62 replies to this topic

[Evenstar51]

I hate to disagree with the Walkin' Dude my first day here, but I have a new e-mail from my cousin in England who just returned from a business trip to Turkey; he says the joke there is that they got rid of their radical Muslims by sending them to England, so other countries do have immigration problems. As for speaking English, I cringe several times daily at the mistakes made by "natural born" Americans, both in print and verbally. This is a nation built by immigrants, conceived as a haven for the persecuted. If we don't honor that concept, tear down the Statue of Liberty and screw Emma Goldman. Now, please don't send rats into my corn!

[PERM BANNED]

I hate to disagree with the Walkin' Dude my first day here, but I have a new e-mail from my cousin in England who just returned from a business trip to Turkey; he says the joke there is that they got rid of their radical Muslims by sending them to England, so other countries do have immigration problems. As for speaking English, I cringe several times daily at the mistakes made by "natural born" Americans, both in print and verbally. This is a nation built by immigrants, conceived as a haven for the persecuted. If we don't honor that concept, tear down the Statue of Liberty and screw Emma Goldman. Now, please don't send rats into my corn!

I didn't say that other nations don't have immigration problems. I was referring to the unique problem America has of illegals entering our nation simply to give birth so their child is an automatic citizen and anchoring their postion here. No country in Europe has that specific problem.

[Hula]

So I am curious. If you are against multiculturism, then what exactly is the alternative? Limiting immigration to a homogenous group? Limiting immigration to non-Muslims? Preventing immigration altogether? It's all well and good to say nay, but what does that actually mean.

None of those identifiers have anything directly to do with individuals immigrating to America or any other western nation for that matter. A good start would be mandating all government services conduct all matters in english only. Attach all federal funding to schools with a stipulation that all core classroom instruction be conducted in English. That would be a good start. And yes, immigration should be limited as it already is. But it should be given a step further, to limit people with no skill or education from entering the country unless specifically for student visas and tourism. We have a national instant background check system for gun purchases. Would it be much more difficult to copy over SSNs from the SS dept to create a list of eligible employees? Stiff penalties for employers and employees who break the law in this regard. Providing your SSN and date of birth are all required when accepting employment, and a W2 is submitted each year. It wouldn't be a perfect fix, but it would be rather cheap to implement and safe guard could be implemented that any possible false reports incur a 60 day grace period where the employee can work with his employer until his SSN card and other required documents are sent to be added to the system to be evaluated.

Compared to the billions lost each year in education, social services and medial service to people not legally deserving, it seems like a good start to me. Securing the boarder and securing the public welfare are both outlined requirements of the federal government.

Since the beginning of our nation we've always had an immigrant population in this country and they have always been treated poorly by the rest of us. But I've never seen so much resentment as I see now. If we want them to learn our laws I see no harm in having them printed in other languages. (It takes a long time to learn a new one and it's just an aid to help in the meantime.) Even back in the 60s when I went to college, they had lots of night classes to learn how to speak English. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for that. I wish they'd been available when my grandparents immigrated here. But core subjects being taught in other languages so a kid could virtually go through school without learning English? It that really happening in the U.S.A.?

Employers are already required to check SSN numbers but the problem is that our country's SSN numbers are storied in 3 different data banks and they are so old school (not all computerized) that instant checks aren't available. It can take as long as 3 weeks and by then a lot of the illegals using a fake or stolen SSN are long gone from the temporary work they were hired for---not to mention that too many employers of immigrants really don't care as long as they get cheap labor. Some people say just let them wait 3 weeks for the SSN to be checked but with temporary farm and food processing work, for example, that can't wait weeks when crops need picking and processing. The answer to this problem is the National ID card so we can get all SSN numbers online for instant check of fake, stolen or lost cards, etc. (Think of the data processing jobs that would create for a few years.) But whenever the National ID card is brought up the people who complain about illegals the most seem to fight having the National ID cards. Illegals come to this country for jobs. We need to make it harder to use fake and stolen SSN and easier to get temporary worker visas for the types of jobs they are seeking. The jobs we citizens won't do (farm and food processing) and those jobs where we don't have enough qualified people to fill the jobs (nursing and some fields of engineering at the moment, but this change with the decades). We can also change the laws to make temporary migrant workers here on work visas be covered by the same workplace safety and protection laws that cover legal citizens. What that will do is drive up the amount of money the employers would have to pay the migrant workers and therefore make those jobs more desirable to U.S. citizens. But this is being fought tooth and nail by the big factory farms. The answer to controlling illegal immigration isn't about building walls at our borders. It's about controlling access to jobs, jobs, jobs.

