but some paperwork snafu prevented them from getting their documents?
Even worse is when I hear Hispanic groups being portrayed as being pro-illegal immigration. Are we to believe that all Hispanics are law breakers? WTF?
I distinctly remember gas prices hitting $3/gallon in the fall of 2006. My college temporarily suspended field trips because of it, and I was teaching a weekly field lab at the time.
@Steve: Illegal has become too much of a moral label. Saying "illegals" or "illegal aliens" often implies they have crossed an ethical boundary, not just a political one. While people who cross the border without authorization may be guilty in the eyes of the law, it's unfair to ascribe moral guilt to someone who is trying to escape abject poverty, bodily danger, or political or religious persecution.
A not insignificant number of people who are breaking immigration laws are in fact breaking them b/c they lost their paper work or something equally trivial. Many of these are people who come over for schooling or work and end up letting their visas expire or do something that puts them in legal limbo.
It's true. Somebody may stay too long on the wrong kind of visa, or have made a misstep filing, and technically they are "illegal immigrants." Technically they are breaking the law, but it's not always super premeditated or anything.
Totally. People take immigrants for granted, while at the same time complaining about them. I feel that in NYC immigration is what really shaped this city, and provided a foundation for what it is today. What they are doing to the Mexicans now is basically the whole "Yellow Peril" BS all over again. I bet if we made "getting legal" easier, they would participate in the civil infrastructure including taxes, put their kids in public schools, and eventually become like the example of the Irish: immigrants, escaping poverty to become part of our heritage and community.
edit: Also, the neighborhood where I live is basically 50% Hispanic immigrants. I don't know what people are so torqued about. I hear Spanish every day, and shop at spanish-speaking stores, and I don't feel like my way of life is in any way under attack. What is it that people are so bothered about?
I have been seeing a commercial advocating against legal immigrants coming in and "taking American jobs" lately. It's incredibly infuriating. As if it's easier for a company to hire a legal immigrant than it is to hire an American. Usually if they can fill the position domestically with a good candidate, they will. It's so much more of a pain in the ass to hire a foreigner and deal with immigration red tape! You want to reduce legal immigration? Get some fucking skills and compete with them! Aaaaargh!
As someone who is the child of legal immigrants (who were able to come here because the Kennedy administration got rid of the old country-based quota system back in the 60's, making my formerly "undesirable" parents just as legit as anyone else who wanted to come to the country), the whole legal immigration bru-ha-ha is a load of crap. For that matter, the complaint about legal immigrants not wanting to learn English, their kids refusing to learn English, and all that is also a load of crap.
Almost everyone in my family who immigrated to the States speaks English fluently. In fact, many of them came here to go to college -- and good luck getting a college degree here if you don't speak English. Even those who don't speak English (because they were older when they came here) have made the effort to learn a little with varying success (my grandfather can just about converse in English, though he struggles and feels embarrassed about it. My great aunt, not quite so much, but she's did make an effort when she was younger). Plus, now that we have 3 generations of my family in the states (immigrants, children of immigrants, grandchildren of immigrants) the pattern of English vs. "native" language (Portuguese in my case) has followed thusly:
Immigrant generation may or may not speak any English (depending on their educational background), but speak their native tongues fluently
Children of immigrants speak English fluently, though some may have required extra help early on in school to learn English (my mom was a bilingual teacher who was part of a program designed to give immigrant children this extra help). Their ability to speak their old native tongue varies from fluent to just enough to get by (I'm unfortunately in the "just enough to get by" class for various reasons).
Grandchildren are 100% fluent in English and don't really know any of the old native tongue except for maybe words for "grandma" and "grandpa" (my niece, my cousin's kids, etc., -- they're all like this).
If you look at the various immigrant communities around the country, even the heavily Spanish ones, you'll find this pattern consistently emerging. Now, if you're in a neighborhood that still heavily speaks Spanish (or Portuguese, or whatever the language may be), that's mostly because it's composed of a lot of recent immigrants, so the generational trend of English fluency hasn't fully kicked in yet. However, to use the example of the various Portuguese neighborhoods I grew up in, most of those who still live there of Portuguese descent speak English as their first language. If you do hear Portuguese in those neighborhoods, it's because of more recent Brazilian immigrants who moved there, probably in part due to there already being a Portuguese-speaking infrastructure to help them transition.
