In the Eighties, I remember watching the movie Hairspray, and being shocked at the uproarious laughter from the audience after watching Velma Von Tussle ask Edna Turnblad if her daughter was a...mulatto.
I like John Waters' movies, but that part always made me uncomfortable, even though it was used in the context of making fun of people that try to use that word as an insult. I still find it hard to hear that word, yet it doesn't seem to hold the same amount of disdain or contempt that it once did. I suppose it still depends on who uses it, and how they intended to use it.
A word that now seems to have found popular usage exclusively as a pejorative word among racist nativist xenophobes, is the word "anchor baby"(from 9500liberty):
In looking up the wiki definition for anchor baby, it appears to have started being used in the early eighties, yet I don't recall hearing of it myself until the late nineties, possibly due to a rise in undocumented latino immigration at that time.
At least wikipedia gets it right in defining the term as a child born of immigrant parents. In contrast, here's how the racist, nativist hate group, FAIR, defines the term, on their website:
"An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth."
I don't know about you, but when I hear the term offspring, I think of baby animals. I think of spawn, progeny. Tadpoles are offspring. I don't think of those terms as adequate to describe human beings. That FAIR (and it really should be called UNFAIR, btw) thinks this is a perfectly acceptable word to describe a human being, is very telling, and is also reflected in how others argue that we are just being overly "PC", or too sensitive. Yet, these are usually the same people that are quick to say they are not racists. Who's the sensitve one now? They are usually the last to see, too, how word usage leads to attitudes, which lead to certain levels of contempt and hatred for others perceived not as humans but as animals, which then lead people to think it's okay to attack people, even to kill, other human beings. Sadly, this is not obvious to them, and so it also enables themselves to think they are being "patriotic" and "christian". After all, what could be more patriotic than defending our country against "...an unarmed invasion of aliens, whose weapons are their anchor babies?"
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
What is disturbing, as was pointed out by Anabel Park in the video, is that these are terms used as preconditions for war, to dehumanize the enemy, only in this case it is a culture war against latinos/hispanics in the US, and people who are perceived as such, and the words mexican, illegal, anchor babies, aliens, and criminals, and tons of other obscene words have become acceptable, not only in local discourse, but in the mainstream media, on a national level.
First of all, the term refers to ANY child born to parents who are in this country illegally OF ANY RACE! If they are Russian, Irish, Canadian, and they are using an American-born child to "anchor" themselves to this country, the term used is "anchor baby." It is NOT a slur against a particular race! It is a fact that illegals use their U.S.-born children as an arguing point against deportation ("tearing families apart").
I have seen Tony Cheek over on HB make obvious reference to the children of WHITE parents as "crotchfruit." Maybe you would rather us use THAT term to describe them?
I am just so sick and tired of people like you using this goddam race sh*t!
And what evidence does you have that FAIR is a "hateful, racist, xenohobe" organization? Oh, yeah, that's right...any organization which opposes your amnesty agenda is racist, hateful, and xenophobic! Yeah, right!
Anonymous: It is NOT a slur against a particular race!
yes. it is.
Anonymous: I am just so sick and tired of people like you using this goddam race sh*t!
I don't use goddam race sh*t, whatever that is
FAIR is a "hateful, racist, xenohobe" organization? Oh, yeah, that's right...any organization which opposes your amnesty agenda is racist, hateful, and xenophobic! Yeah, right!
I oppose FAIR because it is presented in the media as, well, fair, and it's clear that it is anything but. Also, many of its members are white supremists who believe and spread racist conspiracy theories, and actually believe in eugenics. Furthermore, I don't have an amnesty agenda.
I'd rather have my child called an anchor baby than "crotchfruit" by the illegal aliens sympathizers, anti-whites like yourself.
Anonymous,
Whatever. I'd rather that all children, (and adults, for that matter), are referred to, and treated, as human beings, regardless of status.
And being opposed to racism and oppression doesn't make me anti-white. I do not stoop down to your level of name calling, but some may. An eye for an eye.
You can leave your anonymous comments here, it just proves the points I've made.
Anonymous,
I just conducted a very cursory google search on the origin and usage of "crotchfruit", because I've never heard the term before.
