More Joys of Immigration

[cute fuzzy bunny]

"Oh yeah...look at that. Since we got married I really dont look at other women. Hadnt really noticed".

[Nords]

"Honey, can you come help me with her accent?"

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Never, ever unnecessarily invite the attention and subsequent wrath.

[riskadverse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny Thats okay.* Hispanic tv channels have way more angry, scantily clad women in them.* That I have no idea what they're saying isnt really that big a deal.

If they would subtitle these programs in English, they would increase the number of viewers (myself especially), and do much towards teaching the Spanish speakers English.* This seems like a win win situation!

[OldAgePensioner]

On RCN Basic in Chicago, there are at least 15 stations with scantilly clad Hispanic, Mexican, Chicano, Latino, etc., ladies.

To offset that, there are 15 channels with black, African-American, etc., church choir services. The damn things go 24 hours a day.

I try to balance my viewing time.

[yakers]

Sounds like what we need is a Hispanic scantilly clad lady choir and it might get me back to church.

[laurence]

For the record I'd like to thank Ha for staking out a position on an issue that he differs from the majority it's topics like these that allow us bust out our bats and play pinata engage in some interesting conversation. After all, how many times can we say, "4% SWR, Vanguard, Wellington, can't we all just get along...".

My two bits: I believe immigration makes this country great, but something went wrong when we decided that a melting pot was a bad idea, and that immigrants should be encouraged to not think of themselves as Americans first. We risk fragmentation and rising strife in the name of "preserving social identity" or whatever. I mean, I feel no need to speak Celtic (Gaelic?) or fly the Irish or Lithuanian flag over my house.

[Caroline]

Quote:

My two bits:* I believe immigration makes this country great, but something went wrong when we decided that a melting pot was a bad idea, and that immigrants should be encouraged to not think of themselves as Americans first.* We risk fragmentation and rising strife in the name of "preserving social identity" or whatever.* I mean, I feel no need to speak Celtic (Gaelic?) or fly the Irish or Lithuanian flag over my house.

This fellow would probably agree with you, Lawrence. Fact is, a tiny percentage of 2nd generation immigrants speaks their parents' language -- they're completely assimilated in one generation.


Tuesday, May 12, 1998
South Texas man becomes a U.S. citizen at 99

MERCEDES, Texas - His steady footing, full head of hair and quick wit belie his 99 years. But Asencion Martinez's leathery, wrinkled skin hints at the 54 years he toiled in the cotton, citrus, corn and carrot fields of South Texas.

"It wasn't hard work. We were used to it," said Martinez, who never attended school. "That's all we knew how to do."

Now retired, he has been a legal resident alien for 88 years. But on Monday, Martinez became a U.S. citizen.

He said he might have lived out his remaining years in his handmade Mercedes home as a Mexican national, if not for the persistent prodding of his children.

"I want him to do it so I can say my dad was an American citizen, too - like I am," said Tomasa Cano, 65, Martinez's youngest daughter.

A career farm worker herself, Cano still works in packing sheds for grapefruit, onions, cantaloupes and potatoes.

His family, which now extends three more generations and is scattered from Ohio to California, was abuzz two weeks ago with the news that Martinez had received notice to attend Monday's citizenship ceremony.

"I'm looking forward to it," Martinez said before the ceremony. "I'm old and I want to be an American citizen before I die."

[Eagle43]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny So hypothetical question...at the point in time where hispanics become the majority in the US, does that mean all the indigent, uneducated white people have to learn spanish?

Si, Senor.* Necessito hablar Espanol.* No comprendemos*Ingles!

[LEX]

I am married to an immigrant (Medical doctor), and we went through six years of INS hell to obtain US citizenship while she was providing valuable services to the US.* I am in favor of very precise and merit based immigration, similar to Canada or Australia, but not the "open border, let everone in since they are only looking for honest labor" nonsense. If I wanted to live in the third world I would move there.* I resent illegal aliens who break the law and dilute the living standards of an entire community.*Here in Arizona I have watched entire neighborhoods become barrios in a matter of a few years.* There is nothing short of an invasion going on and the political parties see votes, the unethical employers see cheap labor, and I see the destruction of western european values and the underlying decline into chaos. Yes, I am pro-european, pro-western, and refuse to aplogise for being well educated enough to have an unpopular strong ethnicly pro caucasion opinion. I speak fluent spanish, russian and passable italian, and have worked, traveled in South America, Eastern Europe, Africa and of course the US.* If those that favor unfettered immigration want such open borders, then they should move to Mexico City, Caracas, or Lagos, and enjoy the result at ground zero.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Ed in Alberta, here. For your amusement, a few opinions:

On the subject of immigration, Canada is an interesting place. It is very schizoid. It seems like just about anyone can get in but they can't find work in their profession because they do not have "Canadian experience". More than one immigrant to Canada has told me that the US is different--harder to get in, but easier to find work in one's field. Two South-Asians [that's PC-talk for Indians in this case] separately told me that the US was less discriminatory twards them than Canada, by the way. That was a surprise to me, but we were in Ontario, so maybe so.

Canada prides itself on diversity, but I see immigrants integrating a lot faster than they do in the US. I think for several reasons. The population is not large, so immigrant enclaves are a lot smaller. They have to get out and about. They also want to fit in. If they weren't anti-American when they came in, they have to learn quickly.

I think that society up here is not as polarized, either. Being PC here works in this case. People are also not in such a hurry. People will take time to try to understand a foreigner's speech. People take you as you are. In the US, the place is so big that immigrants can group together and therefore only talk to each other.

