Get Out! No, Wait--Come Back!

The New York Times checks in with some of the towns and cities that passed draconian anti-immigrant measures. The results were so shocking, so unpredictable, that... well, actually, they were pretty predictable.

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town’s already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.

So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.

“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”

When prefab populists like Laura Ingraham badmouth immigration reforms because "the elitists" don't understand "what Americans want," this is why she's off base. Municipal "kick 'em out!" laws pass because local leaders pander to the lower sentiments of their voters, and their voters are wrong.

Kerry Howley on immigrant restrictions in lily-white areas right here. 

Comments

joe | September 26, 2007, 9:11am | #

BECAUSE the elitists don't understand.

One of those Type Os.

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 9:19am | #

Poor people tend to live in clusters.

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 9:20am | #

So what's so surprising? Immigrants didn't all move into those towns overnight and the towns' ecconomies didn't become dependent on them overnight. Any sudden change in a town's population could have strong ecconomic consequences. What are we worried about here - enforcing laws or just the bottom line? Oh wait... hell, it's always about the bottom line.

joe | September 26, 2007, 9:23am | #

If there are enough Paperwork-Deprived America-Joiners in your town for people to start noticing them, that means they're a pretty significant segment of the community's social, civic, and economic life.

Russ 2000 | September 26, 2007, 9:25am | #

From the article:

"It is unclear whether the Brazilian and Latino immigrants who left will now return to Riverside. "

Yeah, it's also unclear where the people fled to. Did the next town over see an increase? Was there a surge of one-way tickets to Brazil?

Another shitty piece of reporting from the NYT.

Quietreadergirl | September 26, 2007, 9:26am | #

I sincerely hope the erstwhile business owners respond like the sanitation manager Homer replaced, when the town begs him return. "It is so gratifying...to see you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, goodbye."

joe | September 26, 2007, 9:27am | #

smartass sob,

Bottom Line. Totally the bottom line.

Laws are good only to the extent that they help people and accomplish good things. If they aren't doing that, who cares?

Jobs and income, on the other hand, are good in and of themselves.

Now, if you're talking about RULE of law, that is something that's important. Respect for the rule of law is something that accomplishes good things, like reducing violence and attracting investment and newcomers. Which is why we need to get rid of stupid laws that generate contempt for the rule of law through their stupidity and constant violation.

Warren | September 26, 2007, 9:27am | #

I agree with thoreau

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 9:37am | #

no sympathy for the town here. They aren't willing to take the economic/quality of life consequences for a supposedly moral decision. Liklihood is many of the residents who voted for the ban actually thought it would *help* the local economy, and that it wasn't a principled law in the first place.

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 9:41am | #

Laws are good only to the extent that they help people and accomplish good things. If they aren't doing that, who cares?

Jobs and income, on the other hand, are good in and of themselves

Sure, Joe, but which people? And how is "good" to be defined? Good by what standard? And what's it got to do with the "bottom line"?

Josh | September 26, 2007, 9:42am | #

If you live in the middle of Pennsylvania, you have a lot of discussions with people from towns who have passed or are considering passing similar legislation. If there were a polite way to say "Your town was a hellhole before the immigrants got there, and at least now you have cheap and interesting street food" I could end the conversations a lot quicker.

me2 | September 26, 2007, 9:43am | #

Josh, sometimes blunt is better than polite

Lamar | September 26, 2007, 9:44am | #

Oh dear. I was born in Riverside, and I still have family there. We lived near Ott's Tavern on Bridgeboro Road. I can say with a decent amount of certainty that it is a racist enclave. It is a sad, broken little town. My parents got the hell out, thank god. Those people saying that they are standing up for American values is an insult to American values, unless having a lot of trucker bars is equivalent to American values.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 9:47am | #

Josh -
I went to school in middle-of-PA and had the same thought. First of all, Hazelton. WUH!
I think the way you put it was about as polite as it can be put.

thoreau | September 26, 2007, 9:47am | #

I agree with MikeP.

In this thread I'm also agreeing a lot with joe.

Who would have thought that kicking out a bunch of people with jobs would hurt a town? Really, it's shocking!

I think the illegal immigrants should all move to rural Colorado and all their town "El Gulcho." "We will stop the construction sites of the world!" Who is Juan Gutierrez?

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 9:58am | #

Weigel, or 'The Weeg' as I like to call him, misses the best quote =

“It changed the face of Riverside a little bit,” said Charles Hilton, the former mayor who pushed for the ordinance. (He was voted out of office last fall but said it was not because he had supported the law.)

“The business district is fairly vacant now, but it’s not the legitimate businesses that are gone,” he said. “It’s all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens.”

So, 'Bottom Line'.... yes, we are perfectly happy to fuck ourselves in the ass in the name of excluding outsiders from our burg.

hopefully that helps the Sob fella with his socratic devolution to perfect definitions. The Good in this case is, "we're poorer, but thats OK because we got rid of a bunch of brown-looking types that were a convenient political punching bag"

Dee | September 26, 2007, 9:59am | #

So this is either saying that by the time you realize you have a illegal alien problem its to late your already fucked deal with it.

Or since obviously you can sue a city now for enforcing a federal law does this mean I can sue my local government for not allowing me to break the drug laws and get away with it?

Taktix® | September 26, 2007, 9:59am | #

The entire economy would shut down if all illegals were kicked out of South Florida.

It would be abandoned after 1 year, and reclaimed by the Everglades after about 3 years.

An extreme example, perhaps, but hey, I moved far from hic towns long ago, so I have little else to contribute...

joe | September 26, 2007, 10:01am | #

Well, Elm Street hasn't been repaved, but it's not legitimate paving that's missing. It's all the pavement that would have been paid for with tax receipts from illegitimate businesses supporting criminal aliens.

Now, the money we're paying out to people who file claims because they damaged their cars driving on Elm Street - that's good, American money.

Taktix® | September 26, 2007, 10:04am | #

So this is either saying that by the time you realize you have a illegal alien problem its to late your already fucked deal with it.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the "problem" with the immigrants supporting a local economy.