It looks like the American Dialect Society chose it for "Most Outrageous Word for 2005", which simply means child or children, and was perhaps inspired by the expression "the fruit of one's loins", and began among proponents of child-free public spaces, but
has since spread to parents who use it jocularly.
It doesn't even come close to being an accurate comparison to the way "anchor baby" is used almost exclusively against the latino/hispanic community at the present time. Sure, the term anchor baby may not have started out that way, but during our current debate on immigration, it is now targeted mainly to the latino/hispanic community.
So, unless you can prove widespread and exclusive usage by hispanic/latino people, (rather than just one Hispanic--Tony Cheek), to describe white babies only, I suggest you can it. It's just grasping at straws.
The term "crotchfruit" was used to describe white babies only by an illegal alien sympathizing, white hating racist. This person makes deragatory remarks about white people all the time and refers to them as rednecks, trailer trash, nazis, etc. There is no way that using "crotchfruit" as a way to describe white babies is meant to be flattering. Nice try, but no cigar.
The term "anchor baby" is a term used to describe ALL babies born on our soil by illegal aliens. It isn't a slur against the baby itself it is a slur against the parents who gave birth on our soil to anchor themselves unto our country.
So you have a vested interest in illegal immigration because you have a gay boyfriend in Mexico? What a selfish motive when illegal immigration into our country is such a negative. I have no use for people who put their own selfish agenda above what is best for this country and its citizens in general. There is nothing in my remarks that could even remotely be equated with racism. You and your ilk have overplayed your race card and it is worn out and lacks any credibility. But then again that is all you have, isn't it?
"It doesn't even come close to being an accurate comparison to the way "anchor baby" is used almost exclusively against the latino/hispanic community at the present time."
And who is it that makes it about the Latino/Hispanic community? Are all illegal immigrants Hispanic/Latino? No they are not. They may be the majority, but they are not all. You have used the term only to point to a single ethnicity/race, when in fact there are more than one ethnicity/race as illegal immigrants.
I already explained the term "anchor baby" and that is it really is a negative term attached to the parent's actions and not the baby's but then you couldn't cry victim without making something else out of it instead, could you? It is a term used for ALL babies from illegal aliens, not just Hispanics. As I said, nice try but no cigar.
"Crotchfruit" when it was used by one of you anti-whites was meant to be a mean and hateful remark towards white babies. Lie all you want but it is the truth as I know who it came from and he constantly slams the white race.
Anonymous,
The way crotchfruit originated was possibly, according to the American Dialect Society, from a saying "the fruit of one's lions." People, as in the general American public, picked it up. That ONE hispanic man on a forum uses it against white people as a slur, doesn't equate that in any way with how anchor baby is used and understood in the context of our immigration debate.
You can restate the definition to me all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that when Lou Dobbs talks about "anchors" he is referring to children of latino/hispanic immigrants. Sadly, this has become acceptable in public discourse.
Anchor babies are also the children of these people:
http://irishvoices.blogspot.com/
If you want to object to the term as being perjorative, that's one thing; make the argument based upon that premise. But racist it is not as "illegal" is not a race.
The race card is so overused that there is now a danger of true cases of racism not being taken seriously.
anonymous said: It isn't a slur against the baby itself it is a slur against the parents who gave birth on our soil to anchor themselves unto our country.
I've been accused of being an anchor baby. I'm not mexican. I'm not even latino or hispanic. I look mexican, and it was intended to be an insult against me. It is an offensive term, and shouldn't be used to describe anyone.
Sam said: The race card is so overused that there is now a danger of true cases of racism not being taken seriously.
It's easy to accuse someone of using the race card or being a victim, isn't it, Sam. I am not someone who uses any card. I call it as I see it. I don't jump to this conclusion, but a spade is a spade. It's out there and it is against latino and hispanic people and people that look like them.
anonymous said: So you have a vested interest in illegal immigration because you have a gay boyfriend in Mexico? What a selfish motive when illegal immigration into our country is such a negative. I have no use for people who put their own selfish agenda above what is best for this country and its citizens in general.
No, I don't have a vested interest in illegal immigration, but a vested interest in changing the laws, through Comprehensive Immigration Reform, so that illegal immigration can be decreased if not eliminated. It is a common misconception to think that because I value human life and dignity, I'm for illegal immigration. I'm for reform; I'm for CIR, which doesn't punish a group of hard working poor people that have much to contribute to our society.
