Immigration Opinions

This is not my country and it is not yours. I understand that you may understand that speaking a language other than English is no big deal. However, I think when people come here and start changing the tradition of this land, then one may be headed to a clash. I think that's what is going to happen.

"...We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919


gcstrat said:
ufo2002

Well Said. And it is what I have been trying to highlight - language is NOT an issue. In France, the legal immigrants (mostly from Algiers) SPEAK French, yet they remain outside of the mainstream.

The aim is to have or hope for assimilation of "tastes" though people may speak different language, practice a different religion and are ethnically different.

There is quote a person of Indian origin, living in South Africa, gave to a newspaper reporter in the first ever Conference of People of Indian Origin in New Delhi couple of years ago, which I think is worth repetiting here (I do not recall the exact wordings but the gist is like this): "While in South Africa, I always thought myself as an Indian but coming here I realized how much South African I am."

People assimilate. They just need opportunity to assimilate and time to do at their pace.

Regards
GCStrat :)
Click to expand...
 
Question

What is tradition? And how far back in history should one go when one talks about tradition? 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, or more.

The initial immigrants to this country brought their traditions and beliefs in the same way a modern day immigrant brings to this country.

I doubt any of the immigrants who come here come with the explicit intent of changing the tradition of this country. In fact, most people who come here are attracted by what US projects in the world - prosperity and success.

Also, the quote of Theodore Roosevelt was in response to the communist revolution of 1917 in Soviet Russia. and he is talking about enemies/ hostile nations.... unless you classify present day Mexico, Canada, India, Germany, UK, Japan, Switzerland, etc. as hostile nations.

One way to look at immigration is this analogy - you have a glass full of milk (signifying present population with "no" room for anything else) and you add sugar to that milk (sugar is very different from milk - much like our modern day immigrants) - what happens ?

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
We will find out what is tradition and how deep Americans (not us) are willing to take this into consideration. Let's see the real repercussions of such immigration debates coming the November election and beyound. So far is not looking very good including to us.

This country was founded by people speaking English. In my opinion look at the when the country was founded - things flourished in 1776. That's when you need to look at and respect that. This country is full of noble and valuable history.

You are right that most immigrants come here with no intentions to change the traditions. The problem is that they come here with no intentions to keep the tradition either. That is fact because you have bilingual signs all over the place. The proof is already there. There not even a reason to debate this.

The quote from Roosevelt was about people coming to the US. You simply do not know how hostile can be letting the country open the border to an excessive number of people, coming here at an uncontrolled fashion. You can just give your personal opinion, but you cannot predict that because it is unprecedent.

Regarding your analogy with the milk and sugar, that is fine. As long as you don't put too much sugar on it, that would be a great drink to taste.



gcstrat said:
What is tradition? And how far back in history should one go when one talks about tradition? 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, or more.

The initial immigrants to this country brought their traditions and beliefs in the same way a modern day immigrant brings to this country.

I doubt any of the immigrants who come here come with the explicit intent of changing the tradition of this country. In fact, most people who come here are attracted by what US projects in the world - prosperity and success.

Also, the quote of Theodore Roosevelt was in response to the communist revolution of 1917 in Soviet Russia. and he is talking about enemies/ hostile nations.... unless you classify present day Mexico, Canada, India, Germany, UK, Japan, Switzerland, etc. as hostile nations.

One way to look at immigration is this analogy - you have a glass full of milk (signifying present population with "no" room for anything else) and you add sugar to that milk (sugar is very different from milk - much like our modern day immigrants) - what happens ?

Regards
GCStrat :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gcstrat said:
One way to look at immigration is this analogy - you have a glass full of milk (signifying present population with "no" room for anything else) and you add sugar to that milk (sugar is very different from milk - much like our modern day immigrants) - what happens ?
Click to expand...


Ahhh .. the milk become sweet ... without overflowing.

I think this is the very analogy given my the Zoroastrians( Iranians) when they landed in India .. later called Parsis.
Well true to the anology ... most big businesses in India is Parsi owned.
 
marlon2006 said:
This country was founded by people speaking English. In my opinion look at the when the country was founded - things flourished in 1776. That's when you need to look at and respect that. This country is full of noble and valuable history.
Click to expand...

