69 Thoughts to “America’s Immigration Legacy”

  1. Moon-howler

    Elvis, shame on you. No one here has done anything to you to bring out that kind of response. There is one blog owner. This isn’t a commune. I believe she has been darn kind to you. Other regulars have offered to buy you drinks.

    So whats wrong? Do opposing ideas really make you that angry?

  2. Red Dawn, let me know if you find a MWB lobbying firm with hate group status that is funded by hate groups trying to impact both federal and local immigration policy. I’ll be real interested in that. (Subtext: we focus on the F.A.I.R. anti-immigrant network because they’ve had such a great impact on the nation and its government.) MWB has had zero impact that I can see.

  3. Moon-howler

    MWB is club status now. Their leadership tried old 60’s tactics that simply had no impact in the 2000’s. Boycotts and demonstrations really didn’t work for them. Why is anyone worried about them? I have some respect for them. They gave it a good shot.

    To paint them as an enemy of the state seems tantamount to getting out a cannon to kill a fly.

  4. Firedancer

    Thank you for the above, MH. There was no other infrastructure in place to provide support to the Latino immigrants, and they stepped in. I’m not sure if WHWN is serious in 14:50.

  5. Lucky Duck

    Moon Howler, you’re right about MWB having a “club status”. In the first days of the spotlight on the aliens they acted as a go-between for the aliens and various county agencies and other groups. Having dealt with some of the principal leaders in MWB, they did have their group’s best interests at heart but they misread the potential reaction from their tactics and their tactics imploded on themselves.

    MWB has faded into the background since shortly after the passage of the resolution. In discussions with members of the “Woodbridge Workers Committee” (a group of day laborers organized by MWB) they complain that support from MWB has waned in the last few months.

    PS…MH, thanks for the comments on another thread. I was tied up the last few days and was off line.

  6. I was kidding, of course, at 14:50. My point is that MWB and F.A.I.R. are not equal. MWB is only in our consciousness because Gospel Greg used them as a “boogie man” to scare people, a lightning rod to direct the hate for his own glorification and the political advancement of his allies. Moon-howler is correct that their strategy was old school. The Board was old school too until they learned their lesson last fall. Many of them actually believed the emails they were getting were from this side of the country, only to find out they were duped by Numbers USA (another of John Tanton’s hate group funded organizations).

  7. Alanna

    I’d like to have a sound, fair, cohesive immigration policy that benefits this Country and our immigrants. I could care less what Country they originate from. Personally, admitting a substantial number of Iraqis is something that I’d like to see happen. After WWII, we opened our doors to Austrians, Germans, etc…, why not help those Iraqis who have become refugees in Lebanon and Jordan?

    As far as your suggestion that I go to Mexico, I find that rather offensive. My father served in Vietnam and my paternal grandfather served in WWII. And, I’d be honored if any of my children decided to join the armed forces. But I don’t have to prove my patriotism to you or anybody else.

  8. Am I supposed to go to Mexico too? I’d prefer not to if that’s okay with you Elvis. Like Alanna, I can claim a family line that served in the military, going back to the Revolutionary War, in fact.

    Also, I’m Caucasian and I’ve yet to marry a non-Caucasian (shame on you Alanna!).

    So can I stay in the U.S.A.? Please, Elvis?

  9. Firedancer

    Thanks for the clarification, WHWN (21:55). By the way, you hit the nail on the head as to why La Raza became the boogie men. Disgraceful.

  10. Michael

    FireDancer 11:34 and anyone else who believes group political advocacy is the “way of the future”

    I never enjoy attacking any individual and I won’t here, but I really need to understand a fundamental issue here that bothers me over and over but never seems to bother anyone in a “minority” group.

    It comes down to this. Which ethic Firedancer is the way of the future?

    1. All races, genders, religious groups and ethnic groups will join together into politcial groups like La Raza, League of United Latin Citizens, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored people to promote social and educational opportunities for their “constituants”.

