Tea-Party Sympathisers: Arizona Immigration Law [Archive]

Bud Struggle

30th April 2010, 23:59

You have a really, really, really, really poor understanding of what "stalinists" think about stalin, I think.

You miss the point. It doesn't matter what I think--it matters what the people think, and Stalin is right up there with Hitler. Loose him and MOVE ON with Communism.

No Bourgeoise is saying they are a Coolageite or a Hooverist--they are long dead and gone. Even Reaganism is a past frame of reference.

And I don't think I miss the point about Stalin--there is a necrophilia for him that is absolutely offputing. Loose the past and move on. Capitalism reinvents itself every day and Communists are still going on and on about people that died a half century ago. They argue about the disposition of Lenin's corpse. Can you get any more marginalizes and irreverent?

Communism should be about TODAY not five year plans from the 1930s and not about tomorrow, TODAY.

You RevLefters are making it hard for a rational 21st person to be serious about Communism.

Time for a Revolution.

Robert

1st May 2010, 00:58

You have a really, really, really, really poor understanding of what "stalinists" think about stalin, I think.

I know you're no Stalinist, LS, but why is "stalinist" in quotes like that?

Every time someone like Bud points out the shortcomings (cough) of Soviet life under Stalin, we get something on the order of: "you have to understand the historical context in which Comrade Stalin ..." or "Stalin defeated the fascists and industrialized a nation of peasants."

This board's collective refusal to put Stalin unambiguously in the same dustbin as other great mass murderers of history, no matter how many Nazis he killed, is one of several things keeping the reasonable among you from being taken as seriously as you (and I mean you, LS) deserve.

In light of revelations from the Soviet archives, historians now estimate that nearly 700,000 people (353,074 in 1937 and 328,612 in 1938) were executed in the course of the terror,[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#cite_note-33) with the great mass of victims being "ordinary" Soviet citizens: workers, peasants, homemakers, teachers, priests, musicians, soldiers, pensioners, ballerinas, beggars.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#cite_note-34)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#cite_note-35) Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Discount half of the evidence and you're still left with a monster. Why is he exempt from your condemnation?

Bud Struggle

1st May 2010, 01:02

Robert's BACK! :thumbup:

Robert

1st May 2010, 01:31

Yeah, and he'd better head over to the chatter thread ....:lol:

See you there, comrade!

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 01:51

Leave it to liberal opportunists to take a thread about immigration laws in Arizona and turn it into a thread about Stalin. Furthermore it's not surprising to see the intellectually bankrupt ideologues of liberalism to lump together historical individuals and societies that were miles apart.

For all the accusations of "necrophilia" coming from Bud, it's quite funny to notice that Bud is among the people here on revleft who bring up the issue of "Stalin" the most.

You RevLefters are making it hard for a rational 21st person to be serious about Communism.You are a petty fucking hypocrite.

Time for a Revolution. Sloganeering can't substitute for critical thinking. Learn what a revolution is before you run your mouth (or in this case your fingertips) like an idiot.

I know you're no Stalinist, LS, but why is "stalinist" in quotes like that? Because "Stalinism" is a derogatory term and nothing more. Anyone who actually calls themselves a "Stalinist" is either A) imaginary or B) delusional.

Every time someone like Bud points out the shortcomings (cough) of Soviet life under Stalin, we get something on the order of: "you have to understand the historical context in which Comrade Stalin ..."That's probably because, you don't understand the historical context of the Soviet Union.

What a shocker!

Congratulations on derailing another thread.

cb9's_unity

1st May 2010, 01:57

The excuse I've heard in other situations, but will probably be applied to this one, is that the constitution only applies to citizens. Thus illegal immigrants don't have protections under the constitutions. Others, like the Governor of Arizona, deny the racial profiling the bill will cause by giving cutesy answers like "I don't know what an illegal immigrant looks like".

Chomsky has pointed out the outrageous truth that currently under the constitution a corporation is a person but an illegal immigrant isn't. There are reasons that the bill is bullshit besides the racial profiling aspects, it continues to unfairly attack illegal immigrants.

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 02:05

Chomsky has pointed out the outrageous truth that currently under the constitution a corporation is a person but an illegal immigrant isn't.

This is actually a very important point I think, and would make for a good argument--though I'm not sure how it could be presented. It rests on the fact that the law makers in this country can interpret the constitution however they want, which isn't illegal, rather it's the very process by which the constitution is applied during the law making process (just like how supreme court judges will interpret the constitution to apply it to a given case).

cb9's_unity

1st May 2010, 02:32

This is actually a very important point I think, and would make for a good argument--though I'm not sure how it could be presented. It rests on the fact that the law makers in this country can interpret the constitution however they want, which isn't illegal, rather it's the very process by which the constitution is applied during the law making process (just like how supreme court judges will interpret the constitution to apply it to a given case).

Whats strange is that corporate personhood was derived from the 14th amendment. I just read the amendment twice and can't find where it could possibly be implying that corporations are people.

Its also interesting that conservatives are using the 14th amendment to increase the power of rich white people, while at the same hailing a bill that gives cops an excuse to harass another minority.

Robert

1st May 2010, 02:38

Chomsky has pointed out the outrageous truth that currently under the constitution a corporation is a person but an illegal immigrant isn't.

Chomsky said what???

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."

The Yick Wo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins) case was decided in 1886.

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

This is really old news, folks. Chomsky, or whoever is quoting him in this regard, should be embarrassed.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 02:44

Whats strange is that corporate personhood was derived from the 14th amendment. I just read the amendment twice and can't find where it could possibly be implying that corporations are people.