Our country is great because of our history of immigrants coming here to work hard to better themselves. Without those hungry people on the lower steps on the ladder the rest of us would just stagnant where we're at. They help push us all upward and bring a richness to our society by expanding our choices of cultural customs, music and foods.

randall thanks for your post. it is the best I have read and presents ideas I have never heard before that sound reasonable and cheap to this flaming liberal.... albeit a tad harsh

english only and assimilating seem to be important to alot of folks. over at CD in illegal immigration folder, the folks seem to find it "insulting" that illegals "refuse" to learn english and have the nads to put flags of their origin on their cars. celebrate their culture "here" with music, food and traditions from their home country. I can't take offense at any of these things.

should people learn english? yes. but like the idea "if women just used birth control better we would have no abortion" it is based on what people "should do" not what they do in reality.

it is expensive to print everything in different languages but in some cases how can you not when a good deal of that sector's voting public doesn't speak english? when a community is 75% or more chinese, hispanic or whatever you need signs and services that suit that community.

for me the more words you know in the most languages the better off you are. its about communication. I wish I knew more language so I could say hello to people I meet that are not english peakers. there are folks in the same folders at CD who would never lower themselves to speak or learn spanish.


sorry I have lost my train of thought, I was called away for an hour or so as I posted this and have to go in a bit, sorry if it is full of misspellings and such, you will find it is not my best subject . more later .

[PERM BANNED]

I don't understand how can anyone who cares about illegal immigration can NOT care that employers are hiring illegals. The vast majority of illegals in this country come here to find work. If we put stop guards up to make it harder for employers to get away with knowingly hiring illegals, or hiring them by accident because their fake documentation can't be checked easily, then we take away the primary reason why illegals enter the country in the first place. We already deport illegals caught in workplace sting operations. The employers get a slap on the hand.

Canada and Brazil are also among the 20% of the world's countries who have birthright citizenship. I wouldn't exactly call them "second world" countries. Basically, the countries who have the Jus Soli laws are in the New World and it was meant as a way to build the population back when that was needed. Mexico has nationalization at birth. They separate Citizenship and Nationalization with different rights assigned each. http://en.wikipedia....nationality_law I'm really not in favor of having another Constitutional Convention to open our country's document up to amend birthright citizenship because I don't trust today's politicians to be as educated, caring and thoughtful as our Founding Fathers. Who knows what else they'll want to mess with! Like right now there is a bill in the senate to declare a fetus a person with full rights at conception.

I wasn't saying that I don't care if employers recruit illegals. I was saying that I don't care that it's used as an excuse to justify illegals working. I followed up this point by saying that both employees and employers should be punished. To articulate it a better way, I do care that employers attempt to defraud the system by hiring people illegally. I don't care that it's used as an excuse to justify the actions of the employees who take said jobs. Both are guilty and should be penalized under the law for their respective actions.

While I was not aware when I posted that Canada offered birthright citizenship, it is a relatively new practice in that nation with no one being born prior to 1977 incuring that right. That is something that the modern Canadian people decided through their deomocratic process and is fine by me how they conduct their nation. However, the nearly 150 year old amendment to the US Constitution was never intended to allow illegals to drop babies on American soil and be bestowed citizenship. The documentation at the time clearly indicates a desire to protect former slaves who were not considered citizens because 1.) They may have not been born on US soil, and 2.) were not the children of citizens as slaves were not considered citizens. This was a one time fix for a problem and no one intended it to encompass people who came here illegally of their own free will. It was solely written to correct the Dred Scott decision made 11 years earlier by the Supreme Court.



The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment read "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Do people illegally here fall under the category of jurisdiction? That is the tough answer to which legal minds can debate. There is more to it than simply saying if I committ a crime in Indiana, they can arrest me. Jurisdiction has a much more broader meaning in terms of obligations by both citizens and the authority over which they fall. Someone shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law. I fail to see how someone can object to the notion that citizenship should only be granted to children with at least one parent possessing citizenship or through the a naturalization process.



Edit: And to further drive my point home, please refer to Elk v. Wilkins http://en.wikipedia..../Elk_v._Wilkins. A supreme court case in 1888 that completey supports my original argument of jurisdiction.

[TAP]

This is a good read on 'anchor babies'
http://www.politifac...ies-birthright/
The summary is basically that 'allow illegals to drop babies on American soil and be bestowed citizenship." is a conflation of two separate issues designed to appeal to fears as usual. Having an anchor baby gives an illegal immigrant a 31 year path to legal citizenship, so it's likely they wouldn't bother. As mentioned above, illegal immigrants are here for work - the stork brings the babies later. It's unlikely that citizenship for their kids is the prime motivation.
On the other hand, (wealthy) people are coming legally on tourist visas to have babies because they think it will be useful for the child later in life if they want to come back to the US.