Seriously, Canada is a nation of immigrants, like the US used to be. I like that. They are generally a lot better educated than the locals, too. And, in spite of my joke, generally more worldly-wise than the locals. Immigrants have often seen that the world is not a safe place and seem to be more sympathetic to the neighbor to the south who feels obliged to try to straighten out the crooked world. I have a feeling that the very immigrants that the Liberals [that is a real political party up here in case y'all missed it] made it easy to get into the country are voting conservatively, just like my wife's Mexican relatives do in the US. I believe that, certainly by the time of Trudeau, the Liberals jiggered the immigration quotas against British applicants and towards the wide world, possibly to weaken the British bent of the population. It worked. It was a revolution against Britain the Canadian way. But it is backfiring. Immigrants have not automatically adopted the values of the dominant political structure. [I was going to insert something gratuitously inflammatory here, but the voice of reason--actually, my long-dead father--telling me not to do something stupid--again. I will save it for later.] For example, it is the non-English immigrant population of Quebec that votes against separation. Also, it seems that immigrants know that it is stupid to have an ineffective military. Trudeau was out to change Canada radically--but I don't think it is quite turning out the way he expected.

It is said that most of America's problems are a direct result of an unsophisticated immigration policy on the part of the American Indians. A case can be made.

Ed The Gypsy,
Just musing over a cold beer in warm Calgary tonight.

Quote:

If I wanted to live in the third world I would move there.

I am considering the possibility. Maybe the 2.5rd world.

[LEX]

Immigration should be as well planned as any other aspect of sound economic strategy.* If the US were to adopt an immigration policy that followed the same stratgy as an employer, looking for talent and sustainable resources to support the invited immigrant population, this would be a positive.* However, inviting the unchecked hoardes across any border tends to collapse any political system, be it the Huns and Goths across the Alps into Rome in 400, the Mongol's10th century treck across the steppes into Russia, or the Mexicans into the United States in the late 20th century.* To allow such borderless migration is cultural suicide for any country as evident throughout history. Yes, I am sure many read this and disagree.* You are all free to flame me after reading Toynbee and History: Critical Essays and Reviews. Contributors: M. F. Ashley Montagu - editor. Publisher: Porter Sargent. Place of Publication: Boston.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Easy, Lex. I plan to be a horde one day.

[bpp]

I suppose I am a horde myself. I do strive to fit in as much as possible, and not bring attention to my foreignness or let it become an issue. In return, at least where I work, most people treat me like anybody else. When the rare d***weed insists on treating me like a foreigner, I try to extricate myself from the exchange non-confrontationally, rather than throttling them as any red-blooded American would. I guess that in itself is a form of assimilation...

Bpp

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Guys...its horDe...theres a "D" in it!

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Quote:

I suppose I am a horde myself. I do strive to fit in as much as possible, and not bring attention to my foreignness or let it become an issue. In return, at least where I work, most people treat me like anybody else. When the rare d***weed insists on treating me like a foreigner, I try to extricate myself from the exchange non-confrontationally, rather than throttling them as any red-blooded American would. I guess that in itself is a form of assimilation... Bpp

Bpp,

My way, too! But--no, it is not assimilation. It is a maturity and civility that the person talking to you lacks.

About once a month, unprovoked, somebody wants to rant about Americans/Bush/the US to me (sometimes not knowing my origin). Somebody drove my daughter to tears so doing. It is educational for us and you can bet that it doesn't have the effect intended (whatever that may be--venting? being mean?). We are a little less sympathetic each time this happens and it sticks.

Ed

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

More on immigration, subsection Canada:

In the National Post (a Canadian paper) yesterday, a commission reported that Canada has five times the number of applicants for immigration per capita than other comparable countries. Canada approves about 50% of these applications, compared to about 15% by others (not sure who the 'others' are). Canada is the only country in the world that will consider people from the US as refugees (admitting 317 in a recent year).

This seems to be about the same report:

Quote:

Canada's lax refugee policy is in urgent need of an overhaul The Province Published: Thursday, March 02, 2006 While Canadians have long congratulated themselves on their country's openness and generosity to people fleeing persecution in foreign lands, the view from abroad is somewhat less benign. In fact, the ease with which refugee claimants can take up residence here, drawing generous welfare benefits and taking advantage of a sympathetic judicial system, risks turning us into an international laughing stock. Such, at least, is the broad conclusion drawn by former diplomat Martin Collacott in a report for the right-wing Fraser Institute: Canada's Inadequate Response to Terrorism: The Need for Policy Reform. And there is a great deal in this report that makes perfect sense and demands immediate political action. But we should make it clear from the start that we are not talking here about bona fide refugees who come here after being duly processed by the proper authorities. No, the problems Collacott identifies relate almost entirely to "refugee claimants," or self-serving economic migrants who show up unannounced, often without documents. Disturbingly, Collacott estimates that as many as 45,000 "claimants" have simply disappeared in Canada over the past half dozen years, after failing to show up for scheduled hearings into their refugee claims. Among them (although admittedly the proportion is low) are convicted terrorists, murderous gang leaders, drug dealers and other dangerous thugs. That so many of them should remain at liberty for so long is a national disgrace. And yet Collacott describes a scandalous, politically motivated policy that works in their favour -- to the huge disadvantage of Canadian taxpayers, who foot an annual bill as high as $4 billion to sustain it. He cites a glaring flaw in our much-vaunted Charter of Rights which, astonishingly, gives claimants rights identical to those of Canadian citizens the moment they set foot on Canadian soil. It is abundantly clear from Collacott's report that Canada's well-meaning efforts to make the country a sanctuary for genuine refugees have drifted into a mismanaged, bureaucratic chaos that cries out for a comprehensive overhaul. The previous Liberal government, largely for electoral reasons, shamefully shirked its responsibilities in this regard. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government should not make the same mistake.

Don't expect anything to change. It's just wouldn't be Canadian.

Ed