Apparently it has something to do with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

I'm reading it now.

Its also interesting that conservatives are using the 14th amendment to increase the power of rich white people, while at the same hailing a bill that gives cops an excuse to harass another minority.

Not very surprising.

Robert

1st May 2010, 02:44

Congratulations on derailing another thread.

Well, I'll take my share of the blame and apologize.

In return, will you please drop this "illegal aliens aren't even persons under the constitution!" nonsense?

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 02:57

I never said they weren't "persons", however the constitution doesn't mention "illegal" immigrants at all. It depends on how one interprets it throughout it's application in practice. After reading some things including the snippets you've posted it's still unclear to me how it is being applied for the immigration law in Arizona. That's what I'm interested in.

Bud Struggle

1st May 2010, 02:58

That's probably because, you don't understand the historical context of the Soviet Union.

As I've mentioned before Comrade, I've been there and seen what it was like in real life--unlike you who's only been there in your dreams. ;)

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 03:01

As I've mentioned before Comrade, I've been there and seen what it was like in real life--unlike you who's only been there in your dreams. ;)

Cute.

I'm sure you were there and met Comrade Stalin himself and witnessed the glory of the Soviet people.

Btw, saying you've been there doesn't mean much. Sure it's nice to have had the privilege to go there in the 70's or 80's I presume? Such a visit wouldn't have much to do with Glorious Great Leader Comrade Stalin.

To edit, surely you would think it takes a little more to convince others of your understanding of Soviet history compared to a pitiful dreamer like me than simply saying, "I've been there"? Right?

LeftSideDown

1st May 2010, 03:03

What do tea-party sympathizers have to say about the Arizona law? What about the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs?

How can they claim to be so anti-"nanny state" and "big government controlling our lives" when they also hypocritically support Arizona's new Juan Crow immigrant law.

They are, for the most part, Christian Fundamentalist Republicans. They don't like government getting involved except when they want something, then they're all for it.

What about the strict constitutionalists in the tea-party movement, how do they justify support of a law that violates the Supreme Court's precident that immigration is a federal and not a state matter?

Constitution is only useful when it agrees with what they want.

So libertarianism only counts if you are a rich white guy - it's what I've always known, but it's good to have proof in the right's support of repressive big government measures aimed at working class people.

Disgusting fucking hypocrites and racists.

You're confusing Libertarian and republicans. As a libertarian I am not against immigration: it helps the economy. However, in our current system, the costs (they are a drain on state resources; they are illegal, they do not pay taxes) might outweigh the benefits. Of course my solution would be to make it extremely easy to get citizenship or at least legal status here and then they can start paying taxes as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm against taxes, but I'd rather that everyone who uses state services pay rather than just those who are here legally.

cb9's_unity

1st May 2010, 03:03

Well, I'll take my share of the blame and apologize.

In return, will you please drop this "illegal aliens aren't even persons under the constitution!" nonsense?

I'll have to be careful in quoting Chomsky in the future. There is always the possibility that there has been a new ruling on the personhood of illegal immigrants since 1982 (which I believe was the latest ruling your cited). But since I don't have any evidence contradicting yours I'll repeal my claim.

Of course none of that means that corporations should be considered persons or that illegal immigrants should be oppressed in the way they are. It just means that the letter of bourgeois law isn't as blatantly bullshit as Chomsky claimed.

Bud Struggle

1st May 2010, 03:06

Cute.

I'm sure you were there and met Comrade Stalin himself and witnessed the glory of the Soviet people.

Btw, saying you've been there doesn't mean much. Sure it's nice to have had the privilege to go there in the 70's or 80's I presume? Such a visit wouldn't have much to do with Glorious Great Leader Comrade Stalin.

In the 80s. And then once after the fall.

Seriously, don't you see how your slavish following of Stalin and Soviet Socialism hurts any further development of Communism? Why care about the past--it's the present we have to develop.

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 03:08

In the 80s. And then once after the fall.

Seriously, don't you see how your slavish following of Stalin and Soviet Socialism hurts any further development of Communism?

Slavish following? Speak for yourself. Oh and I think it's quite humorous that your trying to lecture me about communism.

Why care about the past--it's the present we have to develop.
Then stop derailing the thread with your bullshit and talk about the subject:

Arizona immigration law, in relation to the US constitution, and what not.

Â¿Que?

1st May 2010, 03:11

Well, I think it's been well documented now that more than a few teabaggers are racist. Your more conservative teabagger is probably going to want to preserve the cultural heritage of the U.S. which is being threatened by immigration.

What really gets me is these liberal pro-immigration types who say we need the undocumented immigrants for cheap labor. I read somewhere that undocumented immigrants often work for less than the minimum wage, and THAT's why we want them here. Obviously a bunch of shite in my book. Everyone deserves a living wage, documented or not!

Bud Struggle

1st May 2010, 03:12

Slavish following? Speak for yourself. Oh and I think it's quite humorous that your trying to lecture me about communism. Cormrade--I "own" Communism as much as you do. Maybe more so. And ain't that a hoot!

Then stop derailing the thread with your bullshit and talk about the subject:

Arizona immigration law, in relation to the US constitution, and what not. Indeed. It's simple--according to US law people are in the US illegally. It all comes down to the best way to catch the illegals (nobody is arguing that they should be here.) The problem is you just can't "suppose" that people are breaking the law--especially just by the way the look.