As far as being gay and having a Mexican boyfriend, would it be selfish for a straight man to find a mexican girlfriend, fall in love with her and want to marry her, and to sponsor her for citizenship so that she could live with him at his residence in the US? There is no similar process for gay people to do that. Do you think it's selfish for ANY US citizen to fall in love with someone from Mexico, or just gay people?
How sad that you think of love as a selfish act. Maybe you don't love anyone, then. How generous of you.
Dave, the facts are that if 80% of illegals in this country were Russian, Irish, or Romanian, it would be their children who would come to mind when the term "anchor baby" was used.
Like I said, if you object to the term, that's understandable. But the term in and of itself is not based upon race. These parents use their U.S. born children as a means to attempt to "anchor" themselves to the country. One of the main arguments against deportation is that it "tears families apart." Why? Because the U.S. citizen children are here, and the non-citizen parent is deported.
On that note, however, at least in the case of Mexico, that country offers Mexican citizenship to any child born here of Mexican nationals. So in reality, the children are just as much Mexican citizens as American.
I would say that if the immigration laws were enforced and the public knew that only those who were supposed to be here were here, negative experiences such as yours would be greatly diminished if not vanish altogether.
sam said: Like I said, if you object to the term, that's understandable. But the term in and of itself is not based upon race. These parents use their U.S. born children as a means to attempt to "anchor" themselves to the country. One of the main arguments against deportation is that it "tears families apart." Why? Because the U.S. citizen children are here, and the non-citizen parent is deported.
I do object to this term, just as much as I object to crotchfruit, when used to describe white babies, and that isn't even how crotchfruit is widely used.
I also never disputed that the term in and of itself was not meant solely for hispanic/latino children. But that is how it is currently being used, regardless of its original definition and intent. I would object to it's use for Russian babies, if they were 80% of the undocumented here, if it was used with as much hatred and venom as it is currently used. It is not an objective term, and insults the parent and the child.
It also makes it convenient for people to minimize the person to nothing more than an object, similar to saying that children are offspring, or that mexicans have a specific breeding period, or spawning time.
I still don't understand what you find offensive about the word "anchor." It isn't like the "N" word or some other racial slur. It describes the parent's actions!
I live in Calif. where Latinos both legal and illegal are a big part of our population. I don't see all this discrimination that you are whining about. I am sure that it happens occasionally but you act like it is something out of control. It isn't!
Yes, I would feel the same way about a hetrosexual couple who fell in love between two borders. Their personal situation shouldn't be treated any different than a gay couple. No country should alter their immigration policies for either.
Now the word "offspring" is also a derogatory word? That's really stretching it, Dave. Offspring is a commonly used word, even in literature. So is the word "progeny." In fact, progeny is used in the preamble of the Constitution if I am not mistaken. Seems as though you are really looking for a reason to be offended with those examples.
Sorry, Dave. The word I was thinking of which is in the preamble is "posterity." Still, there is nothing at all wrong with the words "offspring" or "progeny."
Anonymous said: I still don't understand what you find offensive about the word "anchor." It isn't like the "N" word or some other racial slur. It describes the parent's actions!
The N word was an acceptable word to use in the past, too, before the civil rights movement.
The word anchor baby may have had a definition and original intent that wasn't racist, but arguably, it is now being used as a racial slur.
Maybe you are one who has to experience being judged, limited, or objectified, by your race, or perceived race, to understand completely what I'm saying. Some people do not need to experience directly what racism and oppression feels like, because they have something you obviously don't have. It's called empathy.
anonymous said: I am sure that it happens occasionally but you act like it is something out of control. It isn't!
I'm sure it probably happens more in your state than in mine. I myself do not experience this daily, or even monthly. I write about what I see happening in the world, and from my experiences. I don't feel like I've exaggerated anything here.
anonymous said: Yes, I would feel the same way about a hetrosexual couple who fell in love between two borders. Their personal situation shouldn't be treated any different than a gay couple. No country should alter their immigration policies for either.
