The disunited states

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

Great nic! And a great movie.

[Minutemen]

As an interesting aside, it is amazing how many "Americans"
don't have any knowlege of American history. This past July 4th, I asked an 8th. grader, "From what country are we celebrating our independence today?" Her answer? "France!"

[discostu]

It only makes it easier for the illegals. Given the way we do the paperwork now anybody that shows up on America's doorstep hoping to handle it all on sight (like the old Ellis Island days) is in for a big disappointment. As for the illegals, having actually walked part of the rural border (ie, not the part with cities) and lived in this terrain for a couple of decades I honestly don't think it's possible to secure the border. It's too long, the terrain is too rugged, visibility isn't as good as you'd think, and during the summer months only the most seasoned veterans of the desert are even willing to be outside. I think it would take a force at least as large as the entire US Army to secure that border, and even then it'll spring a few leaks.

As for Mexicans' belief that this territory is "rightfully their", again not any of the ones I've talked to. I haven't met a single Mexican that can say with a straight face that this chunk should still be Mexico, they understand that land changes hands. I don't think they have a disrespect for our immigration laws, I think when you see your family starving you don't much care about anybody's laws. The illegals by and large just come up here to earn some money and send most of it back home, given that their average wage pays less in one day than our minimum pays in an hour it makes perfectly good sense to me.

Again, I've lived here for 25 years, I've known Mexican immigrants in some form or another the whole time. I've never had any trouble with them I've never seen any ofthis animus and disrespect people are accusing them of. That's why I'm so vehement against this stupidity. To me you guys are calling good friends of mine enemies of the nation. You're trying to tell me the guy that was instrumental in getting me back into school to earn a decent life is trying to destroy this country. You're saying the guy that hired me to create the QA department in his start-up software company hates America. You're saying the guy that feeds me at least once a week is only here to help reconquer this territory. I used to live near the railroad tracks where the illegals hopped off to get into the city, I've even talked to them. I'm telling you that's 100% BS. I know these people, I've talked to these people, spent long hours with them lubricated and dry (you want to have a real conversation with a Mexican get 2 six-packs of Negro Modelo and a bottle of Patrons, good times), some of it spent discussing this very topic. It's a non-starter, if they wanted to live in Mexico they'd live in Mexico. They don't want to live there, they want to live here. They like it in America, they've earned livings they never could have earned in Mexico, they've experienced things they could never have experienced down there. They appreciate the gift America has given them and they love this country as much if not more than most of the people on this board.

If they're a threat to this country then there must be something terribly wrong with America because the problem sure as hell doesn't lie with them. These are people that came to this country with little if anything and they got jobs and got an education and started business and a couple I've known were even paratroopers (why are so many paratroopers short?) one in Viet Nam era (though he never rotated over), and they built a life and they're shining examples of everything that's supposed to make this country great. And if they are no longer welcome then clearly we are no longer great.

Which puts the ball back in your court. Which is it? Are we still the greatest nation this planet has ever seen? Or should we kick all the Mexicans out? It is an either or question.

[ecomcon]

Man, you are hard to communicate with. :^) Maybe it's the Negra Modelo. I like Pacifico, too, though.

Anyway, we disagree on some stuff. What can we agree upon then? How about:

1. No illegal immigration.
2. Upon naturalization, an oath renouncing all loyalties to foreign governments. None of this dual citizenship stuff.
3. No free education, welfare or free healthcare to illegal immigrants.

What's mean, evil, racist or nasty about any of these?

[rdb3]

What's mean, evil, racist or nasty about any of these?

Absolutely nothing.

[ecomcon]

Which puts the ball back in your court. Which is it? Are we still the greatest nation this planet has ever seen? Or should we kick all the Mexicans out? It is an either or question.

To answer your questions:
1. Yes we are still the greatest nation ever.
2. Yes, we should kick out all illegal aliens, immigrant or worker, and from whatever nation they come from.