It's a bad law and will be overturned by a court ASAP.

mykittyhasaboner

1st May 2010, 03:13

Cormrade--I "own" Communism as much as you do. Maybe more so. And ain't that a hoot!

No you don't.

I see you have a bit of an issue understanding what keeping on topic entails.

Robert

1st May 2010, 03:19

As for Arizona, the law just got passed. But there is zero possibility, assuming the law survives a constitutional attack by the ACLU, the U.S.--DOJ, and/or a particular individual aggrieved by its application in the field, that the law will survive because the federal courts won't consider undocumented aliens to be "persons." Absolutely no responsible person thinks that.

My guess is that the law will be held unconstitutional on its face as interfering with an exclusively federal power to uniformly regulate immigration.

Even Texas' federal courts have thrown out attempts by locals to regulate immigration, just in the last few months as I recall. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Judge-Strikes-Down-Farmers-Branch-Rental-Ordinance-89047722.html

Jimmie Higgins

2nd May 2010, 03:02

A week after the racial profiling law was passed, Arizona has also passed a law banning ethnic studies programs on incredibly racist grounds (the usual rhetoric about how Latinos are part of a secret reconquita movement and so on).
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/557172/arizona_bans_ethnic_studies

Also this week Arizona schools announced that teachers would be fired for having accents:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

Also the Arizona Tea party websites supports the BIG GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES anti-immigrant bill and is organizing counter-protests in support of the bill!

Any claims that the right wing are NOT racists are completely shot now. I previously believed that after health care, the right would be targeting immigrants and I think they will shoot themselves in the foot by doing so because of the hypocrisy of demanding "no government involvement" for upper middle class white people while also demanding crack-downs on scapegoated groups and big government projects like a multi-billion dollar border wall.

It's a tough fight ahead, but I think that the far right is potentially going to unintentionally create a united civil rights movement because they have alienated Black people, Latinos, union members, young people/students, among others. They are really showing people who is really on whose side in this country.

Re: Stalin - I actually agree that fetishizing Stalin or Mao (who I don't support) or even Lenin and Trotsky (who I do) is bad for the movement. I also am opposed to Stalin and think that by promoting the USSR as "socialism", people are actually cutting us off from many working class people who, in my experience generally respond well to concrete socialist ideas (reforms and so on) as well as a vision for a socialist society (where there is real economic and political democracy - not party rule) even while most don't currently think a revolution is possible or necessarily desirable.

But what does Stalin have to do with my OP?!:confused:

freakazoid

7th May 2010, 22:08

(they are a drain on state resources; they are illegal, they do not pay taxes)

How do they not pay taxes? Every time you buy something from the store you pay taxes.

lols at trying to call all "right-wing" as racist.

Whats with the "teabagger" term? Are you some school yard bully? I thought we were adults here.

Comrade Anarchist

7th May 2010, 22:30

They are nothing more than neo-conservatives (right-wing stalinists). Half of the tea party members are on some type of social program and are just angry that the government isn't republican. They can say that they are against the republicans blah blah blah they just want a larger military and a nanny state with protectionist economic policies including those of border control. I hate the constitution but at least i understand it. They worship at its feet yet all their ideas contradict the most important part of the constitution that being the bill of rights.

Dimentio

8th May 2010, 17:15

In the 80s. And then once after the fall.

Seriously, don't you see how your slavish following of Stalin and Soviet Socialism hurts any further development of Communism? Why care about the past--it's the present we have to develop.

My personal attitude towards stalinists is mostly that I don't care so much about them. Live and let live. They are pretty irrelevant anyway.

LeftSideDown

9th May 2010, 14:01

How do they not pay taxes? Every time you buy something from the store you pay taxes.

lols at trying to call all "right-wing" as racist.

Whats with the "teabagger" term? Are you some school yard bully? I thought we were adults here.

Yes because sales tax are the only tax.

Jimmie Higgins

10th May 2010, 10:39

http://www.urban.org/publications/900898.html

Myth #6: Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes.
Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes—whether they own homes or taxes are passed through to rents—and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The majority of state and local costs of schooling and other services are funded by these taxes. Additionally, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute $6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim (Porter 2005).

When the claims by anti-immigrant groups are checked against statistics, really the only two reasonable explanations for anti-immigrant arguments are: being totally uniformed or being anti-immigrant because of a dislike of who is immigrating (i.e. culture or race or whatever other bigotry).

But really it's not even necessary to look for data to refute these claims - a survey of anti-immigrant movements in US history makes it pretty clear that racism and scapegoating are the prime motivation for these movements.

I'd recommend right-wingers check out the book "No One is Illegal" - the section by Mike Davis goes through the history of anti-immigrant vigilante groups and movements in California. All the arguments that are made today were made in the 1880s and onward against various immigrant populations. In the 1800s, anti-immigrant movements (often backed by robber barrons and right-wing media tycoons) argued that Chinese immigration would make to state too populous and so all immigration must be stopped. Again, that was in the 1800s.

It's racism plain and simple and that's why anti-immigrant sentiment in the tea-parties is so contradictory to what they supposedly stand for. If they were against government spending, then surely a border wall costing hundreds of millions of dollars to build and militarization of the border which would then add even more billions, would be abhorrent to them. Since these right-wingers are not concerned with "liberty" in reality, the intellectual dissonance of arguing against government spending to help the poor and for government spending to criminalized a section of the working class doesn't seem to bother them.

Jazzratt

10th May 2010, 12:03

lols at trying to call all "right-wing" as racist.