Now going on to the illegal immigrant issue, given how my family did all the hoop jumping and whatnot to come here legally, we have an interesting point of view on it. Yes, it's unfair that people were able to come here without going through all the hoops that legal immigrants had to -- however, it doesn't mean they should automatically be deported either. For one thing, part of the problem is people hiring them -- which is illegal but doesn't seem to be enforced nearly enough. Second, deportation is not the right penalty for those who may have come here illegally but otherwise haven't broken any laws, been productive residents of the country, and haven't taken any unnecessary advantage of "the system." Absolute amnesty isn't right for them because they did break the law and didn't follow the rules to come here, but if they have been here long enough (say six months or so for the sake of argument), they should be allowed to stay with a more appropriate penalty being payment of any possible back taxes (which isn't as common as you may think -- many do pay taxes via fake social security numbers they acquired in order to get work) as well as some sort of additional fine (many are willing to pay fines to stay here). Of course, deportation is appropriate (after a fair trial) for those who have broken other laws (depending on the severity, of course) or those who have been here for so short a time they haven't had a chance to "put up roots," so to speak.
I pretty much agree with everything Lou said. One of the things that is interesting about neighborhood communities that are basically enclaves of new immigrants is that it serves as a support network, and provides a transitional period where the immigrants in question can kind of ease into the new culture gradually. It does slow down the language learning, but it also helps in a lot of other ways, and anyway, once the kids enter school they adapt really quickly.
I remember getting into a debate with some hard core conservatives on Facebook (long story) over the whole contraception mandate thing. Many of them were, as expected, coming at it from the religious freedom thing. I then mentioned that if you believe that government shouldn't regulate religion at all, then you are also in favor of gay marriage since there are established religions, such as the Unitarian Church, that perform gay marriages. Shut up all of them complete except for one who, begrudgingly admitted that I do have a point.
Seriously, has there ever been a GOP showing THIS weak before? Romney is the only one I could possibly see taking the nomination, and I just don't see him standing up to Obama in a debate. He's going to get called out early on on all sorts of things that will destroy whatever credibility people think he has. The whole thing is basically for show at this point.
On election night I quoted a local Republican chairwoman who said (para.) the base didn't care enough to go to the polls because they didn't like any of the candidates. The state had near-record low turnout. That's energy!
That is a really stupidly designed webpage. You don't center-align your fixed-width content and then left-align your header without the fixed width! What the hell?
Apparently Republicans in a South Carolina county don't like political diversity or open discourse and thus you are only allowed on the ballot if you sign a pledge to follow party politics and passed an interview with party leadership. You also can't be a candidate if you had sex before marriage and you're not allowed to watch porn after you signed the pledge.
I'm divided on this. Should the party be able to exercise complete control over its candidates?
The party is effectively placing employment requirements on candidates but overstepping the privacy boundaries employers are allowed.
Norquist pressures congress to adopt an ideological pledge, which I can almost understand, though even that is extremely shady. But this goes one step further and infringes on the private lives of candidates. Would it be equally acceptable for Wegman's to refuse to hire a manager who had premarital sex? Or would we deem it acceptable for Time Warner to require an IT professional to abstain from porn?
There is not a legitimate way for the party to monitor whether its candidates are obeying the pledge. So this seems more designed as an excuse for the party to divorce itself from its politicians who are caught with their pants down. "He broke the pledge, so he's not a true Republican... you can't hold his abominable behavior up as an example of what we stand for."
So this seems more designed as an excuse for the party to divorce itself from its politicians who are caught with their pants down. "He broke the pledge, so he's not a true Republican... you can't hold his abominable behavior up as an example of what we stand for."
This is exactly what it is. I just don't see how that is a problem.
Also, candidates become public figures, which basically means they have no private lives. And yes, some companies have morality clauses in their contracts that require a certain code of behavior or they can fire you. That's why confidentiality is such a huge deal in the kink world; people CAN be fired for it.
I'd be more comfortable with stricter party rules if the current parties didn't have such a strangle hold on the entire process. Sure, you don't have to be part of a political party to be a politician, but it's effectively impossible to run for any national level seat and have a chance at winning if you aren't an R or D.
Here's the deal: To me, this is little more than another attempt at an ideological purge in the Republican party. Neither is one necessary, nor is it in any way smart to do. This does nothing except quell dissent and discourse and forces people to go along with the party line regardless of how stupid the party line is.
Its a codified principle of "Don't think for yourself. Think what the party wants you to think." and that is both immoral and dangerous.
Comments
Even worse is when I hear Hispanic groups being portrayed as being pro-illegal immigration. Are we to believe that all Hispanics are law breakers? WTF?
Here's another view from the LA Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/03/opinion/la-le-postcript-20110903
And here's another one from the Society of Professional Journalists:
http://multiamerican.scpr.org/jp/society-of-professional-journalists-votes-against-use-of-illegal-alien-and-illegal-immigrant/
Most of the big US cities would fall apart at the seams if significant portions of their immigrant populations were deported.