Isn't one of the big arguments against immigration that the immigrants will be a burden to local and state economies.

They look like a real burden now, huh?

Or since obviously you can sue a city now for enforcing a federal law does this mean I can sue my local government for not allowing me to break the drug laws and get away with it?

Can you get someone to translate this into legible English?

Translation Moose | September 26, 2007, 10:07am | #

Taktix:

sher nuff:

Or since obviously you can sue a city now for enforcing a federal law does this mean I can sue my local government for not allowing me to break the drug laws and get away with it?
***BEGIN TRANSLATION***

I AM A SILLY PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO FORMULATE A POORLY-THOUGHT-OUT GOTCHA STATEMENT

***ENDIT ENDIT ENDIT***
w6gcc737

Taktix® | September 26, 2007, 10:08am | #

Thanks! Moose cookies on the house!

VM | September 26, 2007, 10:10am | #

oooh. bad call.

the neighbors complain when the excessive BATIN causes the cookies to go on their property, let alone their house.

Man, were they pissed about the time their car got a little on it... sheesh.

*ambles off*

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:11am | #

Dee | September 26, 2007, 9:59am | #
So this is either saying that by the time you realize you have a illegal alien problem its to late your already fucked deal with it.

1 - they drove out many legal immigrants who served the growing population, and many 'illegals' are illegals because our system makes Kafka's Trial look like 'operation quick and easy'.

2 - what "problem" do you mean, other than growing population base, growing retail sales, growing pool of inexpensive labor, growing dynamism of the local culture... etc. Where exactly is the negative impact in the 'problem' of having people want to come and work in your depressed little ageing PA small towns?

oh yeah, 'der kultur'! We must defend our heritage!...

Other great quote from that piece =

“There’s always got to be some scapegoats,” said Regina Collinsgru, who runs The Positive Press, a local newspaper, and whose husband was among a wave of Portuguese immigrants who came here in the 1960s. “The Germans were first, there were problems when the Italians came, then the Polish came. That’s the nature of a lot of small towns.”

Immigrants from Latin America began arriving around 2000. The majority were Brazilians attracted not only by construction jobs in the booming housing market but also by the presence of Portuguese-speaking businesses in town. Between 2000 and 2006, local business owners and officials estimate, more than 3,000 immigrants arrived...

Now brazil isnt exactly the biggest source of rampant 'illegals' in the US. These people were coming there because people had come there before them and set up shop. They came to this town because they felt like they had a place to go where they'd be accepted. SO much for the melting pot.

the Sob fella | September 26, 2007, 10:12am | #

hopefully that helps the Sob fella with his socratic devolution to perfect definitions. The Good in this case is, "we're poorer, but thats OK because we got rid of a bunch of brown-looking types that were a convenient political punching bag"

Geez, Gilmore, funny how you just automatically assume that illegal immigrant means "brown-looking types."

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:18am | #

Geez, Gilmore, funny how you just automatically assume that illegal immigrant means "brown-looking types.

No sir, in this case of Riverside, they was Brazilians*, which is close enough. No Ass of U and Me. Do you have any other point other than to use the "victim of racism accusation" card? That generally receives a yellow card for Very Boring.

(*my best friend in college was brazilian immigrant, blond haired blue eyed little bastard, rich as croesus, used to call him the Brazillionaire. I teased him he was Dr. Mengele's child. He died of skin cancer. Curse my white skin!)

dhex | September 26, 2007, 10:22am | #

sob:

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled.

so yeah in this case "brown-looking types" would be the "convenient political punching bag."

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 10:23am | #

Hey, Gilmore, you're the one that brought up the subject of racism... when you used the phrase "brown looking types."

whit | September 26, 2007, 10:27am | #

yes. wanting our national sovereignty to be respected and the rule of law to be respected is a "lower sentiment"

heh

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:28am | #

Sob,

So whats your point? DO you read the Mayor's preference for "criminal aliens" (I see little green men with sunglasses and cigarettes going, 'ey, i took care of that thing for you') as something more driven by a national passion for Rule of Law?

joe | September 26, 2007, 10:29am | #

Yeah, GILMORE, if you hadn't made that observation, there would be no connection to race and racism anywhere related to this story.

None. At all. Here we were, having a nice little discussion about whether them people ought to be rounded up and kicked out of town, and you had to go and bring up the subject of ethnicity.

I hope you're proud of yourself. Can't a bunch of white people sit around and talk about how terrible the Brazilians are without being accused of racism?

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:30am | #

this posturing about "National Soveriegnty" is such arrogant nonsense.

The country was built by immigrants who got processed in a few days. Now it takes years, if at all. the problem isnt the rule of law, its the idea of Law being tossed around independently of the cost/benefit, and efficient application and enforcement. I have no problem getting rid of "illegals". Make them Legal. Problem solved. Soveriegnty retained. Economy supported.

Fluffy | September 26, 2007, 10:31am | #

SOB -

Like it or not, there is a racial element to the illegal immigrant debate.

Boston was crawling with illegal immigrant Irish back before Ireland became a better place to live than Massachusetts.

Nobody gave a damn.

Taktix® | September 26, 2007, 10:34am | #

Can't a bunch of white people sit around and talk about how terrible the Brazilians are without being accused of racism?

I hate people who are intolerant of other people, and the Dutch...

joe | September 26, 2007, 10:36am | #

GILMORE,

I like the term "the Ellis Island System." As in, I think we should go back to the Ellis Island System." Do a tb prick and stamp Pedro's entry papers.

It hits the people who try to single out THIS generation of immigrants as particularly dangerous right where they live.

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:36am | #

...and the catholics.

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:39am | #

joe,

not sure that plays. (the ellis island thing)

My dad's parents came from ireland in the depression, and he now lives in small town VA, and basically has the same view of the Hispanic thing as my 10th generation moms side of the family... that 'they're taking over!'. Reason doesnt have a whole lotta traction in this debate. The feeling that Hispanics are more 'foreign', and therefore more illegalish and threatening, is entrenched pretty deep outside urban areas where it's all old news.