In my experience that's how it goes. Scratch a free-marketeer and you find at the very least a xenophobe if not an outright bigoted fuckcake. You don't even have to scratch particularly hard.

Whats with the "teabagger" term? Are you some school yard bully? I thought we were adults here.

Hilariously, that's what they call themselves. Not shooting for that particular open goal is criminal.

Jimmie Higgins

10th May 2010, 12:41

Please, let's not compare a loving act between two people (well maybe not loving, but sexually exciting, at least) to right-wing crazies.

The only nuts that offend me are the right-wing anti-immigrant kind.

Robert

10th May 2010, 14:23

You guys are working yourselves into a righteous (sorry, left-eous:lol:) frenzy over nothing.

The Tea Party protests are principally now, and were at the beginning exclusively, concerned with federal taxes and spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests), not immigration. The Arizona bill didn't even exist when the modern tea party movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement) originated. Organizing against the U.S. bailout bill and the stimulus bill, which responded to the subprime mortgage crisis (again nothing to do with immigrants), they just don't want the USA to become the next Greece. Do you?

While those who support fiscal responsibility also happen to support border control (all sane governments do this), which is what the Arizona law is about, border control is not the priority of tea party activists outside Arizona. For some, it's not even on the radar screen, except to the extent that illegal immigrants are perceived as a drain on public resources.

To the extent that they are true believing, U.S. Libertarian-style free marketeers, I would think they favor abolition of borders. But tea party activists never called themselves Libertarian to begin with, so you're not unmasking any great hypocrisy there.

Hilariously, that's what they call themselves. Not shooting for that particular open goal is criminal.
Hilarious if true, but it's false. The left and certain elements of the media came up with that term to discredit the movement. Probably some have come to call themselves "teabaggers", as some gays have come to embrace the word "queer," but I don't think it was they who came up with it originally, right?

Jimmie Higgins

10th May 2010, 14:46

The Tea Party protests are principally now, and were at the beginning exclusively, concerned with federal taxes and spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests), not immigration. And yet the tea party of Arizona was calling for protests IN SUPPORT of the Arizona immigration bill. This hypocracy is my whole point.

http://arizonateaparty.com/ (http://arizonateaparty.com/)
http://arizonateaparty.com/images/buycott-logo-square_jpeg-b_jpeg_4in.jpg

they just don't want the USA to become the next Greece. Do you? California is the next Greece minus the mass protests of people against austerity. And yes a little Greek attitude would be good for US workers in terms of fighting for popular priorities over the priorities of the ruling class. Unless workers and students in California (and elsewhere) learn to fight like Greek workers, workers here are just going to get bent over and fucked while states that gave billions away to corporations over the last decades and millions on police and prisons now claim that they have no money and expect us to pay for it through higher tuition, layoffs, furloughs, cuts to services, increases in public transportation fees and tolls, increased vehicle ticketing and all the other bullshit they are subjecting us to.

To the extent that they are true believing, U.S. Libertarian-style free marketeers, I would think they favor abolition of borders. But tea party activists never called themselves Libertarian to begin with, so you're not unmasking any great hypocrisy there. I think calling for small government when it comes to the rich and calling for a big brother nanny state for Latino and poor workers is pretty fucking hypocritical.

freakazoid

10th May 2010, 17:38

Not all tea partiers are for securing the border. But just like there are many communists/socialists that believe in things that others say is against what they should believe in, there are people in the tea party movement that also do. There is no one concrete set of beliefs, it is a movement of like minded individuals.

MMIKEYJ

10th May 2010, 17:39

This Arizona immigration bill is unconstitutional.. It violates the 4th amendment.

Bud Struggle

10th May 2010, 18:51

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0910/democracy-teabag-jesus-demotivational-poster-1256137952.jpg

Not all tea partiers are for securing the border. But just like there are many communists/socialists that believe in things that others say is against what they should believe in, there are people in the tea party movement that also do. There is no one concrete set of beliefs, it is a movement of like minded individuals. Yes they can be all over the place, but for the most part they do have a "healthy" junk yard dog sense of "mine and thine" and they have a defininite sense that America belongs to them at the present time.

Robert

11th May 2010, 00:44

This Arizona immigration bill is unconstitutional.. It violates the 4th amendment.

The first part is arguably correct, but it's a matter of opinion. The second is more complicated.

But tell me Mikey, if you are a Libertarian don't you support open borders?

And if so, what do you care about the country's (the USA's) constitution anyway? You can't really have a "country" without borders.

MMIKEYJ

11th May 2010, 03:43

The first part is arguably correct, but it's a matter of opinion. The second is more complicated.

But tell me Mikey, if you are a Libertarian don't you support open borders?

And if so, what do you care about the country's (the USA's) constitution anyway? You can't really have a "country" without borders.

No, I dont support open borders where anybody just comes in whoever wants to... Now, in my ideal world of course I would like to see us get back to the days like Ellis Island; letting whomever wanted to immigrate to America do so, but the trade off is no freebies.. Right now we subsidize illegal immigration by giving away welfare, food stamps, schooling, etc.. And that IMO just encourages a bunch of freeloaders... I want to see alot of hard working immigrants come.. people who want to make a better life for themselves... Thats how America built herself up greatly.

Jimmie Higgins

11th May 2010, 04:28

Right now we subsidize illegal immigration by giving away welfare, food stamps, schooling, etc..

Myth #5: A large share of schoolchildren are undocumented.
Nationally in 2000, only 1.5 percent of elementary schoolchildren (enrolled in kindergarten through 5th grade) and 3 percent of secondary children (grades 6-12) were undocumented. Slightly higher shares—5 percent in elementary and 4 percent in secondary schools—had undocumented parents.