[PERM BANNED]

This is a good read on 'anchor babies'
http://www.politifac...ies-birthright/
The summary is basically that 'allow illegals to drop babies on American soil and be bestowed citizenship." is a conflation of two separate issues designed to appeal to fears as usual. Having an anchor baby gives an illegal immigrant a 31 year path to legal citizenship, so it's likely they wouldn't bother. As mentioned above, illegal immigrants are here for work - the stork brings the babies later. It's unlikely that citizenship for their kids is the prime motivation.
On the other hand, (wealthy) people are coming legally on tourist visas to have babies because they think it will be useful for the child later in life if they want to come back to the US.

It's not simply about getting the parents citizenship. It's about granting citizenship status, something you of all people should recoginze the value and importance of, to the offspring of people who reside here illegally. I don't care if their poor mexicans or rich Austrians. In either case, citizenship shouldn't be bestowed.



But this whole topic has drifted from the original topic of multiculturalism. As it often does, it degrades into an opportunity to label certain motives or opinions as being based on race, Or did you mean something else by fear? I don't see a problem with looking at certain cultures and saying "Hey, I really like that or appreciate it" or "hey, they's incredibly fucked up." Maybe it's because I work in an environment that demand efficiency and an equal standard for all that distorts my view. But I refuse to accept that people who do not wish to embrace nor consider themselves part of the community and values that created the theme for the United States be treated as equals in terms of lifestyles and opinions. I'm in no way saying that traditional "white" culture in America is perfect or without its obvious faults. I don't even define it based on skin color. But when certain people choose to seclude themselves and not adapt or expect special provisions to make them feel better, I say not on my tax dollar. I couldn't care less what language you speak, food you eat, how you dress and how you sleep in the privacy of your home. But don't come and expect everyone else to have to alter their lives to accomodate you. When we have to hire police officerrs who speak a language other than english, alter state codes to accomodate religion, or provide services to non legal residents, it's gone to far. That's not multiculturalism, that's culture intrusion and in every instance, eventually is met with violence. I'm trying to avoid that and at the same time, welcome anyone who wants to call America their home and embrace our values and customs.

[TAP]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about birthright citizenship, I wouldn't care if it was stopped, wouldn't care if it wasn't. The point was that I don't think illegal immigrants are coming here to have anchor babies, they are coming here to get jobs - the anchor baby thing is a quirk of the constitution but it's not a major motivation. I don't think repealing the 14th amendment would make much difference to illegal immigration. But it's presented that way for a reason, to make it simple and scary. And I'll continue to use fearmongering as a motive of every right wing talking point and policy, just as long as you label anything to your left as 'far left'. I certainly think legal tourism for the express purpose of getting handy US citizenship should be stopped by the way.

[TAP]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about birthright citizenship, I wouldn't care if it was stopped, wouldn't care if it wasn't. The point was that I don't think illegal immigrants are coming here to have anchor babies, they are coming here to get jobs - the anchor baby thing is a quirk of the constitution but it's not a major motivation. I don't think repealing the 14th amendment would make much difference to illegal immigration. But it's presented that way for a reason, to make it simple and scary. And I'll continue to use fearmongering as a motive of every right wing talking point and policy, just as long as you label anything to your left as 'far left'.
I certainly think legal tourism for the express purpose of getting handy US citizenship should be stopped by the way.

I am in total agreement with you on everything you've posted.

Me too

[freedom78]

Apparently Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby. Heh.

[TAP]

Doesn't strictly speaking belong here, but kind of. Think Flagg will ilke it.....
http://www.nytimes.c...nce/08tier.html

[freedom78]

Doesn't strictly speaking belong here, but kind of. Think Flagg will ilke it.....
http://www.nytimes.c...nce/08tier.html

There are both valid and silly points to this. First and most obviously, a "raise your hands" survey of one group is piss poor science. At least in political science, the trend has commonly been that, among those graduating with a MA or PhD, liberals trend toward academia and conservatives toward the private sector and "think tanks". Since attendance at a conference is a self-selecting group, I'd first ask whether this convention is geared toward academics or toward all types of social psychologists, including those in private practices of some sort. I'm hoping that his "raise your hands" approach was simply by way of example to prove a larger and better studied point. However, I didn't see anything that clearly stated that that was the case. Furthermore, if we expanded this out from social psych to other fields, I'm sure you'd find a good bit of the opposite. Imagine asking this question of business school professors or a conference of economists, who trend more libertarian/conservative, and you'd see the same problem from the opposite angle.