Taktix® | September 26, 2007, 10:40am | #

I'd also like to point out that many of these small towns in PA and NJ were founded by groups of immigrants (generally ethnic minorities of the time, Germans, Poles, Irish, etc.) who were kicked out of the big cities by the asshole English and French aristocracy.

200 years later... well, you get the idea.

Go figure.

Mike Laursen | September 26, 2007, 10:40am | #

“A lot of people did not look three years out.”

We should make that the official motto of the human race.

SugarFree | September 26, 2007, 10:41am | #

They kicked out Brazilians? Only people who've never eaten at a Brazilian steakhouse would make a super-tard move like that.

I was at one once, and they kept bringing around "the special meat" and saying it wasn't often they had it. I kept pestering them to find out what it was. I finally wore a waiter down and he told me it was "Brahma bull hump." It was awesome delicious and he was afraid I'd freak out. If you're ever anywhere that serves it, make sure and order the hump.

(That softly hit high lob is just for you, VM.)

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 10:45am | #

Nobody gave a damn.

Aw c'mon, Fluffy, the Irish were treated like shit when they first came to this country.

Lamar | September 26, 2007, 10:47am | #

SOB:

You shouldn't pretend that Riverside isn't full of tired old cranks collecting disability and complaining about the n*g*ers of all different ethnic backgrounds while cleaning their fishing boats. That town is racist to the bone.

joe | September 26, 2007, 10:49am | #

GILMORE,

I don't imagine that very much would sway people who are passionately anti-immigrant, but as usual, all the action is in the middle.

And the people in middle actually do have the "pro-immigrant/pro-rule-of-law/pro-assimilation/anti-smuggling/anti-black market" position that the Tancredos pretend to have. Ellis Island is code for and orderly process of assimilating immigrants in an above-board manner.

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:51am | #

Mike Laursen | September 26, 2007, 10:40am | #
“A lot of people did not look three years out.”

We should make that the official motto of the human race.

No shit. I thought that was one of the funnier lines of the story, given that this asshole WAS THE MAYOR

'Gee, should we have thought about what this might *mean* to our economy?? In retrospect that was an element of our decision making process that was lacking. See, I was trying to get elected, and...'

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 10:45am |
Aw c'mon, Fluffy, the Irish were treated like shit when they first came to this country.

...

...

...

...my point about the catholics.

You stupid fuck

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 10:58am | #

joe spaketh =

all the action is in the middle.

disagree. The 'action' is scaring the shit out of millions of small town middle americans whose economy is depressed that the people to blame are the Beeners.

your thinking, which is on point for West/East coast urbanites, dont hold a lotta water in the hinterlands. They never did like them city types and their mongrolized ethnic makeup in the first place. Now they're seeing it in their towns and they are not feeling the upside of any change, even economically positive change. Hence my point about the Mayor being fine about sending his town on the skids

chancelikely | September 26, 2007, 11:02am | #

Mike Laursen:

Seconded on the motto issue.

joe | September 26, 2007, 11:07am | #

GILMORE,

But even the heartland is now more suburban than rural, and suburbanites in Indiana vote pretty much like suburbanites in Massachusetts.

Urbanites and rural folk, too. The difference in political patterns between red and blue areas lies in the ratios of the three groups, much more than in an difference between the people in each of those groups.

The Owner's Manual | September 26, 2007, 11:10am | #

It has become predictable, except for Weigel, for whom the assumption is automatic, that "illegal" will be dropped from describing this "immigration" problem. This article and the responses to it bear me out.

The Irish, indeed. How illegal were the Irish immigrants?

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 11:12am | #

Gilmore,

They never did like them city types and their mongrolized ethnic makeup in the first place.

I believe the word you are attempting to use is mongrelized. Can't you spell, you most stupid fuck?

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 11:16am | #

joe says =

But even the heartland is now more suburban than rural, and suburbanites in Indiana vote pretty much like suburbanites in Massachusetts.

ahh... not sure this isnt oversimplified.

I travel a lot around the country on business. The shit i hear from people outide the coastal metros is pretty drastically different than what you'd hear in educated coastal suburbs. It's a perception thing. Same as why people in indiana were faster to duct tape their windows for fear of terrorist bio-attack than anyone in new york, who could still see a smouldering hole in the city. Maybe voting patterns are similar, but psychology is not. Your analysis of a simple solution is nice, but the fact is that the majority, if asked, would like to reduce ALL immigration, legal or not, because of the sense of threat to jobs, culture, and national security, regardless of any rational consideration of actual outcomes. Proposing to 'speed up' the process of immigration would be opposed violently. The main focus is on 'controlling the borders'... a silly canard which is code for The War on Beeners... more popular than reinventing ellis island at the moment

GILMORE | September 26, 2007, 11:17am | #

Sob

yeah I dont bother spelling well, true. I focus on making sense, citizen.

An Ottawa Reader | September 26, 2007, 11:22am | #

The Irish, indeed. How illegal were the Irish immigrants?

They weren't illegal because there weren't any laws against them immigrating in the 1840s, in spite of the nativists' "best" intentions.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:24am | #

Who thinks Mexico and Brazil are preferable to the United States? Show of hands? Well, if you export a large % of Mexicans and Brazillians into the United States, why do you think that it won't Mexicanalize our nation to some degree? Sure, it will 'Americanize' the immigrants, I grant that readily. But they bring something too, and business and government to some extent will cater to that. I'm not stupid enough to think that Mexican culture, politics, etc., is all bad, but I'm also not stupid enough to think that we won't get some of the bad elements from the resulting synthesis. The idea that we will only get the best and brightest from other nations is hilarious, people move for a variety of reasons, and love of the Bill of Rights is not exactly one of them...

VM | September 26, 2007, 11:24am | #

Sugar -

you had me at "Brazilian"...

thoreau | September 26, 2007, 11:27am | #

MNG-

Is it possible that the people who leave a country are not the ones who supported whatever was wrong with their former homes? That they might be different from the people who support and maintain the bad aspects of the system?

We're all descended from people who left places that were worse than America.