And that IMO just encourages a bunch of freeloaders... I want to see alot of hard working immigrants come.. people who want to make a better life for themselves... Thats how America built herself up greatly.

Myth #1: Undocumented immigrants come to the United States to get welfare.
Undocumented men come to the United States almost exclusively to work. In 2003, over 90 percent of undocumented men worked—a rate higher than that for U.S. citizens or legal immigrants (Passel, Capps, and Fix 2004). Undocumented men are younger, less likely to be in school, and less likely to be retired than other men (Capps et al. 2003). Moreover, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits (Fix, Zimmermann, and Passel 2001).

GPDP

11th May 2010, 04:48

No, I dont support open borders where anybody just comes in whoever wants to... Now, in my ideal world of course I would like to see us get back to the days like Ellis Island; letting whomever wanted to immigrate to America do so, but the trade off is no freebies.. Right now we subsidize illegal immigration by giving away welfare, food stamps, schooling, etc.. And that IMO just encourages a bunch of freeloaders... I want to see alot of hard working immigrants come.. people who want to make a better life for themselves... Thats how America built herself up greatly.

As an immigrant, I can vouch for most of my brethren here. By and large, we come to work, and under conditions of hyper-exploitation no less, not to be "freeloaders" as you stupidly and ignorantly assert. Welfare is rarely an option for us, and as for schooling... most of us pay rent or property taxes, which by and large is where money for schools comes from.

Do your research before you try disparaging people like me with regurgitated propaganda from racist xenophobes.

Honggweilo

12th May 2010, 18:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jlO5RqXFLM

Agnapostate

15th May 2010, 19:34

Rightists are not legitimately devoted to generic limited government, and that should come as no surprise to anyone. However, they’re not simply being racist or inexplicably cruel, though I do believe social rightism facilitates racism far more than our various philosophies here ever could, which is why those elements are found on the fringes of the Tea Party movement, though the mainstreamers know that it makes for good publicity to immediately and vociferously reject them.

Lakoff’s work taught me that rightism is based on a moral framework that involves subconscious conceptualization through a family metaphor called the “Strict Father” model. This model emphasizes self-reliance and rugged individualism, because the world is a tough, dangerous place where discipline and responsibility are needed to survive, where the hardworking and skilled will be productive and rise to the top of natural hierarchies, and the slothful and unskilled will fall to the bottom as a result of their lack of self-discipline.

Let’s examine a facet of their “fiscal conservatism.” Progressive taxation is perceived not only as “robbing Peter to give to Paul,” but as “robbing productive Peter to give to pathetic Paul.” The self-disciplined and therefore moral people have earned their place at the top of the natural hierarchy of wealth and power, while the undisciplined and therefore immoral people have earned their place at the bottom. Taking from the rich to give to the poor through social welfare programs is a dual sin, as it punishes the moral productive and rewards the immoral unproductive. It’s the equivalent of a parent taking the reward of a nice child and giving it to the naughty child, committing two moral wrongs with one action. Government intervention is thus resented and rejected as immoral on that front.

On the other hand, there is the issue of illegal and undocumented immigration. If the nation-state is metaphorically conceptualized as a family, legal immigrants are children that have been adopted into the family through exhibition of good moral character. Obviously, legal immigration must be restricted, since the family could be flooded with far more immoral children otherwise. Illegal and undocumented immigrants are children around the neighborhood who enter and dwell in the house, and take food from the refrigerator and pantry without the parents’ permission. This is seen as outrageous; those children do not have permission to be in the house, and do not belong to the family. It is also a sign of the neglect and apathy of their own parents that they wander into other families’ houses for food and shelter; if their own parents were fit for that role, they would be providing for their children properly, and permitting them to stay rewards the immoral behavior of the children (immigrants) as well as that of the parents (the nation-states that they have emigrated from), so it is an unthinkable idea.

Some family members may propose that participation in household chores and duties legitimize the neighbor children and make them full members of the family (guest worker programs), but this is rejected by the hardliners, since that would reward the immoral act of coming into the house without permission to begin with. Even if some of the neighbor children diligently help the family while others vandalize the house and destroy the family’s possessions, they have all committed the same initial immorality, and the particularly immoral acts of the vandal children simply illustrates what all of the neighbor children could potentially do if their misdeeds are not punished.

It’s etymologically inaccurate to speak of racism against “Mexicans,” “Hispanics,” and “Latinos,” since Mexicans are a national group and Hispanics and Latinos categories of national groups, but since most illegal and undocumented immigrants are Mexican and Central American Indians, and since people have a tendency to think in generalities, their Indian appearance will become a mechanism for quickly and effectively categorizing them. Since their Indian nature is generally unknown, however, the shorthand for these peoples is “Mexican,” despite the inaccuracy of that label. So if there’s racism, it will likely stem not from some inherent hostility, but instead from association of people with a category previewed as being disproportionately immoral, in this case, disproportionately likely to violate immigration laws.