[discostu]

That's all good. I'm even willing to support a temporary shut down of all immigrations to give us a chance to breath and absorb the massive number that have been coming in. I'd even support getting back to serious limitations on the total number of immigrants. Though as I've said I don't think it's possible to stop illegal immigration. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we should keep in mind what's possible. Of course most of the stuff in your point #3 shouldn't exist period, illegal immigrant or natural born citizen.

What I don't support, what I consider racist, is this focus on "the Mexican/ Third World problem" that acts like everything would be fine and dandy if only the immigrants weren't from Mexico. I don't beleive you and I have discussed this, but in the discussions I've had with others (on this thread and in others) the tack is always the same. They list off a bunch of problems with having the level of immigration we currently have, then say we should limit Mexican immigration. Then for their "proof" that the Mexican immigrants aren't signing on they list stuff that any study of immigrant history shows are 100% typical traits (clustering, 1st generation not learning the language, the usual BS) of all immigrant populations.

Anything that goes across the board I support. Anything that starts deciding who is and isn't "worthy" based on original nationality I'm against. Anything that people try to support by vilifying friends of mine I'm against even if I would normally support the original position. We can aknowledge that our current immigration levels are too high without turning Mexicans into this decade's Irish (one of the first groups to face this kind of baseless smear campaign, way back in the 19th century).

[discostu]

I got no problem going after the illegals. i've never said we shouldn't. I don't think we need to make up stuff to go after them. They're here illegally, they're using infrastructure they haven't earned, and they're not paying taxes on their income. Get 'em out. The reality of the situation is good enough, we don't need to spin BS yarns about them being secret operatives in Mexico's attempt to reconquer this territory. That kind of crap just makes us look silly, let's stick to the actual facts of the situation.

[Jamten]

This is hilarious. Now the liberals are fighting over me and my office situation :) What a great thread!

[Jamten]

Hey wait a minute here. It is not my country, it's yours I am defending. I can relocate to China anytime I like and learn their language in a couple of years and be fully integrated there if I want. At least they are proad of their language which the dumb jackass liberals of the USA is not.
I rather live in a country where the people feel strongly to defend their country and culture, rather in some silly old US full of phony liberals which do do not care about Borders, Language and Culture as Savage would have put it.
I love Michael Savage and I used to love the grand old United States of America but I am giving up on your silly country if this is how you want to treat the people (not even your own citizen) that would be willing to die for someone elses country. With ppl like you around, nobody should die for garbage like you.

[Jamten]

I have been on a H1B so I cannot.

[Jamten]

This encourage me to change my ID to Piglet ;)

[Poohbah]

Hey wait a minute here. It is not my country, it's yours I am defending.

Whining about people not speaking English in your office isn't defending America. It's whining.

I can relocate to China anytime I like and learn their language in a couple of years and be fully integrated there if I want.

That's nice.

I rather live in a country where the people feel strongly to defend their country and culture, rather in some silly old US full of phony liberals which do do not care about Borders, Language and Culture as Savage would have put it.

I would rather live in a country where whining isn't perceived to be a social good. Here's a hint: your rantings aren't helping America achieve that blessed state.

I love Michael Savage and I used to love the grand old United States of America but I am giving up on your silly country if this is how you want to treat the people (not even your own citizen) that would be willing to die for someone elses country.

Feel free to give up on my country. Shouldn't be too hard to do so, since it's obvious you've already given up on your own.

With ppl like you around, nobody should die for garbage like you.

I didn't ask for you to die for my country, or for me personally. The only people I want to die for this country are its enemies.

[Poohbah]

I have been on a H1B so I cannot.

Then go back home.

[rmlew]

What I won't support is picking on the Mexicans because some people are paranoid freaks.
How about treating them differently because immigration from a neihboring country at the behest of its government can be veiwed as an invasion in historical terms?

Nice numbers. How do they compare with your own group the Jews?
European Jews whose families immigrated 100 years ago, have to a large degree not assimilated. They view Judaism as being seperate from America and as supporting socialist ideals.
Jews who came here escaping communism tended to hate socialism and were far more willing to assimilate.
Jews who came here to escape Arab oppression also tended to distance themselves from their anti-American stances of some Jews.