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 11:29am | #

some of the bad elements

What, exactly, are these "bad elements"?

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 11:32am | #

I agree with Mr. Nice Guy. (To hell with Thoreau and MikeP.) ;-)

joe | September 26, 2007, 11:32am | #

GILMORE,

the fact is that the majority, if asked, would like to reduce ALL immigration, legal or not, because of the sense of threat to jobs, culture, and national security, regardless of any rational consideration of actual outcomes.

I used to think that, too, but that's not what national polling shows. I was pleasantly surprised over the past couple of years by how much of a minority view the Tancredo/Buchanan position - the one that uses "law and order" as a stallking horse for xenophobia, as opposed to actually being law-and-order for its own sake - is among the American public.

Perhaps people with strong enough opinions on the subject of immigration that they spout off to a business acquaintance aren't a fair sample of the overall population.

Dee | September 26, 2007, 11:34am | #

What I was saying is that based on the story in which they say the city is being sued. Sued by whom exactly, those not even legally in the country?

If such suits are allowed in which we can sue a state for following and enforcing federal laws then it only follows that I should be allowed to sue my state for not allowing me the right to break federal laws as I see fit. After all if anyone should be able to sue a state I would think those of us here LEGALLY would be first in line.

This immigration issue is nothing but a loser for the Lib. party. You want everyone to jump on your wagon based on a few good issues and then you fuck it up by not realizing such a large percentage of the country is in total opposition to your stances on illegal immigration. Thus no matter what you float for ideas regarding other issues all people think when they see Lib. is that your in favor of open gates to the world for all to come here. This very one position will keep this party from ever being more than an online blog.

Your doing the same fucking thing the current poiticians in office are doing. Ignoring the general publics views on the issue will not win you any votes when we already have 2 other parties that do that already just fine. Why would we want a 3rd party that refuses to listen to what the will of the people says should happen?

Your insulting ways do nothing for your cause either when people try to engage in debate of issues. How do you expect to build a majority when your minority keeps kicking would be converts in the nuts with your smart ass go no where bullshit comments?

I get the impression many on this forum are from the north, perhaps thats the reason your views are so stuck in their ways.

We already have a parties of dumbasses perhaps if Libs took a moment to not be the smart ass party they might have a small chance of getting someplace eventually. Until then your nothing but a blog.

joe | September 26, 2007, 11:35am | #

MNG,

I don't think Italy or Cambodia are preferable to the United States, and yet I think that the cultural changes our country went through as a result of those immigrants coming here has been a huge net positive for us.

Whether you go for the melting pot or salad bowl analogy, having a constant infusion of culture-carrying immigrants stirring things up IS our national culture.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:37am | #

Rhywun-I think we are finding in Iraq that respect for limited constitutional government cannot spring up just be changing the rules on the books. Anglo-American respect for that occurred slowly over a period of centuries, and largely happened because of certain historical conditions, some of which were probably quite "accidental." So the bad elements of Mexico I would say are the lack of enthusiasim for individual rights, free enterprise, the larger than average illiteracy, superstition, collectivism, acceptance of and indulgence in corruption, and other differences in "social capital" that don't go away just because you go over a border.

Thoreau-You're right we are all from immigrants. Of course it takes a bit of gumption, capital and planning to cross the Atlantic, a little more than to walk over an imaginary border...It's also true that the vast majority of us are descended from European immigrants, and our laws and customs are very European (this is why when people talk of "the West" or "Western civilization" they include the U.S., but not, say, Brazil). You don't have to be a sociologist to conclude that S. American cultures may not mix well. I mean, other places where very different cultures mix (Bosnia for example) have had their problems...

joe | September 26, 2007, 11:38am | #

Nativists assume their position is much more popular among the American public than it actually is, because nativists make a point of limiting their exposure to people different from them.

Laura Ingrahm and Dee are Pauline Kael write large.

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 11:39am | #

I'm still waiting to hear what the bad elements of Mexican and Brazilian culture are. Oh well. I keep hearing this claim over and over, but never any specifics.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:41am | #

joe-But we've always responded to large infusions with controls, so you can't really us us as an example of the success of a nation with constant large infusions of immigrants. Our ancestors back in 1917 were not all just a bunch of ignorant racists, they had some real concerns with their "infusion."

thoreau | September 26, 2007, 11:41am | #

MNG-

Europe is hardly a homogeneous place, even in regards to political, legal, economic, and cultural institutions. It may be heading in that direction now (perhaps) but it certainly wasn't homogeneous at the time that most of our ancestors arrived.

Besides, Latin America has heavy Mediterranean influences. Now, you could argue that the Mediterranean is different from the rest of Europe, but then you have to drop the "Our ancestors are all from Europe" line as a useful argument. And once you start going after Mediterranean Catholics who speak Romance languages, you'll have to explain why it was OK to let the Italians in but not OK to let Latin Americans in.

J sub D | September 26, 2007, 11:42am | #

Lamar, I spent 14 months at CSEDs, Moorestown, (mid 80s) and tipped quite a few beers at Otts (Other Team Training Site). Granted, 1 year doesn't give you a very deep knowledge about a community, but I never really thought of the area as a racist enclave, all things considered. Of course, I was stationed at Ingalls shipbuilding, Pascagouls, MS, immediately afterwords so just about anywhere would seem enlightened by comparison.

It was nice to see an old watering hole mentioned.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:43am | #

Now Rhyun, I just listed them. Please pay attention!
Joe-Which presidential candidate is proudly proclaiming that they will increase immigration in the United States? I don't think the public is into that. Many think it's inevitable, but I'm not sure majorities support it...And the public opinion on illegal immigration is pretty one sided isnt it?

joe | September 26, 2007, 11:43am | #

MNG,

Even if your statements about the cultural baggage Mexican immigrants bring here is true, their kids are going to grow up as Americans. They're going to go to our schools, play in our Little Leagues, look at their first paychecks and ask "What's FICA," vote in our elections, watch our music videos and go to our baseball games.