But what you don't even know about immigration policy is that straight people can fall in love between two countries, and they can legally marry and sponsor their partner for citizenship. Gays cannot. That is what the current immigration laws allow. Are you saying this should be changed? So, in your words, because there is a debate about the rise in undocumented immigrants mostly from Mexico and Latin American countries, no US citizen, gay or straight, should fall in love with someone from Mexico or any other Latin American ountry? Why?! That is just preposterous! People can and do fall in love from people of other nationalities, including with Mexican Nationals, but only straights can sponsor them for citizenship. That is part of legal immigration. Are you saying that we shouldn't be able to allow that to happen? And could you explain then how that is being selfish, or putting one's needs before one's country, if that is perfectly legal to do? Falling in love and wanting to be with the one you love is not selfish, it is a natural thing for humans to want. Are you saying it's selfish and unpatriotic to sponsor someone from Mexico legally to get citizenship, because too many of "them" come here unauthorized or undocumented, that we shouldn't let any more of "them" in? Then you are opposed to legal immigration as well.
sam said: Still, there is nothing at all wrong with the words "offspring" or "progeny."
Oh, I agree. Nothing is wrong at all with the words themselves. But look them up. While they are perfectly acceptable words, they are often used more as biological terms when describing animals. The intentions of people behind word choice is also at play, rather than the words themselves. I've been on hateful racist blogs where people use terms often used for animals, and that shows us exactly what they feel toward a group of other human beings.
Anonymous, the thing is that heterosexuals can apply to bring in their fiance or spouse legally; whereas a gay partner cannot.
There are ignorant and racist people in all groups. I, too, have been on pro-illegal blogs where hostile and racist terms were used against whites and even African Americans who did not go along with their amnesty agenda. So that cuts both ways. There are extremists on both sides of the issue.
Sam, I agree. There are lots of people all across the board, on both sides. It is sad. We need to get past that if we can possibly come up with solutions.
I do want to point out that I don't know of any pro-illegal blogs, and that I'm not pro-illegal. I want people to be able to legally immigrate here, and not have to resort to illegal immigration. I do not want illegal immigration to continue, and I'm not for open borders. I just differ from what most Antis want to do with the 12 million undocumented people already here. I do not adocate for deporting them all, that is not feasible, and arguably not beneficial, either.
sam said: There are ignorant and racist people in all groups. I, too, have been on pro-illegal blogs where hostile and racist terms were used against whites and even African Americans who did not go along with their amnesty agenda. So that cuts both ways. There are extremists on both sides of the issue.
I meant to say "advocate", as in:
I do not advocate for deporting them all, that is not feasible, and arguably not beneficial, either.
Dave, I think anyone should be able to fall in love with whomever they want to but not expect any country to change its immigration laws over it to fit their particular circumstances. I oppose this law as it stands now for hetrosexual couples. Why you ask? Because that isn't what immigration should be about and too many people are scamming it with phoney relationships.
The "N" word was never acceptable, you are full of it! I asked you what is offensive about the word "anchor" and you never answered. I don't care if we offend these illegal alien parents anyway. We are suppose to worry about offending law breakers in this country?
Au contre, if you think as a white person I haven't been discriminated against or been the victim of racism. There is plenty of brown racism in this state!
I am not opposed to legal immigration in fair quotas from many ethnic groups/nationalities. Mexico has abused their fair share many times over thru illegal immgration.
Is is absolutely feasible to deport as many illegals as possible in this country either voluntarily or involuntarily as demanded by our laws. It would be absolutely beneficial to our country also.
anonymous said: I oppose this law as it stands now for hetrosexual couples. Why you ask? Because that isn't what immigration should be about and too many people are scamming it with phoney relationships.
Well, it IS what immigration is about, including almost 20 other countries that, unlike the US, do allow same sex couples as well, to sponsor their partners for citizenship through marriage. But that's fine, you can be opposed to it, if you like. You're entitled to your opinion. And Scams do happen. Couples that marry are scrutinized to fight this from happening, but there are people who will marry for citizenship in mind as a main goal, not love. But at least they are doing it legally, right? If you are so opposed to migrating illegally, why be opposed to something that is legal?
What I want is fairness. Gay love is no different than Straight love, and so, they shouldn't be treated any differently, or have less rights, including the right to sponsor someone who is from another country. We as a country continue to be so hung up our definition of what marriage should be.