I think the issues is one of history and numbers. There was a huge migration from 1880-1924, which allowed Jews to become insulated. Many of them were tainted by socialist anti-Czarism and a tendency to view American conservatives as teh equivalent of slavophiles. This idiocy has basically not abated for many.
On the other hand, more Jews under 35 voted for Bush tan for Gore, despite Gore's puppet Lieberman.

I understand the importance of national unification holidays. I don't think Columbus Day is one. It's just a day off to me, one I never had because AZ had gotten rid of it before I got the kind of job where you get those days of. The national unification holidays are Memorial Day, Independance Day and Armestice Day (when we had the individual president's birthdays off they were good, the current Presidents' Day is nothing more than a white sale at K-Mart). Columbus Day is a day celebrating a guy who didn't land in America proper and wasn't the first European here anyway. As a matter of fact he didn't even prove the world was round because people didn't think it was flat. Pretty much everything you were told in grade shoool about Columbus (and oddly enough all the stuff the Indians down here protest, which is why I laugh at them) is BS
You miss the point. They are destroying the moral legitimacy of America by calling us a genocidal result of Columbus.

35% is still better than the GOP gets with most of the minorities (or semi-minorities), yours and mine (European Catholic) included.
I thought Bush carried the Catholic vote or at least split it in 2000.

OK I can see that, but maybe the ideals of the founders wouldn't get trashed. Communism couldn't last a whole century in Russia and people still dig it.
True, but as an international movement, it died. Communists are runnig away from the term, even as they win elections.

Roman and Greecian slavery weren't like what we had here. It was more like (to steal a term from the commies) the wage slavery we supposedly had here. Their slaves earned money and could eventually buy their freedom, it was a stepping stone to full citizenship which many chose not to go for because they didn't care to take that next step.
Roman citizens who became slaves were treated well. Foreigners were not, especially those captured in war.

No. The Republic fell because of the coroption of the senate. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with immigration into Rome. Roman immigration was very complex and layered, the important thing to know is that most immigrants weren't citizens right away and many never became citizens.
I was talking about conquest. Rome had expanded so quickly that it failed to Romanize the conquered. Foreign cults were imported as non-Romans became slaves or simply moved to Rome. All this blew apart the common Republican hertage of Rome and helped weaken the Republic. There were other causes for its collapse, but you can't ignore what was going on here. I will have to go dig up Cicero.

Change doesn't happen right away. You're starting to sound like the people bitching about Bush. You can't just undo 70 years of progressing socialism right after being sworn into office. Niether nation gives the president imperial powers or a magic wand. They've got to work within the system and that's going to take time. If we're lucky and manage to keep getting conservatives in power we'll see some serious change before we die. If we're lucky.
A change in tone would be a nice step. Mexican officials who don't publically claim that there is no border between teh US adn Mexico would be nice. President Fox admitting the EXISTANCE of illigal immigrants would be nice. President Bush talking about our common culture just once would be nice.

Again, I have yet to see any significant way where Mexican immigration is different.
WEll, I gave teh historic precident of America taking over Tejas from the inside in the 1820's to show that immigration from a neighbor into contested lands is qualitatively different than immigration from across teh seas.

[discostu]

See you start off with basic assumption I haven't seen proven and don't accept as true. I'm not buying that this is some stealth invasion without some serious proof, and speaches from Fox aren't proof. We need info coming from these immigrants that they were "sent" for some nefarious reason.

Justify however you want. I don't care. As long as there are minority groups with a higher tendency to vote commie/ democrat than the Mexicans, which there are, then that's not a valid reason to exclude them.

No you're missing the point. A handful of Mexicans on one college campus do not speak for the entire group. and again with their behavior being not unique, and actually excelled in stupidity and anti-American rhetoric by other groups it again is a poor arguement to kick them out.

