How are you defining 'wanting to be here?' Immigrants come in search of opportunity and a better way of life. Just because African slaves were brought here by whites to be exploited doesn't mean their descendants aren't just as capable of seeking a better way of life as any other group. You're BLAMING them for being enslaved by whites for a century and being legally discriminated against for the better part of another century? Um, have you heard about this thing called the Civil Rights Act which won't allow a state to discriminate about who can live in it?
WHAT? That's ridiculous. I might be explaining why african americans have had a harder time taking advantage of the benefits, but I missed where I blamed them for anything. Um, what does that have to do with anything.
I interpreted it as you saying that African Americans have somehow lacked the drive to assimilate into American society smoothly because their ancestors didn't choose to be here, and not because that they were enslaved and discriminated against. I was talking about my prior example where a region would explicitly try to exclude a certain group of people from living there because they weren't of that culture. It might not have been the best example, but the point still stands that because population is so diverse, it's not possible for a state to splinter into smaller regions of explicit single cultures. Not all the Chinese are going to live in Chinatown. If we were talking about regions breaking into smaller areas according to socioeconomic differences, that happens a lot more often, and it's a much more pervasive issue than unicultural blocs in the US springing up and menacing each other.
No, I wasn't saying that. I probably could have been more explicit in my post. Sorry about that. Well, a hispanic southwest could move in that direction. For example, The acronym MEChA stands for "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan." or "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan." MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as "Mechistas," romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States -- a Chicano country called Aztlan. In its national constitution, MEChA calls for self-determination by its members to liberate Aztlan. MEChA's national constitution starts out: "Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán." I would say someone with this sticker probably does not meet my standards for wanting to be part of this country.
I did some Googling and took a look at their official site: http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/ From what I read of their FAQ and some of the other articles that popped up, it looks like a student civil rights group, and not a militant organization... they've been in existence since 1969 and they've had one radical demonstration that's on public record. If you check some wiki links about the incident at UCLA in 1993, there were 91 radicals involved that caused about $50,000 worth of damage (Fox misreported it as $500,000). But since then, considering the Latino population swell, don't you think that there would have been an incident more recent than one that occurred in 1993 if MEChA was a seriously separatist movement? Villaraigosa was an active MEChA member in the 70's, but he still won the LA mayoral election handily. His opponents would definitely have smeared him if they could have demonstrated that MEChA had done anything militant in the past decade. But it hasn't. They do disavow a connection to the Nation of Aztlán, which IS a separatist movement... (http://www.adl.org/Learn/Aztlan/Nation.asp) though their hate speech is hardly any more provocative than white supremacist organizations here in the US. And someone with this sticker doesn't meet my standards for wanting to be part of this country, but no one is forcing the KKK out. We can all voice our opinions about who we want to exclude from this country because of what they believe and say in public, and we should exercise our right to do so because hey, free speech is American... but what we individually wish America would be isn't how it is or necessarily should be.
That picture is the worst photo shop job I've ever seen, they could have chosen a better car too, I mean, a Volvo? A Volvo? They should have made it this car: Edit: If you need to fabricate something, that isn't a REAL issue to begin with, maybe just maybe you need to rethink your position.
Ok, whatever. I was using it as an example. There are forces working toward the balkanization of the country. As for those already here having these feelings - that's another issue.
Then name some Latino separatist groups that are actually being violently militant against other ethnicities instead of being histrionic about the possibility of a Hispanic Southwest and then being dismissive of your MEChA example getting debunked. How is it another issue exactly? If you're referring to Balkanization in terms of insular regions being hostile towards other cultures, then surely you have to count white separatist movements as contributors to such a movement, too.
Exactly. I don't beleive you can answer the question without sounding preducial. The answer is our current immigration policy generally works just fine. Enforcement might not be working, however, given the # of illegals here. But enforcement is a different issue. So I propose that people who say the immigrants must "assimilate" are speaking off the cuff based on an unfounded fear. The reality is there is nothing to get so worked up about this wave of immigrants. They will assimilate just as all immigrants have over the past 230 years of American history.
Uh, well you named one - right, lol. Please don't try to marginalize me - I certainly haven't engaged in 'histronics.' Its another issue because one is about immigration, and one isn't. That's a ridiculous jump. You're position is that since I don't know exactly how to solve the problem, there is no problem. That's silly.