This is the natural order of things. Unless you do something to interfere with it - like forcing them to live in insular ghettoes and avoid all contact with the authorities - the problem you mention takes care of itself.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 11:44am | #

Doesn't anyone remember recently when our immigrants held riots in their ghettos, burning cars and such, in protest to how they were being treated in the United States?

Oh wait, no, that was France. A very xenophobia-integrated France.

Whatever. Maybe we should shun our immigrants and make sure they have no place to live and can't get jobs. That will surely have positive outcomes, right?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:44am | #

Thoreau-I totally agree Europe is very diverse, for that matter so is S. America and Africa, etc. Of course, it still makes sense to speak of "Hispanic culture" or "European culture" doesn't it?

thoreau | September 26, 2007, 11:46am | #

Of course, it still makes sense to speak of "Hispanic culture" or "European culture" doesn't it?

I dunno, let's ask some Basques, Northern Irish, Serbs, or eastern Ukrainians if Europeans have a lot in common with their neighbors.

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 11:46am | #

Thoreau,

Regarding the question you posed to MNG: Several years ago a long time, next door neighbor of mine moved out of the neighborhood, because she didn't like the Hispanic immigrants that were starting to move in (although she didn't mind selling her home to them.) But mostly she didn't like the white trash that lived and remained around here. I remembered asking her at the time, "what happens if all the decent people leave? If they do, then there won't be any but crummy people left in the hood." She didn't have much of an answer for that. And funny thing...the place she moved to? she recently moved out of partly because of bad elements moving in (not Hispanics.)

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:47am | #

Reinmoose-The muslims who rioted in France certainly blamed xenophobia, but France is a bit more welcoming of immigrants than we are, so you could say the better lesson learned there is: don't let large infusions of very diffrent folks into your nation.

joe-I said we would Americanize them. But they will Mexicanilize us some too, no? Only in the good ways? Wow, that's optimistic!

joe | September 26, 2007, 11:48am | #

MNG,

The opposite of "let's stop immigration" is not "let's increase immigration," but "let's legalize immigration."

And all of the Democratic candidates - the ones winning the head-to-head polls with the Republicans - are saying that.

Illegal immigration is unpopular across the board - and there are two schools of thought about what to do about it. One of them is much more popular than the other, although the minority view is held more passionately, and thus gets more press.

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 11:54am | #

But they will Mexicanilize us some too, no?

Not if you pretend they aren't there.

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 11:55am | #

joe is just shilling for Big Irish-Italian Immigration.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 11:56am | #

...but France is a bit more welcoming of immigrants than we are...

DAMN! You made me choke on that one.
Do you really think this? And by France, do you mean the people or the policy?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:57am | #

Joe-My point is that even "pro-immigration" candidates would never, ever, tell the public "I would like to see many more immigrants here than we currently have" They would lose if they did. So they don't. They couch it in terms of "we will never grant amnesty, and we will increase border security, and we will punish those who came without doing it right, but we want to rationalize the path for those who have been here for many years, put down roots, yada, yada." Unlike the anti side they sure qualify it quite a bit. I think they know very few people are dying to see more immigrants in their neighborhood or in their kids schools...

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 11:57am | #

MNG, uh, didn't the WOPs and Krauts and Micks WOPifize, Krautifize, and Mickifize us too?

whit | September 26, 2007, 11:59am | #

"The opposite of "let's stop immigration" is not "let's increase immigration," but "let's legalize immigration.""

except almost nobody is saying "let's stop immigration"

they are saying "let's stop ILLEGAL immigration"

conflating the two is either lazy or intellectually dishonest


"whatever. Maybe we should shun our immigrants and make sure they have no place to live and can't get jobs. That will surely have positive outcomes, right?"

really? who is proposing that? oh you mean, shun ILLEGAL immigration?

amazing the way this constant lie/meme gets repeated by the intellectually dishonest.

immigration =/= illegal immigration

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:01pm | #

whit -
Illegal or not, shunning them will have the same effect.
I saw no need to draw the distinction.

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 12:01pm | #

immigration =/= illegal immigration

It is to folks like MNG.

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:02pm | #

"Reinmoose-The muslims who rioted in France certainly blamed xenophobia, but France is a bit more welcoming of immigrants than we are"

utter rubbish. your evidence for this is what?

for pete's sake. france doesn't even like businesses to advertise in foreign languages, and with foreign phrases, and a business can be FINED for doing so. and they are more welcoming of IMMIGRANTS? hah

the french have a "ministry of culture" (how orwellian). the idea that they are more welcoming of immigrants is absurd. well, if you mean they have more welfare and other govt. perks for them, you are correct. but they have more of that for everybody

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 12:05pm | #

and they are more welcoming of IMMIGRANTS? hah

I think it may *appear* that way only because the legacy of running an overseas empire is that a lot of your conquered subjects move to the homeland after being granted freedom. That's why France is full of Algerians and Moroccans, not Chinese or Mexicans or Indians.

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:06pm | #

rhywun, excellent point.

joe | September 26, 2007, 12:07pm | #

MNG,

Joe-My point is that even "pro-immigration" candidates would never, ever, tell the public "I would like to see many more immigrants here than we currently have"

Nor do pro-free-speech candidates tell the public that they would like to see more explicit porn in the video stores. While the anti-porn people most certainly do, loudly, proclaim their opposition to dirty movies. And, it is true, there are very few people clamoring for explicit porn to be made more available in their communities.

Nonetheless, the free speech position (with some controls, it is true) beats the porn-prohibition position by a mile among the public.

joe | September 26, 2007, 12:09pm | #

whit,

Read MNG's comment and tell me his thoughts are limited to immigrants' legal status.

BTW, you do know that Tom Tancredo, who carries the anti-immigrant flame but how keeps assuring us how much he cherishes legal immigrants, has proposed a years-long moratorium in legal immigration. Right?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:11pm | #

Reinmoose-I meant the people, France is notoriously one of the least xenophonic cultures around. That's why so many black ex-pats went there (James Baldwin for example).