Not true ... atleast in Western Michigan and most pars of Milwaukee .. which was populated by immigrants from Germany and Poland ... English was not taught in the schools for many many years ... And even people spoke German or Polish for many years ...

Slowly in next few generation ... they became more adaptive towards english.
 
Correct

Billtoo

You are very correct - this was the very analogy the Parsis or Zorastrians gave to the Zamorin (king) of Gujarat on whose kingdom they landed, fleeing the persecution in Persia (modern day Iran). That's one reason they adopted Gujarati as their language and India as their home.

Just look at them - how much they have contributed to the growth of India! Their name spells TRUST.
Not only businesses, but they have funded schools, colleges, hospitals, scholarships, built townships, .... the list goes on.
And they are the only minority in India to say NO to reservations or any kind of special treatment.

If there ever was a model minority - they are!!!

================================


marlon2006

Speaking of traditions and changes, some examples:

It was "tradition" in USA for women to not work and stay at home - that tradition changed after World War II. Now, due to economic reasons, most women have to work. That are still practices (or shall we say tradition) in certain parts of USA where only the husband can give punishment to wifes!!!

It was "tradition" in USA to have slavery (how noble was that?) - Lincoln to an end to that but wasn't fully successful as there was segregation. In 1967 (just 40 years ago) that changed.

It was "tradition" in USA not to have taxes - that changed after World War 1 and become "permanent" after the great depression of 1929-1930s.

I can go on listing more "traditions"

Also, in 1776 - USA comprised of only 13 colonies - what we now call NorthEast. So, you mean to say, whatever was the tradition in NorthEast in 1776 has to be followed by 35 other states, which did not exist at that time?

Gosh, that would be good - majority of NorthEast does not have issues with immigration.

Also, regarding US power: GERMAN brains had significant contribution to that, not to mention contributions of Slovak, Polish, Irish, Italian, Jews, etc. The WSJ had an article on descent of US citizens - you will be surprised how high Germany is.

Regards
GCstrat :)
 
No. How many signs in Poland or Italian you saw posted in Wells Fargo branches back then ? How about the telephone operators and telegraphers ?

In my country I have thousands and thousands of people speaking Japanese. That is fine. As long as the infrastructure does not get changed to accomodate the newcomers, no one cares if others speak millions of other languages or not.




Billtoo said:
Not true ... atleast in Western Michigan and most pars of Milwaukee .. which was populated by immigrants from Germany and Poland ... English was not taught in the schools for many many years ... And even people spoke German or Polish for many years ...

Slowly in next few generation ... they became more adaptive towards english.
Click to expand...
 
That's a bad start. Time should acknowledge that the group put lots of hours and risked their lives out there to bring attention to an actual issue. I am not sure if the group is "self-appointed" since that is covered by the Constitution of the United States. Honestly, when left wing magazines take this unfair and emotional position, the right will react. I am saying, things are not lookin good. I just hope that a severe clash doesn't erupt before I get my greencard !

"...There are, of course, the Minutemen, the self-appointed border vigilantes who operate in several states."


gcstrat said:
Hmmm...
God help America.

Regards
GCstrat :)
=================================================
From the Magazine | Nation

Rousing the Zealots
Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and militiamen are revivified by the furor over illegal immigration

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198895,00.html

==========================================
Click to expand...
 
????

marlon2006

We are professionals. One thing having a science and engineering background has taught me to look at things objectively - I do not let "labels" get into the way of objective thought process. So, I try to get the facts (as mush as I can) and I let facts dictate my thought process.

For example, I believe (because the existing science had indicated) that the universe if 13.7 to 14 billion years OLD. The recent WMAP project of NASA provided new evidence regarding that AGE. This science is also believed by the VATICAN (they have issued statements regarding that) but there are many people in this country who believe the unverse is only 6,000 years old.

If a media outlet keeps reporting on the WMAP project and what it is finding, it is not PANDERING. On the other hand, if a media outlet keeps repeating that universe is only 6,000 years old and science is just a make-up of "liberal left" then it is PANDERING.