Agnapostate

15th May 2010, 19:37

Incidentally, as to the immigration conceptual metaphor I discussed, the more accurate metaphor is that of an extended family composed of multiple immediate families (Europeans), that moved into a neighborhood and massacred and robbed the extended family of prior inhabitants (Amerindians) that were already living there. Depending on which immediate family (Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, and their successors in various modern national governments) moved into their house, some of the prior families fare better than others, but all are mistreated rather egregiously. The new immediate families, meanwhile, make neighborhood arrangements that benefit each other but further harm the surviving prior inhabitants (trade agreements that displace lower-class laborers), though they pretend to be helping them. Sick of this mistreatment, some members of the deposed immediate families (Indians of Mexico and Central America) move into the houses that have profited from the arrangements that the invading extended family have made (the United States), where a few of their extended relatives (U.S. Indians) continue to live. The new inhabitants are angered by this, and shout and scream that invaders cannot come into “their” house, and that they need to be expelled.

Bud Struggle

15th May 2010, 19:52

It’s etymologically inaccurate to speak of racism against “Mexicans,” “Hispanics,” and “Latinos,” since Mexicans are a national group and Hispanics and Latinos categories of national groups, but since most illegal and undocumented immigrants are Mexican and Central American Indians, and since people have a tendency to think in generalities, their Indian appearance will become a mechanism for quickly and effectively categorizing them. Since their Indian nature is generally unknown, however, the shorthand for these peoples is “Mexican,” despite the inaccuracy of that label.

That's an excellent point. Except for their language most undocumented immigrants aren't "Latin" at all. They are indigenous American people whose ancestors inhabited this continent LONG before the Europeans arrived.

Who really are the illegal aliens in America?

Robert

15th May 2010, 20:01

I have known hundreds of people from every socio-economic level hailing from the country commonly referred to as Mexico.

What do you imagine they all call themselves?

Anyway, whites would get in a lot more trouble for calling them "Indians" than for calling them "Mexicans," if that's what Agna is demanding.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=120414

As for this:
Since their Indian nature is generally unknown I know no one who doesn't know that most Mexicans and Central Americans are mestizo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo). Ironically, there are quite a few Mexicans who perhaps feign ignorance of the word out of their own antipathy for "Indians."

Agnapostate

15th May 2010, 21:38

I have known hundreds of people from every socio-economic level hailing from the country commonly referred to as Mexico.

What do you imagine they all call themselves?

Almost no relevance to my comment whatsoever. The majority of migrant laborers are Indians from Mexico and Central America, not simply Mexicans, and the term "Mexican" refers to a multi-racial national group.

Anyway, whites would get in a lot more trouble for calling them "Indians" than for calling them "Mexicans," if that's what Agna is demanding.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=120414

Perhaps even less relevance from that thread. An etymology quibble doesn't interest me very much. Have you considered traveling throughout the Hispanosphere demanding that they drop their use of the term "negro" because it carries offensive connotations in English?

As for this: I know no one who doesn't know that most Mexicans and Central Americans are mestizo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo). Ironically, there are quite a few Mexicans who perhaps feign ignorance of the word out of their own antipathy for "Indians."

Another anecdotal experience, and I know plenty of people who simply believe that those people are "Spanish" or "Latin," and the same racial group as the white population of European Spain. The term "mestizo" has very little use as a distinct racial category, since it's more of a socio-cultural category these days to describe urban Indians with Hispanic identities that their ancestors were compelled to adopt. While there might be no difference between lower-class mestizos and official "Indians," the latter is classified as such simply because of their adherence to rural, traditional lifestyles.

Robert

15th May 2010, 21:59

Almost no relevance to my comment whatsoever. The majority of migrant laborers are Indians from Mexico and Central America, not simply Mexicans, and the term "Mexican" refers to a multi-racial national group.

Oh, stop it. :lol: Your post #45 is clearly insinuating that white (presumably capitalist?) racists in the USA erroneously brand workers from Mexico as "Mexicans" out of ignorance. I am telling you, and you don't seem to dispute, that Mexicans from Mexico overwhelmingly call themselves "Mexican," not "Indian," not "mestizo," and not "Indio." You want to argue, go argue with them. I don't care.

An etymology quibble doesn't interest me very much.

Really? :laugh:Who posted this?

It’s etymologically inaccurate to speak of racism against “Mexicans,” “Hispanics,” and “Latinos,” since Mexicans are a national group

Have you considered traveling throughout the Hispanosphere demanding that they drop their use of the term "negro" because it carries offensive connotations in English?

No. I don't "demand" that they, or you, do anything. It sounds like you're the one insisting that they are "really Indians" even though they overwhelmingly call themselves Mexicans. (Obviously there are revolutionaries throughout Latin America who champion their Indian heritage, but almost none who are here as migrant workers.)

I know plenty of people who simply believe that those people are "Spanish" or "Latin," and the same racial group as the white population of European Spain.

Oh. Well, perhaps we can at least agree that they are ignoramuses?:lol:

Agnapostate

16th May 2010, 01:35

Oh, stop it. :lol: Your post #45 is clearly insinuating that white (presumably capitalist?) racists in the USA erroneously brand workers from Mexico as "Mexicans" out of ignorance. I am telling you, and you don't seem to dispute, that Mexicans from Mexico overwhelmingly call themselves "Mexican," not "Indian," not "mestizo," and not "Indio." You want to argue, go argue with them. I don't care.

"Capitalist"? Capitalists are a rather small minority of the white population; why would I make such a claim? My statement (not an insinuation), is that Mexicans are inaccurately understood as a racial group rather than the national group that they are in the U.S., which is why descendants of Mexicans born in the U.S. refer to themselves as "Mexican" despite the fact that they are not. I'm quite certain that Mexicans refer to themselves as Mexicans; I refer to myself as American, after all. I'm not sure why you believe that would eliminate the possibility of racial or other ethnic identification.

Really? :laugh:Who posted this?