Episarch-Yes, they did. But, unlike the dominant narrative, not always in only good ways. Gangs of New York was partly true, recent immigrants brought the good things joe mentioned, but they also brought contributions to government corruption, crime, public health problems, etc...I'm part German and Irish, too groups that had it rough when they immigrated. But of course, I can't blame the natives: the Irish for example brought a fair amount of problems (at the time, through little fault of their own, they were a real deal peasant society, heck Joyce grapples with this in his novels). You can't fill your house with stray cats...

joe | September 26, 2007, 12:11pm | #

whit,

Declaring immigrants "illegal" IS shunning them.

You only want to shun "illegal" immigrants? Gee, that's great. Fred Phelps only wants to shun "illegal" homosexuals. That's because he wants homosexuals to be denied legal sanction!

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:14pm | #

MNG -
You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever been to France there buddy? They have laws on the books that at least 50% of what's played on the radio has to be French music. They are so incredibly xenophobic in that they only want immigrants if they're willing to completely and 100% convert to the old-style French culture. They're so afraid of losing their "culture" (they don't really understand what that is, either) to Americanization, or any other outside influence, that they enact laws regulating culture. Yes, that sounds incredibly accepting to me.

J sub D | September 26, 2007, 12:15pm | #

They're going to go to our schools, play in our Little Leagues, look at their first paychecks and ask "What's FICA," vote in our elections, watch our music videos and go to our baseball games.

Well, as long as they leave that soccer (isn't it illegal to call it football?) crap at home, okay.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:15pm | #

I second joe's 12:11pm comment.

joe | September 26, 2007, 12:17pm | #

I agree with Reinmoose.

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:17pm | #

"Declaring immigrants "illegal" IS shunning them."

im not declaring them that.

the US Code declares them that. our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from crossing their borders and living in their country without permission

try studying up a little before you prattle

"You only want to shun "illegal" immigrants? Gee, that's great. Fred Phelps only wants to shun "illegal" homosexuals. That's because he wants homosexuals to be denied legal sanction!"

lol. yup. that's a perfect analogy. gawd, how typical. you sound like some ninny on democraticunderground.

there is no such thing as "illegal homosexuals" because our country (correctly) recognizes that who you schtup is your business (unless you do it to a 12 yr old, or your sister or brother, but i digress)

our country, like ALL OTHER COUNTRIES recognizes that illegally crossing the border is... a crime. sorry, if that's tautological you get the point.

if you are going to be so moronic as to compare illegal border crossing to sexual preference, then you'd be better off hanging with idiots. doors to the left.

and again, IM NOT DECLARING THEM ILLEGAL

the US Code does that. if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 12:18pm | #

MNG, First, I think I'd much rather be a black American ex-pat in France than an Algerian, that's for sure. You can't go basing the level of xenophobia of the French on their acceptance of politically fashionable minorities.

And as for what the Irish brought, yes, there was some bad--and we survived just fine. Same for Beaners and whatever the hell we should call Brazilians--maybe "waxers"?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:18pm | #

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

It's true that opinion varies from poll to poll and with how the question is asked. But I think most Americans like their nation how it is and don't want to see it changed too dramatically.

VikingMoose | September 26, 2007, 12:18pm | #

these racist, ignorant Nativists (whit supremacist, ha!) jerkwads really should be locked in a bus with Dave Matthews, Moby, and Bono, each of which trying to convince them that they're really cool.

Srsly.

the fear of "foreign" would be laughable, if these aforementioned assholes weren't so damned twadlenockish.

now kindly stick your keyboards up your asses and esfumarse (sic fer grammar)

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:19pm | #

"You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever been to France there buddy? They have laws on the books that at least 50% of what's played on the radio has to be French music. They are so incredibly xenophobic in that they only want immigrants if they're willing to completely and 100% convert to the old-style French culture. They're so afraid of losing their "culture" (they don't really understand what that is, either) to Americanization, or any other outside influence, that they enact laws regulating culture. Yes, that sounds incredibly accepting to me"

bingo.

i mean, cmon. the french are FAMOUS for their xenophobia/protection of their culture, etc.

fwiw, i have been to france and i speak fluent french. i love france. but the idea that they are more welcoming to immigrants is the laughable kind of prattle you find from people who automatically assume (what they perceive to be) the best about those countries that they haven't been to, so they can compare the US disfavorably to them

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:21pm | #

"You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever been to France there buddy? They have laws on the books that at least 50% of what's played on the radio has to be French music. They are so incredibly xenophobic in that they only want immigrants if they're willing to completely and 100% convert to the old-style French culture. They're so afraid of losing their "culture" (they don't really understand what that is, either) to Americanization, or any other outside influence, that they enact laws regulating culture."

That sounds great! I wish we would do that. You see, I like diversity. I like French culture and history, and English culture and history, etc. I think once French culture becomes "French-Algerian-Morrocan-Turkish-Sengalise-etc." culture we've really lost something...

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:22pm | #

"these racist, ignorant Nativists (whit supremacist, ha!) jerkwads really should be locked in a bus with Dave Matthews, Moby, and Bono, each of which trying to convince them that they're really cool.

Srsly.

the fear of "foreign" would be laughable, if these aforementioned assholes weren't so damned twadlenockish."

are mexicans racist, ignorant nativists? feel free to compare their southern border protection vs. ours.

note that mexico also makes it illegal for aliens (legal or otherwise) to participate in ANY political protest, write letters to the editor, etc.

also, i double dog dare you to try to cross into mexico from the south. then, you'll see what REAL border protection looks like

dhex | September 26, 2007, 12:22pm | #

How illegal were the Irish immigrants?

out on suffolk county, long island (ny)? throughout the late 70s to the late 90s?

pretty fucking illegal, bruh.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:23pm | #

France is seen as the cultural capital of Europe, perhaps the world. I think it is the number one tourist location around the world. Some complain of xenophobic policy in immigration, but it has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted.

Solitary Nut Job (it's the moose, silly) | September 26, 2007, 12:23pm | #

ohnoez!