    The legal arms of these organizations are designed to support the election of people into power that will create law favoring these organization’s goals and favor the execution of these laws to give these groups financial, educational and social advantage over other groups as they promote race, gender, religious and ethnic group specific “social” and “educational opportunities”.

    This means that to be fair and equatible politically, new groups that do not now exist to represent the special political interests of the “majority” groups need to form political groups like “The Celtic Peoples”, The League of United Causasian Citizens and the National Association for the Advancement of Non-Colored people”.

    2. Groups such as La Raza, League of United Latin Citizens, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored people look out only for the interests of their own race and ethnic group and as such care nothing for the political interests of people who do not qualify to be members of these groups and as such will not be equally or politically represented in thses groups promotion of social, financial, and educational opportunities for these “non-constituants”, not a member of their race or ethnic group and in fact will have no political faction representation at all. Becasue these groups practice racial and ethnic “exclusion” they should be classified as hate groups and prohibited from political funding and political advocacy unless it is legal for all groups of race, gender, religion and ethnic group membership to practice and promote “exclusion” and capture political funding and laws that advance only that groups social, financial and “educational opportunities”

    Which choice Firedancer, is the choice you want people to make in the future, 1. we blend together and integrate using common law, or 2. we all advocate seperately, with our own leaders pursuing separatism and political advantage for our own’s groups political interests, exclusively of all others.

    I would like to know the rules now, so I can choose to go one way or the other.

  11. Michael

    If you choose one way, the first, we will eventually have war and conflict in our nation. If you choose the second, we will have less war and conflict in our nation and might last the next 100 years.

  12. Censored bybvbl

    There are no rules about this, Michael. You chose what you’re comfortable with. This election has been interesting since women and minorities have had a choice about which candidate best represents them. Does a person’s skin color or sex matter most…or does the candidate’s political view trump everything else? It’s a choice that we as individuals make. Will the nation change? Yes, it always has. Will some groups feel more comfortable with the changes? Sure. We’ve been fed a white, upper-middle class perspective in most fields. It’s not the only game in town. And we don’t have to choose merely between your two alternatives of blending together or advocating separately.

  13. Michael

    Alanna, good shoot down of Elvis, he needs to work through his anger and figure out what it really is he is mad about and then advocate fairly and peacefull for his own best interest as an individual.

    I do have a question however, one that never seems to be answered.

    If I assume that what people really want is “controlled” immigration rather than “un-controlled immigration then I have a basis to argue for the law. My first questions however before we even get out of the gate on debate is.

    Does anyone on this blog believe we need to have “controlled immigration”? If the answer is no then all I can say to debate further is welcome to the destruction of the United States and democracy in the next 30 years as the US becomes a reflection of the “morality” and “political ideology” of the rest of the worlds nations typically fighting ethnic, religious and cultural wars that have neither democracy, nor high morals, and typically in these war-zones advocate for lawlessness and crime organizations to take over and put their own criminal leadership into power (like Somalia). Let’s say for example you “desire” uncontrolled growth in the number of Somalians that come into the US with their “moral” baggage that has allowed one ethnic and religious group to stay constantly at war with another. Will they simply change when they get here, or simply attempt to keep their existing culture of hatred going against other non-Somalians?)

    If on the other hand (hope of hopes) you believe we need “controlled” immigration growth, how do you think we enforce the law to prevent people from seeking “un-controlled” entry again and simply advocating to ignore any growth control laws or legal concepts of “immigration status and papers”. To uphold any law you must have “illegal” immigrants and you must have “legal” immigrants, to seperate those who followed the control of immigration law from those who do not follow the control of immigration law.

    If you beleive we need “controlled” immigration and by definition that means we will have “illegal” immigrants if some individials simply decide to come here un-lawfully anyway, how do you propose we enforce those laws? By our local police (effective) or by our ICE (in-effective and has been for 30 years or more)?