LOL, the asinine nature of comparing a term that conceals national race conflicts with a word regarded as "offensive" shows why you're in OI.

No. I don't "demand" that they, or you, do anything. It sounds like you're the one insisting that they are "really Indians" even though they overwhelmingly call themselves Mexicans. (Obviously there are revolutionaries throughout Latin America who champion their Indian heritage, but almost none who are here as migrant workers.)

"Really Indians"? Racially, the majority of Mexicans are Indians. They can call themselves Martians if they want to, but Hispanic socialization does not alter their actual genetic heritage any more than that of African-Americans has been altered by Anglo socialization.

Oh. Well, perhaps we can at least agree that they are ignoramuses?

I've cropped out your last burst of laughter, as your apparent methamphetamine addiction does not interest me. Now, wouldn't that be "ignorami"? ;)

Robert

16th May 2010, 02:20

Racially, the majority of Mexicans are Indians.Not this again!? You need to get past this race obsession of yours before you get restricted yourself.

Look, you're just angry because I've owned you on this issue, as evidenced by the belligerent meth accusation (you can do better than that), so just smile and admit it. It happens to everybody.

I am sure you know more about dialectical materialism than I do.

p.s. Yeah, I'm pretty sure "ignoramuses" is the plural. But I like the way you say "ignorami." It makes you sound very erudite.

Agnapostate

16th May 2010, 03:42

Look, you're just angry because I've owned you on this issue, as evidenced by the belligerent meth accusation (you can do better than that), so just smile and admit it. It happens to everybody

That would entail refutation of my observation that the majority of Mexican and Central American migrant laborers are Indians, which you haven't accomplished. Your belief that you have does validate my meth comment, though.

Robert

16th May 2010, 13:51

We can sum up your problem as follows:

1. Mexican migrant workers are ethnically "Indians" (say you, which is fine by me, but you're overgeneralizing and, at best, only half right because there are many "mestizos" among them);

2. They refer to themselves as "Mexicans," as do the overwhelming majority of literate Americans I know, and they both mean it in the ethnic and national sense;

3. You know "many people" who think they are "Spanish", and I'll have to take your word for it;

4. Mexicans (you know, people from the country of Mexico?) do not like being referred to as "Indians";

5. You insist on calling them "Indians" anyway because "Mexican" or "Hispanic" isn't really a race.

Cool beans. I think you should call them "Indians" to their face since you feel so strongly about it.

Atlee

16th May 2010, 14:23

Agnapostate

16th May 2010, 19:53

1. Mexican migrant workers are ethnically "Indians" (say you, which is fine by me, but you're overgeneralizing and, at best, only half right because there are many "mestizos" among them);

I said that Mexican and Central American migrant laborers were generally Indians (meaning that it was a generalization, in case you didn't spot it), which meant that I was referring to Indian racial background, a category that includes so-called "mestizos" just as mulattoes are incorporated into the black race and Indian "breeds" here are generally referred to as Indians without qualification. That would be aside from the fact that the majority of so-called "mestizos" are predominantly Indian and minority white, just as the majority of African-Americans are predominantly black and minority white. For example, consult Genetic admixture of eight Mexican indigenous populations: based on five polymarker, HLA-DQA1, ABO, and RH loci (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18770527):

This study explores the genetic admixture of eight Mexican indigenous populations (Otomi-Ixmiquilpan, Otomi-Actopan, Tzeltales, Nahua-Milpa-Alta, Nahua-Xochimilco, Nahua-Zitlala, Nahua-Ixhuatlancillo, and Nahua-Coyolillo) on the basis of five PCR-based polymorphic DNA loci (LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D7S8, GC), HLA_DQA1, and the blood groups ABO and Rh (CcDEe). Among the indigenous populations, the highest gene frequencies for O and D were 0.9703 and 1.000 for Zitlala (State of Guerrero) and 0.9955 and 0.9414 for Tzeltales (State of Chiapas), respectively. Maximum likelihood estimates of admixture components yield a trihybrid model with Amerindian (assuming that Nahua-Zitlala is the most representative indigenous population), Spanish, and African ancestry with the admixture proportions: 93.03, 6.03, and 0.94 for Tzeltales, and 28.99, 44.03, and 26.98 for Coyolillo. A contribution of the ancestral populations of Ixhuatlancillo, Actopan, Ixmiquilpan, Milpa-Alta, and Xochimilco were found with the following average of admixture proportions: 75.84, 22.50, and 1.66. The findings herein demonstrate that the genetic admixture of the Mexican indigenous populations who at present speak the same Amer-Indian language can be differentiated and that the majority of them have less ancestral indigenous contribution than those considered as Mestizo populations.

Better luck next time.

2. They refer to themselves as "Mexicans," as do the overwhelming majority of literate Americans I know, and they both mean it in the ethnic and national sense;

The national sense is the ethnic sense, since an ethnic group is merely a group with a sort of common identification, meaning that nationality suffices. The majority of people, however, believe that Mexicans are a racial group (they are not; they are a national group), and that Mexican identity can be hereditably transmitted (it cannot). That is what you have failed to substantively refute.

3. You know "many people" who think they are "Spanish", and I'll have to take your word for it;

I know plenty of people unaware that there is a distinction between the inhabitants of Spain and the inhabitants of Mexico, or that Spaniards are European whites and Mexicans generally American Indians, yes.