I do think this article of TIME was pandering. In fact, it reported how immigration issues is being utilized by extremists to forward their agenda.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
Liberals, conservatives and neos

gcstart and marlon,

You guys have an interesting debate going on. Let me chime in a bit. Marlon, I think you have taken a rather extreme position by calling Time magazine a "left wing" publication. I think you are buying to much into the very successful "right wing" campaign that has been aggressively pushing the idea that all main stream media outlets are liberal and purposely tilt everything to the left. This is not to say that some publications are blatantly left wing (salon is for sure) but it is a stretch to believe all these conservative talk show hosts when they say that all of main stream media is liberal. They have used this smear campaign for years and the results have been phenomenal for them.

As for this article in particular. I think "Time" is on the money. Racism and White supremacy is on the rise everywhere in the world. Russia and Europe have a huge problem with this already. 9/11 and now this illegal immigration problem has given racist and white supremacist organizations a chance to revive. It is ridiculous when a bunch of normal citizens are allowed to pick up arms and supposedly guard the borders. It baffles me. There are bound to be a bunch of racist people in these groups just waiting to exploit the situation.

My biggest fear is that these days, almost anything can be justified under the guise of "National Security". A lot of racist organizations are using National Security to further their agendas. As immigrants "legal or illegal" we need to keep a watcful eye on this stuff.

regards,

saras
 
Correction...

Correction...

I somehow "ate" the "NOT"

I do NOT think this article of TIME was pandering. In fact, it reported how immigration issues is being utilized by extremists to forward their agenda.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
Something more

saras76

Some other thoughts - which I think I have shared with the group here in other threads.

This is about our school district and how one group of Republicans (the far right conservatives - some who also believe in Theocracy) were showering all kinds of labels and accusations to other REPUBLICANS (the mainstream conservatives), just because the mainstream republicans were alarmed at abuse of power by these "gang" of majority school board.

What struck me most interesting was that - the far right even does not leave/tolerate the mainstream republicans/ conservatives if they disagree with its agenda.

What was heartening that the mainstream Republicans fought back and since they had the facts backing them, the "gang" realised they could not win the lawsuit and settled the lawsuit. A compromise was worked out in which they had to reverse their decision.

Then guess what happened? Instead of seeing reason, these "gang" and their supporters CONTINUED calling these mainstream republicans - "LAIRS", "TERRORISTS", "ELECTION GRABBERS", "ACLU ACTIVISTS", "ANTI-AMERICANS", "MARXISTS", and what not, and the lawsuit "FRIVOLOUS".

Also, interesting is how these "gang" started using "mainstream" language (i.e "Financial responsibility", "Mandate", "Lower taxes", etc) to hide their real intentions.

So, the fight with extremism continues in our school district.

In the recent primary elections, all the "gang" supporters lost. Now, all eyes are on the November elections.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
OK, perhaps I was unfair by saying that the Time magazine in general is on the "left". I admit that. In my personal assessment I detected some traces of leftism on this article though.

Saras, this is the problem here. While we are still sane in this debate, take a look what we are dealing with. There are two sides of the story. At the point when one side is not honest about facts and start disguising information (i.e., amnesty as 'path to citizenship') so the other side gets emotional as well and has no options but lower the level as well. Moreover, people tend to get emotional over these issues because supporters of the amnesty provisions (left) are not using logic to argue. I am afraid that was going to happen. It is already here and we are in the middle of it. Also, notice that opposers of the amnesty provisions do not have much voice in this. Politicians, big corporations are in favor of it.

Regarding your specific comments on citizens patrolling the borders, I see that is a very typical American reaction. That's why America is America. People are proactive here. The government sat there, did not lift a finger to protect their homeland. If this was in my country or yours, people would be there screaming and do nothing, just watching TV. Here people take action. As long as they use weapons and exercise responsibilities, I don't have a problem with it. Many smugglers are armed you know. If you read the US Constitution, it states there that the People of the United States have the rights to bear arms and form militia groups. As far as I hear there is no correlation between the watching groups and racist activities ?






saras76 said:
gcstart and marlon,

You guys have an interesting debate going on. Let me chime in a bit. Marlon, I think you have taken a rather extreme position by calling Time magazine a "left wing" publication. I think you are buying to much into the very successful "right wing" campaign that has been aggressively pushing the idea that all main stream media outlets are liberal and purposely tilt everything to the left. This is not to say that some publications are blatantly left wing (salon is for sure) but it is a stretch to believe all these conservative talk show hosts when they say that all of main stream media is liberal. They have used this smear campaign for years and the results have been phenomenal for them.