PeopleLikeme who Can'tHitTheSpaceBar and other assorted twaddlenocks have such a weakKultur, that all the dynamicGoodness from OtherCultures (which is a GoodTHing) hurts us and our fucking flavorless tuna noodle casserole and our cream of mushroom soup-laced parsley salad.

USA!USA!USA!

One amazing strength of this country:
it's diversity.

so there. That's right. You're wrong.

I said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Now go back to playing Halo 3.

dhex | September 26, 2007, 12:23pm | #

i agree with MNG, but i take it older school. i'm totally down with gauls and gaulic values, but those fucking franks really franked the fucking place up.

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 12:25pm | #

I think once French culture becomes "French-Algerian-Morrocan-Turkish-Sengalise-etc." culture we've really lost something...

This is absurd. Do you actually think French "culture" is the same as it was 200 years ago? Cultures are like organisms, they evolve and change and sometimes go extinct. All attempts to stop this merely postpone the inevitable. The ones that are most accepting and flexible (like ours) are the strongest.

You sound exactly like people who want native tribesmen to live in stone age conditions because they think their culture needs to be "preserved". What the tribesmen think is irrelevant, I guess.

VikingMoose | September 26, 2007, 12:26pm | #

dhex

you only have the to like the gauls due to the WOMBY VAULTAGE!

dhex | September 26, 2007, 12:26pm | #

frankly my moose, i don't give a pepe le peu!

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:28pm | #

France is seen as the cultural capital of Europe, perhaps the world. I think it is the number one tourist location around the world. Some complain of xenophobic policy in immigration, but it has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted.

The French culture is dying MNG, because they don't allow it to grow and change. Unless you count French ripoffs of American hip hop songs as "French culture," I don't think the radio law has much ability to protect the "French culture," whatever that is.

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 12:28pm | #

Well, all of Gaul is divided in three parts, you see...

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 12:28pm | #

France is seen as the cultural capital of Europe, perhaps the world.

?! I don't even know what to make of that.

I think it is the number one tourist location around the world.

Baffling, if true. On my visits I found the people obnoxious and the food overrated. Paris is a cool city but only because the rabble are warehoused outside the gates. The Louvre is great but what have they done lately? And don't even get me started on French "music".

it has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted

Lately, it's more likely to be the place where snooty Americans go to feel snootier than the rest of us.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:29pm | #

"What the tribesmen think is irrelevant, I guess." Except the tribesmen here, like in these small towns that have enacted the restrictions, think they should preserve theirs, right? Relevant Episarch?

VM | September 26, 2007, 12:30pm | #

oh - and these nativists sound a lot like the European Socialists who worry about linguicide due to American English. Or worry about culturicide from Americanization.

so, let's get all of 'em in a room and like, do something else.

What... they have Parcheesi there. It'll be a hootin time. They can get into heated arguments about rules interpretations.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:30pm | #

oh, and:
but [France] has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted.

Umm, no. That would be the US

dhex | September 26, 2007, 12:30pm | #

well they will discover the impossibility of managing culture soon enough.

so best of luck to them.

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 12:31pm | #

No, because my point was that attempting to stop the change is useless, whether that attempt is imposed externally or internally. It makes no difference.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:31pm | #

"The French culture is dying "
That's nuts. Most European intellectuals agree that French culture sets the tune other European intellectuals dance to...

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:33pm | #

"No, because my point was that attempting to stop the change is useless, whether that attempt is imposed externally or internally. It makes no difference."

Geez, you are the most insightful mind of the century. Too bad that century is the 20th.

Thanks Herbert Spencer, but as Talcott Parsons famously said "who reads Spencer anymore?"

Episiarch | September 26, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Most European intellectuals agree that French culture sets the tune other European intellectuals dance to...

And we all know how in touch European French-influenced intellectuals are.

VM | September 26, 2007, 12:35pm | #

change is inevitable. profitability from the change is purely optional.

c'mon, you're a smart gu--- sorry. I just couldn't stop giggling at that. c'mon. you're a nativist guy, you've had ekonomiks 79. you oughta know that.

and you oughta know that the beautiful, beautiful cultural, entrepreneurial, geographic, and individual diversity contribute to making the good ol' US of A the greatest freakin place on the planet.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:35pm | #

Most European intellectuals agree that French culture sets the tune other European intellectuals dance to...

And we all know that culture is all about the intellectuals.
Seriously MNG. Can you tell me 5 things that are indicative of French "culture?"
There's a huge difference between "culture" and "traditions."
Culture is what you eat for breakfast, how you get to work, what kinds of things are permissible to talk about over dinner, what you think is funny on TV, etc.

J sub D | September 26, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Here's a radical idea. A massive increase in the number of "uhnskilled" immigrants coupled with enforcement of immigration laws. Please, I know that:

1) INS is gonna have to work a lot of overtime.

2) A system to get the folks who are already acclimated to our society to the front of the line or at least temporary status while the bureaucracy gears up.

3) Businesses that flout the law afterwords will have to be hammered.

The nonsense on this thread that hints hispanics are not assimilable because of a lack of "western" values is just that, nonsense. The Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Chaldean communities pretty much shoot that theory down. I don't believe "open borders" is a rational, or achievable solution, yet present system is ripe for abuse and fostering disrespect for the law. As it stands today, illegal (undocumented if you prefer) immigrants get screwed by both the social security system and unscrupulous employers. I don't think that is a good thing.

One other thing, we have a Mexican Town here in Detroit. It's hardly the worst part of the city.

J sub D | September 26, 2007, 12:41pm | #

...whatever the hell we should call Brazilians

Well, if they're women - HOT!

Scooby | September 26, 2007, 12:44pm | #

whit,

the US Code declares them that. our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from crossing their borders and living in their country without permission

Quoting US Code as if it is some sort of God-given revealed truth won't go too far here. If you haven't noticed most here think the US Code is full of shit.

the US Code does that. if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.