I can't look at the crap EU is pulling and say that communism as an international movement is dead. Communism as pushed by the Soviet Union is dead. communism as an international movement went into witness relocation and seems to be alive and well and gaining converts under an assumed name.

Roman citizens never became slaves. People born in Rome, who's lineage was also from Rome for many generations, became slaves IF they had never been citizens. Citizenship in Rome, especially near the end of the Republic and into the Empire, had very little to do with where you were born and quite a lot to do with the citizenship status of your parents.

True Rome expanded too quickly to assimilate the new residents (some of whom were citizens, many not). But that wasn't why they stopped being a Republic. The Senate became useless and the emperors took over "to get something done", always something to keep in mind when current leaders start complaining about gridlock, an ineffectual government isn't always a bad thing.

Mexico wants to join the US and Canada as a "real" nation in North America. They're making noise to not be ignored. But all this bloviating by the politicians means nothing without the participation of the people. I've seen no behavior from the Mexican immigrants showing that they're taking over the country. Krushev said he'd bury us, that didn't happen either.

The Tejas example doesn't prove anything about the current situation. At best it shows that it is possible to "invade" a country with immigration. I haven't denied this. More recently the "immigration" of things like Coke and McDonald's into the USSR shows that it can happen well over seas too. All that sharing a border means is that it's easier. Of course we have a longer border with Canada and it's got even fewer defenses, so why aren't we panic stricken about them? They're government's just as nuts. The real question is what's happening now. And what's happening now is nothing to single out the Mexicans over.

[rmlew]

See you start off with basic assumption I haven't seen proven and don't accept as true. I'm not buying that this is some stealth invasion without some serious proof, and speaches from Fox aren't proof. We need info coming from these immigrants that they were "sent" for some nefarious reason.
There's nothing stealthy nor nefarious. Mexicans believe that the Southwest belongs to them. That isn't evil and they aren't hiding it.
The Mexican government doesn't want a war with the US. Rather, it seeks to lower unemployment by reducing immigration from the south (the Mexican army controls the southern border of Mexico) and pushing excess labor to the US.

Justify however you want. I don't care. As long as there are minority groups with a higher tendency to vote commie/ democrat than the Mexicans, which there are, then that's not a valid reason to exclude them.
I wasn't talking about Mexicans in particular. I want a reduction of all immigrants because they tend heavily Democrat for at least 2 generations. Some groups tend democrat far longer.

No you're missing the point. A handful of Mexicans on one college campus do not speak for the entire group. and again with their behavior being not unique, and actually excelled in stupidity and anti-American rhetoric by other groups it again is a poor arguement to kick them out.
It isn't just a small group. These troublemakers then rewrite American history as Professors.

I can't look at the crap EU is pulling and say that communism as an international movement is dead. Communism as pushed by the Soviet Union is dead. communism as an international movement went into witness relocation and seems to be alive and well and gaining converts under an assumed name.
Corporatism is soft Fascism, not communism.

Roman citizens never became slaves.
Wrong. Especially around the time of Caesar, poor plebians were selling themselves into slavery as they had no jobs.

People born in Rome, who's lineage was also from Rome for many generations, became slaves IF they had never been citizens. Citizenship in Rome, especially near the end of the Republic and into the Empire, had very little to do with where you were born and quite a lot to do with the citizenship status of your parents.
True. Is it possible that the loss of cultural identity and the change in polity might have helped spark teh rise of the Demagogic Patrician leaders and of Dictators like Caesar?

True Rome expanded too quickly to assimilate the new residents (some of whom were citizens, many not). But that wasn't why they stopped being a Republic. The Senate became useless and the emperors took over "to get something done", always something to keep in mind when current leaders start complaining about gridlock, an ineffectual government isn't always a bad thing.
Teh Republic died teh day Julius Caesar got himself elected Dictator for Life. Why do you think a group of Senators, including his illegitimate sun Brutus had him killed?