As for this article in particular. I think "Time" is on the money. Racism and White supremacy is on the rise everywhere in the world. Russia and Europe have a huge problem with this already. 9/11 and now this illegal immigration problem has given racist and white supremacist organizations a chance to revive. It is ridiculous when a bunch of normal citizens are allowed to pick up arms and supposedly guard the borders. It baffles me. There are bound to be a bunch of racist people in these groups just waiting to exploit the situation.

My biggest fear is that these days, almost anything can be justified under the guise of "National Security". A lot of racist organizations are using National Security to further their agendas. As immigrants "legal or illegal" we need to keep a watcful eye on this stuff.

regards,

saras
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Regarding your specific comments on citizens patrolling the borders, I see that is a very typical American reaction. That's why America is America. People are proactive here. The government sat there, did not lift a finger to protect their homeland. If this was in my country or yours, people would be there screaming and do nothing, just watching TV."

Speak for your motherland. don't generalize. how do you know what happens in other parts of the world. reading just internet newspapers...isn't always enough. everywhere people are proactive or reactive. i wouldn't call americans proactive on this issue, as the much water has already gone under the bridge. 12 millions illegals already here and people reacting now is not proactive.
yeah people in my homeland don't carry guns/automatic weapons in their closets...only in america you see this...that is true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael_Holding, which is your motherland ? Do you want to tell me how proactive your people is ? I am curious.

Right, 12 millions inside and only now citizens took justice to their own hands. Yet you see how the minutemen have been critized all over the place being called as racists. It is obvious that if they took action upon seeing 1 million entering the country, can you imagine how more intense complaints would be ? Wake up.

michael_holding said:
"Regarding your specific comments on citizens patrolling the borders, I see that is a very typical American reaction. That's why America is America. People are proactive here. The government sat there, did not lift a finger to protect their homeland. If this was in my country or yours, people would be there screaming and do nothing, just watching TV."

Speak for your motherland. don't generalize. how do you know what happens in other parts of the world. reading just internet newspapers...isn't always enough. everywhere people are proactive or reactive. i wouldn't call americans proactive on this issue, as the much water has already gone under the bridge. 12 millions illegals already here and people reacting now is not proactive.
yeah people in my homeland don't carry guns/automatic weapons in their closets...only in america you see this...that is true.
Click to expand...
 
honesty lacking

marlon2006

I agree with you that HONESTY is lacking in the immigration debate.
Both sides are to be blamed for that. I think the numbers being thrown around by NumbersUSA are pure fantasy just as people calling "path to citizenship" is not amnesty.

But, just take a step back and think about what is being debated.

If you look across the media, there is hardly any fact-based debate. The immigration discussions has become focused around this - "How do we deal with this 12 million illegals mess so that it does not affect my elections"

Nobody is talking about the "real" issues in immigration:

Why immigration happens? If economics were the sole reason (which we hear every time some one says Mexico), how do you explain immigration by Canadians and West Europeans?

Can you really "halt" immigration? What are the lessons of countries which have "tough" immigration laws? What works and what doesn't ? Why?

If immigration cannot be "halted", how do you manage immigration? Are there ways to prevent "illegal" immigration? what do we do about the water under the bridge i.e. illegals already here?

Is immigration helpful? If so, what ways? Why? If it is not helpful, in what sense? How will immigration increase or decrease impact the economy, the social life and security?

What level of immigrants can a country live with? Is there an "inflection" point? How do we manage such immigration?

How do we deal with our ageing population, who with the aid of modern medicine are living longer and longer? Can immigration help?

....

There are so many questions one can debate. Alas, the debate seems focused on one things - "How do we deal with this 12 million illegals mess so that it does not affect my elections"

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top