About the N word, open your history books. The N word was never acceptable for black people, but a majority of people DID find it acceptable to use against black people, who were not considered human, just property.
Anonymous said: I don't care if we offend these illegal alien parents anyway. We are suppose to worry about offending law breakers in this country?
Yes, obviously you do not care if you offend. Yes, we should worry, because we stereotype people, scapegoat, dehumanize, and criminalize an entire race/ethnicity/nationality, and that is not what our country should be about. We are better than that. Fix the problem of people coming in unauthorized, but stop placing the blame solely on poor hardworking families and individuals who have come here to seek a better life, and have been here, and have contributed greatly to this country. They are a symptom, not the entire problem.
anonymous said: There is plenty of brown racism in this state!
I'm sure that's how you see it. I'm sure it exists. But not every person who oposses inhumane treatment of undocumented immigrants is a brown racist! I don't dispute that whites also deal with hatred and racism committed against them by brown people. That's too bad, and as I told Sam earlier, we as a country need to get past that. Otherwise we are just pointing fingers of blame at each other.
I have every right to dislike a certain law just as you do, don't I? The difference is that I still honor it and don't call others who disagree with me, racists or other names for it.
That is what I meant! The "N" word was never acceptable to black people and they were citizens! Anchor baby applies to the act of illegal alien parents that is a scam. That is a whole different scenario! I don't care if I offend law breakers!
I have my own reasons for objecting to gay marriage. Much of it is based on the teachings of the Bible. That is an issue that doesn't need to be discussed with immigration.
There is no dehumanizing of an etire ethnic group in this country. Stretching the truth doesn't lend much to your credibility. Try seperating legal from illegal for starters. No one is blameng just the illegals either. Our government and the employers are to blame also.
There are rules to follow to seek a better life in this country. You can't make your own up and disregard them.
Did I say that everyone who sympathizes with illegal aliens is a brown racist but you have to admit it is mostly Latinos who are in this country illegally and mostly Latinos who are vying for them and calling other Americans racists for objecting to that. Hmm. If the shoe fits.....
Is is absolutely feasible to deport as many illegals as possible in this country either voluntarily or involuntarily as demanded by our laws. It would be absolutely beneficial to our country also.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. IMO, it isn't a feasible, or realistic option; I've discussed this on Dee's blogsite, Immigration Talk with a Mexican American, and presented my views there. The raids and deportations we've seen have made but a very minute dent, with some very real humanitarian concerns that frankly, I don't see the next administration advocating for them to continue. It is also not reasonable to think that self-deportation will happen on any significant level, no matter how many laws get enacted making life miserable for the undocumented. There are too many undocumented people and people who advocate for them. We've already seen ICE fail miserably with "Operation Scheduled Departure" a few months ago. It failed miserably with about ten people leaving voluntarily. Plus, enacting more laws that make it difficult to live here as an undocumented immigrant, would just drive that population more into the shadows, living in places that are more accepting of others, in some sort of underground economy, and depending on employers willing to go against the law to hire them. They will learn to adapt, however miserable it might get.
That is what I meant! The "N" word was never acceptable to black people and they were citizens!
I agree. It was never acceptable to black people, as I've stated. But go a little futher into a history book, would you, and you'll recall a time when blacks were NOT considered citizens; they were barely more than property. They didn't have any opportunity to object to it's usage, which was widespread and common among whites. They were the true citizens of the land at that time period.
The raids have been very effective in arresting, detaining and deporting illegal aliens. They have been very effective in punishing corrupt employers also. If every employer is mandated to use e-verify, there won't be many jobs for illegal aliens. If we deny any taxpayer benefits to them that would also be less reason for them to stay here. Re-interpreting the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment would be another one. Really securing our borders is another. If all of the above occurs we could reduce illegal immigration by millions! You know that! We don't expect that it will remove every single one of them but we can settle for only 20% of what we have now.
The difference is that I still honor it and don't call others who disagree with me, racists or other names for it.
Yeah, instead you just call them anti-white, and for illegal immigration, which are both false. Where exactly did I call you a racist? I believe I called FAIR a racist organization. I believe I talked about racism and oppression, and the growing acceptability of a term that didn't used to be targeted so strongly against latinos and hispanics with strong hatred and vehemence!