I should have been more clear with the 'violent' part, I was referring to physical violence. My point was that Aztlán hasn't been any more offensive in its claims that America belongs to them than the KKK has been, and that as far as I can see there's never been any widespread support for their cause in the US. Their views are sufficiently radical that they won't ever gain a large enough membership to wrest States away. You're holding 11 million people responsible for the actions of a few. Not everyone from Mexico has those stickers on their cars. Just curious, though - did you get that pic from Hal Turner's site? The article where he's talking about the dangers of multiculturalism? I couldn't find the pic on any other sites... http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_...=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_the_News That guy? If so, I wouldn't put too much faith in his level-headed critiques of Mexican immigration. Anyway, while it might not be absolutely directly relevant to the immigration dispute, you were the one saying that it's not that much of a stretch for multiculturalism to evolve into Balkanization. I think that Balkanization of the sort that you refer to isn't caused by the embrace of 'too much' multiculturalism, but of an insistence on refusing to associate with the other cultures that you share your world with, and that both sides of the border can be equally guilty of promoting that hostile mindset. Lastly, So let's not get all sanctimonious about marginalizing the other person's argument. We can both agree to be civil.
I don't know where you get I'm 'holding 11 million people responsible for the actions of a few.' I pointed out a particular sentiment that would fit the criteria of not wanting to assimilate. I never said anything about that applying to all Mexican immigrants - legal or otherwise. As for the picture itself, there is no proof its fake. But if it is and no such stickers exist - does anyone contend that sentiment doesn't actually exist? Your citing of the Aztlan group proves at least that much. Yeah. I didn't offer his critique. Yes, but that some citizens have this mindset doesn't have any relevance to a discussion of immigration. If we are discussing who we should let in you don't say 'well we have murderers here - so we should let all murderers in.' That's a disconnect. My point is that it would be better to allow those in - and there are plenty of them - people who want to be part of America. That's about it. I'm for open borders basically with that and a no crazies, criminals etc caveat. That's a pretty open policy, right? True, but if you'll go back and look you can see I removed that almost immediately after I wrote it, and directly after you responded. I did so because your response was reasonably civil and I realized I shouldn't have written it to begin with.
Fair enough. It seems to me like we unintentionally spun off into a separate topic about multiculturalism, but I wanted to refute the Balkanization comment, and we do agree about that, at least. About Turner's photo, I'd be leery of the veracity of anything on a site which calls Rice "Congo-leeza", and that's why I suggested not taking anything on his site about Mexican immigration at face value... but yeah, I think there is such sentiment among some immigrants. In principle, naturally, there's nothing wrong with trying to weed out all the new bad apples who come in. The problem is, in my view, how do you verify that they truly want to be American and then hold them to it? Will we make immigrants sign a release form saying "After entering the US, I solemnly swear to never put a bumper sticker on my car that insults America."? It's an untenable position to check all of them for non-assimilation sentiment before they arrive, and even if they abided by law to not overtly display it, there are still people who think that way without the aid of bumper stickers. A vague policy to restrict the crazies would only decrease the chances for non-crazies to get in, which is what I mean by sacrificing the many to guard from the few. If we had an open-border policy, required them to register in order to take jobs, and _then_ instituted enforcement reforms to, for example, revoke an illegal immigrant's right to progeny citizenship or deport them if they committed a misdemeanor/felony, I would possibly be in favor of something like that. It'd have to be a lot clearer and more thought out, of course, but you see my general sentiment. Some previous posts have been in favor of tougher enforcement, and clearly policies designed to keep people out have not been effective because they're so ill-designed that they're never enforced - so let's try letting them in and explaining "We're okay with having you here. But if you commit a crime while you're here, we'll know, and we'll drop the hammer," then actually enforcing that policy, instead of our government trying to act like they're really going to get something done about the immigration issue but waffling and ultimately putting it off to figure out how it's going to rationalize bombing Iran... damn, am I veering off-topic again?
Yeah, this is the same point kros made and I answered 'I don't know.' That doesn't mean that those aren't what we should be looking for. There would still be room for guest workers etc, but I just feel that if you're coming here permanently your allegiance should be to the US and you should have a proactive and up front impetus to join the larger community.
Female genital mutilation isn't really that prevelant among world cultures, and among those that immigrate to the U.S. I think it would be almost miniscule. Equal rights for all but homosexuals are already part of our laws, and so that isn't something that would have to be changed or not. You mention fitting in to our overall community. What is the American overall community? That is partially my point. There is no one overall community. It changes from region to region, and even within regions. Americans who have been here for several generations will need to be open to and adapt to changes in society as more immigrants enter that society. That is part of what the melting pot is. Immigrants as well will need to change and adapt to the new society in which they live.
Its not silly at all. And there is a good reason why you can't answer the question. ...Because it is unanswerable. There is no possible way to measure "WANT". Furthermore it is completely subject to the bias of the interviewer. If an applicant leaves their home country and endures the 7 year waiting period to be naturalized, then IMO that CLEARY demonstrates that they want to be here. Other than mutilation of female genatalia (which happen here A LOT), you have yet to offer what concerns you if the immigrants don't "assimilate." What makes you think that Latin culture isn't assimilating into the US?
Welcoming them in has always been a starter. Forcing their allegiance is a fleeting gimmick, much like a military draft in a democracy.