Uhhh... that's kinda the idea (to one degree or another). Of course, there are idiots that call that sort of lobbying "treason". The people who think this way are welcome to their opinion, but I hope they won't be upset if most of us think they are either passively ignorant or actively evil.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Culture is a little more, though it includes, the things Reinmoose talks about. Which is why we can talk about the commonality of "Russian Literature" without just talking about the fact that Russians differ from us on what to eat for breakfast...
"and you oughta know that the beautiful, beautiful cultural, entrepreneurial, geographic, and individual diversity contribute to making the good ol' US of A the greatest freakin place on the planet."

Here is the old fallacy that I mentioned, people point to the US and say "see, unregulated immigration made us so great, so it is great." Of course, whenever the US had much experience with unregulated immigration they clamped down on it. D'oh!

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 12:49pm | #

A massive increase in the number of "uhnskilled" immigrants coupled with enforcement of immigration laws.

I would go further and ignore "skill levels". We already welcome brain surgeons and rocket scientists. We already have lots of unskilled*. We have no provision for "average" folk.

*And we'll get a lot more. "Enforcement of immigration laws" ain't gonna happen without even more invasions of privacy that we're not going to accept. You know what countries that enforce their immigration laws look like? Think "Not Free" on the FreedomHouse scale.

Reinmoose | September 26, 2007, 12:49pm | #

I don't recall anyone saying anything about being a proponant of unregulated immigration. WRT the US, it seems a political foregone conclusion that immigration should be regulated, but this happens to be one of those issues where we are looking for a policy to deal with the people who are already here. Shunning them and isolating them is simply not the answer.

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Of course, whenever the US had much experience with unregulated immigration they clamped down on it.

Well, no one ever said the USA has never had its share economically illiterate racists.

Rhywun | September 26, 2007, 12:50pm | #

... share OF ...

VikingMoose | September 26, 2007, 12:52pm | #

It was really cool, that old neighborhood.

Lincoln and Western Avenues, Chicago. "Lincoln Square" neighborhood.

It was once a primarily German enclave. A little to the northeast was Andersonville, a Swedish neighborhood.

In both neighborhoods, there are shops with food, etc. from each, respective nation.

You can still hear German - albeit from older residents - in Lincoln Square.

Moving a little north, you see different enclaves of upwardly-mobile people from all over. Sure, there are vestiges of their cultures - signs in different languages, different foods, different types of people walking around. Amazing.

It's a gateway. After a generation or two, you can't tell if they're "American", because they are. Just like us, 100 years ago.

And they're just newer versions of Lincoln Square and Andersonville.

This bullshit about "hurting" our culture really angers me, because to me, it says that you don't have belief in the strength and beauty of US culture. You feel it's a house of cards. It's not. No matter how much you wish it were, so you can hide in your ignorance.

The US culture is powerful, robust, and enduring.

When do you celebrate Christmas? 24th at night or 25th? Oh. You're Jewish, so you don't celebrate. Cool. You're Muslim - yeah, I'd love to come over and celebrate breaking the Ramadam fast.

It must be really sad for you to be so frightened and so weak. You see, if you actually learned a little about your own culture, your own heritage, and how that culture's presence in the interwoven fabric of the US contributes to how amazing this cultural experiment is - A SUCCESS!

So, I'm gonna stop teasing you. I think I pity you (well, besides having a heapin, honkin' pile of contempt for your deliberate ignorance).

You live in the greatest country ever, and the amazing diversity contributes greatly to that fact.

Tis a pity. Tis a shame. Tis contemptible that you're so frightened about the world and insecure about yourself that you can't comprehend that.

saludos afectuosos,
Viking Moose

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:53pm | #

"Quoting US Code as if it is some sort of God-given revealed truth won't go too far here. If you haven't noticed most here think the US Code is full of shit."

so what? it's still fact. if i declare a person an illegal alien, it's because they committed a crime. i happen to believe that law is just. you may not. but it's stupid to say what the OP said, which is that i was just declaring them "illegal".

IM NOT

the law does.

disagree or agree. i happen to agree. but don't try to pretend this is a matter of people making this stuff up

"Uhhh... that's kinda the idea (to one degree or another). Of course, there are idiots that call that sort of lobbying "treason". The people who think this way are welcome to their opinion, but I hope they won't be upset if most of us think they are either passively ignorant or actively evil."

yes. they Are idiots who misuse words. much like the OP did.

facts are fact. before you decide how to solve a problem, you have to recognize the problem

the problem is not that laura ingraham (and I ) are "declaring" who is and isn't an illegal alien

because the law already does that.

i guess every nation in the world is passively ignorant and evil in that they ALL (like i said, im not aware of exceptions but there may be one) criminalize illegal border crossings AND living in a country w/o permissio

every nation on earth

so, this is a global problem, apparently?

all these nations with borders just need to dissolve them, and we can all live in one amorphous feelgood blob of humanity

kumbayah!

Jennifer Emick | September 26, 2007, 12:56pm | #

"You can't fill your house with stray cats..."

Why not? We've done it again and again, to great success. Each wave has brought new food, new culture, and new talent..and yet, we're all still Americans. Nobody looks back and says "we should have kept those germans and their damned christmas trees out," we happily put up our own christmas trees.

The problems disappear after a generation or two.

whit | September 26, 2007, 12:58pm | #

"Well, no one ever said the USA has never had its share economically illiterate racists."

nobody ever said it didn't have its share of histrionic bigots, such as yourself.

conflating people who believe that immigration should be illegal with racists is the racist act.

this doesn't have anything to do with race. it has to do with national sovereignty and borders.

every nation has borders and every nation enforces those borders, regardless of the color of its neighbors

you are like every other ninny with no argument - resort to name calling, and out yourself as a racist in the process. kudos!

(note the irony on both our parts)

dhex | September 26, 2007, 1:03pm | #

remember all those marches about illegal irish immigration?

and the lonewacko posts about the irish government supporting amnesty for irish immigrants in america?

yeah neither do i.

the king | September 26, 2007, 1:05pm | #

I agree with MNG. And whit.

Who are of course nativist asshole nazis blah blah blah snarky blah blah snark

:)

Current Drug Czar, Whose Name I Don't Feel Like Googling | September 26, 2007, 1:06pm | #