What they are doing to the Mexicans now is basically the whole "Yellow Peril" BS all over again. I bet if we made "getting legal" easier, they would participate in the civil infrastructure including taxes, put their kids in public schools, and eventually become like the example of the Irish: immigrants, escaping poverty to become part of our heritage and community.
edit: Also, the neighborhood where I live is basically 50% Hispanic immigrants. I don't know what people are so torqued about. I hear Spanish every day, and shop at spanish-speaking stores, and I don't feel like my way of life is in any way under attack. What is it that people are so bothered about?
Almost everyone in my family who immigrated to the States speaks English fluently. In fact, many of them came here to go to college -- and good luck getting a college degree here if you don't speak English. Even those who don't speak English (because they were older when they came here) have made the effort to learn a little with varying success (my grandfather can just about converse in English, though he struggles and feels embarrassed about it. My great aunt, not quite so much, but she's did make an effort when she was younger). Plus, now that we have 3 generations of my family in the states (immigrants, children of immigrants, grandchildren of immigrants) the pattern of English vs. "native" language (Portuguese in my case) has followed thusly:
- Immigrant generation may or may not speak any English (depending on their educational background), but speak their native tongues fluently
- Children of immigrants speak English fluently, though some may have required extra help early on in school to learn English (my mom was a bilingual teacher who was part of a program designed to give immigrant children this extra help). Their ability to speak their old native tongue varies from fluent to just enough to get by (I'm unfortunately in the "just enough to get by" class for various reasons).
- Grandchildren are 100% fluent in English and don't really know any of the old native tongue except for maybe words for "grandma" and "grandpa" (my niece, my cousin's kids, etc., -- they're all like this).
If you look at the various immigrant communities around the country, even the heavily Spanish ones, you'll find this pattern consistently emerging. Now, if you're in a neighborhood that still heavily speaks Spanish (or Portuguese, or whatever the language may be), that's mostly because it's composed of a lot of recent immigrants, so the generational trend of English fluency hasn't fully kicked in yet. However, to use the example of the various Portuguese neighborhoods I grew up in, most of those who still live there of Portuguese descent speak English as their first language. If you do hear Portuguese in those neighborhoods, it's because of more recent Brazilian immigrants who moved there, probably in part due to there already being a Portuguese-speaking infrastructure to help them transition.Now going on to the illegal immigrant issue, given how my family did all the hoop jumping and whatnot to come here legally, we have an interesting point of view on it. Yes, it's unfair that people were able to come here without going through all the hoops that legal immigrants had to -- however, it doesn't mean they should automatically be deported either. For one thing, part of the problem is people hiring them -- which is illegal but doesn't seem to be enforced nearly enough. Second, deportation is not the right penalty for those who may have come here illegally but otherwise haven't broken any laws, been productive residents of the country, and haven't taken any unnecessary advantage of "the system." Absolute amnesty isn't right for them because they did break the law and didn't follow the rules to come here, but if they have been here long enough (say six months or so for the sake of argument), they should be allowed to stay with a more appropriate penalty being payment of any possible back taxes (which isn't as common as you may think -- many do pay taxes via fake social security numbers they acquired in order to get work) as well as some sort of additional fine (many are willing to pay fines to stay here). Of course, deportation is appropriate (after a fair trial) for those who have broken other laws (depending on the severity, of course) or those who have been here for so short a time they haven't had a chance to "put up roots," so to speak.
"Why does the government need to be involved in marriage anyway? Isn't there enough governing to do already?"
Once again I am without words.
It's cool though, my boyfriend's sister's boyfriend doesn't believe in climate change or that it's getting warmer. I just smile and nod.
Have you read anything on Puddingism?
The party is effectively placing employment requirements on candidates but overstepping the privacy boundaries employers are allowed.
Norquist pressures congress to adopt an ideological pledge, which I can almost understand, though even that is extremely shady. But this goes one step further and infringes on the private lives of candidates. Would it be equally acceptable for Wegman's to refuse to hire a manager who had premarital sex? Or would we deem it acceptable for Time Warner to require an IT professional to abstain from porn?
There is not a legitimate way for the party to monitor whether its candidates are obeying the pledge. So this seems more designed as an excuse for the party to divorce itself from its politicians who are caught with their pants down. "He broke the pledge, so he's not a true Republican... you can't hold his abominable behavior up as an example of what we stand for."
Also, candidates become public figures, which basically means they have no private lives. And yes, some companies have morality clauses in their contracts that require a certain code of behavior or they can fire you. That's why confidentiality is such a huge deal in the kink world; people CAN be fired for it.
Its a codified principle of "Don't think for yourself. Think what the party wants you to think." and that is both immoral and dangerous.