    If you agree we need controlled “legal” immigration, what do you think is wrong with todays immigration law? It does not allow anyone to come into the US (It Does), it does not allow EVERYONE to come into the US (It Does not). It does not allow guest workers, tourists and students (It does), it does not allow anyone to overstay visas, student visas, temporary work permits, or simply fly into the US and stay or croos the border and stay without authorization.

    What more do you want from this law? For it to not be enforced simply because people broke the law and since the last 1986 Amnesty, simply ignored “controlled” growth and chosen to become “illegal” in defiance of the law. If you “fix” the system (whatever you think that is beyond granting amnesty), how will you guarantee in the next 20 years that the law will be enforced and growth will be controlled. Do you think the law can simply be ignored in order for the system to be “fair” and “fixed” and that “anmesty” now will not prevent “millions” more from flooding the nation illegally in hopes we will feel sympathy for them and grant a “third” amnesty in 2030 when we reach 30 billion people in the US and 50% or more of them are “illegal”.

    If enforcing the law is not your ideal solution then what is? Amnesty again and “no law” enforcement until it gets even more out of control?

  14. Michael

    Censored bybvbl: Actually there are “rules” about this, those rules came out of the civil rights violations of the 50s and 60s. If you have no rules, and every color, race, gender and religion can simply do whatever it wants and become “exclusive” and self-centered politically, then you are saying we can all return back to the “lack of rules” that caused the civil rights violations in the 50s. I’m hearing you say that is OK with you, as long as the new dominant race or ethnic group is not white. I’m hearing you say the “class” and ethnic group separatism of the 50s is a good thing for America now in this new “change” in political winds.

  15. Censored bybvbl

    Michael, I’d say that the civil rights struggle was a response to “the rules” – those “separate but equal” rules (haha…no equality there, BTW) of the 50s and 60s. Every person has the right to associate with whom he or she pleases. (That’s not to say that the FBI won’t find a person’s associations interesting in some cases.) He or she has the right to join any legal club or association regardless of racial, ethnic, religious, political exclusivity. Just don’t expect a tax break! The separatism of the 50s/60s was not a “choice”. To me, that is the difference.

    Also, I see no reason why the standard has to be set by white males.

  16. Censored bybvbl

    I should say that he or she has the ability to “form” any club as opposed to “join” any club.

  17. Michael

    Censored bybvbl:

    Its not the “club” you join or the group you associate with that’s the issue, its the “political agenda” of that group to “exclude” others and politically pass laws to the exclusion of others, in the same way laws were passed in the 50s to exclude black people from white benefits, funding and social services. The laws they advocated for were “un-equal” and the execution of the law was not applied the “same to all”.

    I’m not saying the standard should be set by “white males”. I’m saying that unless you lose the political identity of a political group along gender, racial, religious or ethnic group lines of political power, you cannot and will not “SET the STANDARD FAIRLY for EVERYONE THE SAME.

    Political groups need to be “gender, racial, religious and ethnic group “NEUTRAL” or they cannot possibly advocate fairly and equitable for all.

    Some of you are so focused on your hatred for “white people” and hatred of the “majority” (who also has as many poor) and your love for your own minority, you just can’t get it.

    The reason I have to say this over and over and over, is that all of you have ethnically brainwashed your sense of “exclusive entitlement”.

  18. Censored bybvbl

    Political groups need to be “gender, racial, religious and ethnic group “NEUTRAL” or they cannot possibly advocate fairly and equitable for all.

    Would you say that gender, racial,religious, and ethnic groups had to be politically neutral as well? What would constitute political “neutrality”? All the above groups are politically active with a broad range of positions.

    Who is so focused on hatred of “white people” or hatred of the “majority”? That’s a broad brush statement and I haven’t heard anyone make it here. (Uh oh …storm. BBL.)

  19. I see climate change and migration as being highly connected – we might not see it for a few years but we will…

Comments are closed.