There is a valid point about in-group values having a detrimental effect, but I would argue that that effect is limited in situations where the group is highly aware of those in-group values and strives to be scientific in controlling for them. This is not to say that they have no effect. Since social sciences of any sort deal with the abstract, there is an inherently interpretive aspect to it. I'd be more concerned about the atmosphere of collegiality and the student/professor relationships than about the science. If we are trying to be objective and scientific, then the effects of such biases should be at a minimum. Diminishing the desire of students (or colleagues) from different ideological backgrounds to participate in the community, however, strikes me as a bigger problem, specifically since a university should be a place of open expression and debate of ideas.

Personally, I've not encountered most of these problems that he describes. I went to a very conservative, all male college with a typically liberal professoriate. Debate and disagreement were encouraged. One of my best professors was ultra-conservative and could devil's advocate an argument like nobody's business. If anything, the liberals were the out group, as this college was conservative in an unusual way (all male), is a private school, and pulled from a pretty conservative (and white) area of the country (Indiana).

Lastly, I think it's worth mentioning that he's found an interesting correlation (assuming he properly studied this and isn't basing it solely on his "raise your hands" approach), but correlations run both ways. It's very possible that among the many causes of this phenomenon is conservative disdain for academia and, in recent years, for science altogether. I wouldn't say that any one thing is THE cause. Rather, they likely reinforce each other. Conservatives tend to believe in working in the private sector rather than academia, thus academia becomes less conservative, creating an ingroup/outgroup situation which then reinforces and exacerbates the situation as new students come through and are exposed to a more liberal professoriate.

[TAP]

I don't think he was necessarily trying to make any of the points you are countering. From my reading, the main thing I got was the irony of social scientists for whom random, representative, unbiased samples are the holy grail, are as far from that as you could imagine statistically. I'd agree you'd likely find majority of right wing/libertarian types in business or even economics faculty but that wouldn't be ironic.

[PERM BANNED]

Doesn't strictly speaking belong here, but kind of. Think Flagg will ilke it.....
http://www.nytimes.c...nce/08tier.html

This has been said for a long time. I can't think of one political science professor that I had in college that didn't identify themself as a liberal or a democrat. I take that back, I had one guy who worked in the Public Administration area who served on the city council as a Republican. Now most of my professors enjoyed having me in their class because I brought a different opinion in class other than the "Bush Lied, Kids Died" crowd and didn't reference my sources as verses from the bible. So I agree with Freedom that most professors, regardless of personal political opinions, encourage debate and don't allow their own bias to affect the evaluations of their students. I had a couple professors who became quite aggitated when I went against the grain, but those were few and far between. I was a senior in 2004, and one professor came in in a state of shock after Ohio went to Bush in 2004 repeating over and over again "How she couldn't understand how Ohio went GOP with all its bigotry and hatered,"

But the problem is that they base the curriculum off of their influences or lead you to material from their point of view. Just as I won't normally link articles to Slate.com or mediamatters, if we were having a truly organic dialogue, they would provide sources from their side. I took a 400 level Environmental Politics class my last quarter of college. None of the sources we discussed or read came from a conservative or libertarian think tank. They all came from a multitude of ideologies on the left. Hell one even tried to brand itself as green capitalism that intended to redefine how we value certain things placing green goals as the basis for evaluation on the best models. My point being that their biases by no fault of their own, manifest themself at the higher levels. Sure, someone teaching Political Theory 101 covering Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have little influence over the evolution of the debate. But it's at the higher levels, where real thinking is accomplished and you reach the graduate level, that professor bias can play a role. I loved working on my masters in political science because the professors forces us to find our own sources to add to the discussion. Once you've crossed into the graduate level of teaching, personal bias isn't as important. But when you're in between, what you choose to expose your students to can alter generations of thought in behavior in that field. If I only display certain items in the McDonalds inventory on the menu, 99% of people are going to pick what is present and give it no further thought. Only a small minority will ask what else is there. Maybe not the best analogy, but I think it highlights what I'm trying to get across.

Now the question is posed hwo do we fix it. I certainly don't want some quota to hire people based on political beliefs. That would be retarded. But if departments acknowledge their bias, and try to identify where it is evident, it will go a long way to encouraging students to think on their own rather than repeat what they think they're supposed to say. If nickel and dimed is required reading for all incoming college freshman, then free to choose should be required as well.