4. Mexicans (you know, people from the country of Mexico?) do not like being referred to as "Indians";

I've already stated that their socialization does not alter their racial background any more than a generic "black" person here does not trace roots from a specific African tribe or nation. Since there are between ten and twenty million whites in Mexico that dominate the ruling class, and since so many migrant laborers are from the Central American countries of Guatemala and El Salvador, I state that they are "generally Indians," which is accurate terminology.

5. You insist on calling them "Indians" anyway because "Mexican" or "Hispanic" isn't really a race.

I'm not sure why you insist on constantly advancing strawmen, but I never claimed that they weren't "Mexican" or "Hispanic." I merely claimed that those were inappropriate and misleading descriptions, because they didn't pertain to their actual racial background, as many people mistakenly believe.

Cool beans. I think you should call them "Indians" to their face since you feel so strongly about it.

My grandfather is one from Apache/Conchos/Tarahumara territory; my paternal ancestors are from the Southwest and northern Chihuahua. He agrees with me.

Robert

16th May 2010, 21:25

I do not think from their "pride" they would want to be called Indian. They might find the connotation very insulting seeing that their grandfathers might have fought and died fighting Native American Indians in the South West USA.

You're absolutely right about the first part. As for the second part, even Guatemalans and Hondurans of manifestly "Indian" ascendancy, who never went near the border, can be quick to tell you that they aren't "indígenas," never mind "Indios."

Racial pride and shame takes all kinds of forms. I asked my own grandmother whether it was true that her father (my great) was really an Indian as family legend had it. I thought it was so cool and all to be part native American, right?

She got all defensive and said: "yes, but he was a smart man." We still laugh at that.:lol:

If we want to know something, then we need to show some respect and ask them directly.

I agree with all that. Good post.

Atlee

16th May 2010, 23:41

Racial pride and shame takes all kinds of forms. I asked my own grandmother whether it was true that her father (my great) was really an Indian as family legend had it. I thought it was so cool and all to be part native American, right?

She got all defensive and said: "yes, but he was a smart man." We still laugh at that.

I almost fell over laughing. I know how this goes. I've heard every Polish joke there is, I think at one time or another.

On the other hand we might have hit on sometime that just came to mind. In places where socialism in some form of another work better e.g. Localism, it seems these people know each other, have common faith, culture, language, heritage, etc such as in Europe and I might add education to bring them to higher thinking. In the USA we have the melting pot effect that might be slowing our version of what socialism will become to a near crawl.

Agnapostate

17th May 2010, 00:41

I spent some time in Quintana Roo in the summer of 2006 and the population there was very quick to tell what they were about. I was told that they were not Spanish, Mexican except by governmental rule, or Indian. The claim made was they were Azteca and as such did not speak Spanish as their native language. From what I gathered they spoke better English then some American school children (not a joke).

That's very interesting, as Quintana Roo is situated in the predominantly Mayan Yucatan Peninsula, so I'd be surprised to find the population dominated by Nahua groups of any sort, let alone Aztecs. We see a similar phenomenon in the U.S. with descendants of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans referring to themselves as "Chicano" (or "Xicano"), which is derived from the term "Mexica" (the self-description of the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan at the center of the Aztec Triple Alliance). It's not a very meaningful term, since the Aztecs were one Indian nation in Central Mexico. In my personal case, with my paternal family from the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico (the border state of Chihuahua), that heritage is from somewhere around Mescalero, Lipan (Apache groups), Jumano, Conchos, and Tarahumara territory, not anywhere near Aztec land.

Where I live now, there are many who claim to be Mexican. They speak mostly Spanish and I do not think from their "pride" they would want to be called Indian. They might find the connotation very insulting seeing that their grandfathers might have fought and died fighting Native American Indians in the South West USA.

The people that you refer to are only Mexican if they are from Mexico or have otherwise obtained Mexican citizenship; it's a common misconception that it's possible to "be of Mexican descent." It's a mistake I used to make myself when I would refer to myself as "half Mexican." As to why they'd find the connotation insulting, the peoples of the Southwest are no more Indian or Native American than those of other parts of the American continents. In fact, given that very low levels of admixture are sufficient for whites to call themselves "Indian" here, whereas urbanized, Latinized pure-bloods south of the border avoid the label, they're probably more "Indian" than many people who claim ancestry from the Southwest. The Native Americans of the Southwest fought each other frequently enough (Geronimo was captured with the aid of Apache scouts, for example), but that does not dilute their Indian ancestry, so I don't know why that would mean anything. Moreover, the Indians of the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico are categorized into one "Southwestern" cultural group:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/NorthAmericanCulture.png

So I don't think any of those reasons are compelling.

I have one unique neighbor who is from Peru, she does not consort with the Mexicans and despises their poor use of the Spanish language.

Many non-Mexican Hispanics dislike Mexicans because of national (and possibly racial) reasons, exacerbated by the fact that they are ignorantly assumed to be Mexicans themselves, but that's an interesting reason that you mention. There are substantial differences in regional dialects of Spanish, as with any other language, and conflicts and rivalries as a result, but there's not much of an objective basis for declaring Mexican Spanish "poor," considering that Mexico is the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world. I'd think that the most common form of a language should be the central category.

What this comes down to is that within the Central and South Americas there are very localized groups from all sorts of different cultures and they cannot be stereotyped into one big lump. If we want to know something, then we need to show some respect and ask them directly.

It would be better to say "Latin America," since Mexico isn't in Central America and Central America is itself in North America. But I still don't believe that self-description can change genetic racial background. It can be the foundation for new ethnic identities, but African-Americans still belong to specific peoples in western Africa, for example, despite their identification as generic "blacks."