Mexico wants to join the US and Canada as a "real" nation in North America. They're making noise to not be ignored. But all this bloviating by the politicians means nothing without the participation of the people. I've seen no behavior from the Mexican immigrants showing that they're taking over the country. Krushev said he'd bury us, that didn't happen either.
1. Claiming the illegitimacy of borders is not congruent with claiming nationhood.
2. New Mexico and California have no ethnic minorities. In 20 years Mexicans will be the biggest group in CA. We are being swamped.

The Tejas example doesn't prove anything about the current situation. At best it shows that it is possible to "invade" a country with immigration. I haven't denied this.

Might it also show that immigration from neighboring countries is different?
Might it also show why revanchism is possible?

More recently the "immigration" of things like Coke and McDonald's into the USSR shows that it can happen well over seas too.
People immigrate. Products are sold. The people of the USSR bought coke. Most Americans do not approve of current immigration numbers.

too. All that sharing a border means is that it's easier. Of course we have a longer border with Canada and it's got even fewer defenses, so why aren't we panic stricken about them?
1. 20 million Canadians, 120 million Mexicans.
2. Canada is a first world country. There is virtually no illegal immigration by Canadians.
3. Canada is sparsely populated. Look at most Mexican cities.
4. We do need to patrol our northern border not from Canadian ikmmigrants but because of the opthers who get through. The real question is what's happening now. And what's happening now is nothing to single out the Mexicans over.

[discostu]

Again you start off with base assumptions that I do not believe. I've talked about this with Mexicans, never found one that thinks we're really in Mexico. The Mexican army is in the middle of an on again off again undeclared civil war with the Mexican indian population in southern Mexico. Given the way the Sanctuary movement was shuttling people from Central America I think Mexico is doing about as good a job sealing their southern border as we are.

I've said over and over that I SUPPORT an overall reduction in immigration. And yet you persist in trying to convince me that Mexico is a threat. Clearly you aren't just focused on overall immigration. If you were this all would have ended two days ago.

It IS just a small group. This is the first I've heard of anybody other than Indians geting pissed about Columbus Day. And even they aren't a large group, they just manage to get on the local news every year.

The EU is communism. Remember they're threatening snactions against Ireland for not comfiscation enough of their citizens income. That's not "corporatism" (whatever that is), that's communism/ socialism.

Since there was no loss of cultural identity the answer would be no.

Who care why they had him killed. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR FOOLISH INSISTENCE THAT MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS ARE DESTROYING THIS NATION. And I'm really sick of this red herring. You asked who had been as free, I answered. It's over. Just another thing in this conversation that you are dead wrong about.

Cute how you compare ALL of Canada to just Mexico's cities. What about the rest of Mexico? Taken as a whole it's a petty sparsly populated country too. The fact that you have to do these disingeneous comparisons is more proof that even YOU know you're wrong.

Unless you have something new let's drop it. You'll clearly never convince me with conclussion lacking evidence, and that's all you've presented. And since you clearly just don't like Mexicans it's obvious I'll never convince you.

Bye. It hasn't been fun.

[Phillip Augustus]

Why, then, were non-aligned nations such as Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland still considered First World? And why were certain nations (North Vietnam, to name merely one example) who were clearly aligned on one side or the other still considered Third World?

You are generally correct in defining what Third World means today, but, even under definition, I would like to see any link indicating that Romania and Belarus and Russia are Third World nations. Mind you, even if they are, they are still part of Western Civilization. I'll get back with you in a day or two on that one.;)

[Classicaliberalconservative]

The thing is Finland, Sweden and Switzerland did not have command economies. I should have been more clear in describing this first/second/third world thing. First World back then was labeled nations with "developed market economies". Second World nations were with "established command economies". North Vietnam was considered a second world nation by many. Third World was used to describe "developing market economies" and non aligned socialist nations. After the fall of Communism there no longer existed a second world so today most scholars divide the world into developing and developed nations. Most former Communist countries especially in Eastern Europe (and I am using this term geograhically not politically) are considered developing nations for a variety of reasons, i.e. per capita income, lack of strong legal and political institutions, urbanization. Therefore if one wants to define third world as developing nations Romania, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia would certainly fit that definition.