I believe the people most worried about being called racists, are the ones who go on Pro-CIR sites to accuse the blogger of being anti-white.
anonymous said: I have my own reasons for objecting to gay marriage. Much of it is based on the teachings of the Bible. That is an issue that doesn't need to be discussed with immigration.
You don't have to discuss gay marriage with immigration issues with me, but that is a topic that should be discussed, and will continue to be discussed, because that is my reality, my issue, and the reality of thousands of couples like me and my partner. You don't have to comment on it, but the issue will not just go away, and you'll have to deal with it existing in the world, and in the immigration debate.
anonymous said:That is a whole different scenario! I don't care if I offend law breakers!
This statement is almost the epitomy of what I'm talking about with this post. You generalize using this type of terminology: "law breakers". Undocumented and unauthorized immigrants are a wide varied group that includes families, workers, the elderly, the disabled, babies, etc; to call them all criminals illegals, and law breakers is like calling someone who gets drunk once an alcoholic for the rest of their lives, which just isn't accurate. There is much more to people than their immigration status or citizenship status!
No, I do not call them anti-white for that. I call them anti-white when they make anti-white, deragatory remarks! Don't put words in my mouth. You don't know me anyway and I have never said that in here. They are FOR illegal immigrants. In otherwords they think they should be rewarded by staying here. It is the same thing basically.
Did I say that YOU personally called me a racist? No, I did not. What I am saying is that what most of the pro-illegals do to the anti-illegals.
Again, I don't call anyone anti-white unless they make a racial slur about whites or call them nativists or xenophobes just because the are pro-laws.
When I call illegal aliens lawbreakers I am directly referring to their violation of our immigration laws. It doesn't mean that I believe they all commit other crimes. You are reading more into what I said to fit your agenda.
The raids have been very effective in arresting, detaining and deporting illegal aliens. They have been very effective in punishing corrupt employers also.
Effective is almost a matter of opinion. Again, these raids that have been taking place are barely making a dent in the total population, if we are to assume that you'd like to see 10-12 million people deported. Some groups like FAIR inflate the number of undocumented immigrants to 38 million, which is false, being that estimates of the foreign born, illegal and legal, do not even amount to that. Even if that number was accurate, how would our government deport them all? Again, not feasible. We can't even agree on governemtn bailouts, how would we agree to hundreds of billions of dollars to deport millions of people? People who are intertwined with legal citizens and families? It would never happen. There are enough people here who would object.
And what was that about punishing employers? Where is the punishment for Howard Industries
See Dee's post from the other day, at:
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2008/11/detention-center-abuses-in-geo-groups.html
Dave,
Great Video!
I am going to borrow it and put in on my blog!
BTW,I see you have "fun" anonymous posters like I do.
Why cant they ever be positive?
If you don't call rounding up hundreds of illegal aliens in just one raid and fining the employers millions of dollars effective, then I don't know what is. Of course it only makes a dent in the millions that are here but we have to start somewhere, don't we? Just think if that happened in every business across the nation. E-verify will eliminate a lot of the need for workplace raids. E-verify is the answer to eliminating most jobs to illegal aliens and you know it!
You must have a reading comprehension problem. We don't need to spend tons of money deporting illegals if the above occurs. Most will leave on their own if there are no jobs and benefits for them here.
It doesn't matter who objects to their leaving. The laws are the laws!
I don't know about Howard industries but Agiprocessors and many others have already been punished. It has to be proven that they knowingly hired illegal aliens. Some have and some have not. Another good argument to mandate e-verify. They will have no more excuses.
anonymous said: No, I do not call them anti-white for that. I call them anti-white when they make anti-white, deragatory remarks! Don't put words in my mouth. You don't know me anyway and I have never said that in here. They are FOR illegal immigrants. In otherwords they think they should be rewarded by staying here. It is the same thing basically.
Did I say that YOU personally called me a racist? No, I did not. What I am saying is that what most of the pro-illegals do to the anti-illegals.
Again, I don't call anyone anti-white unless they make a racial slur about whites or call them nativists or xenophobes just because the are pro-laws.
When I call illegal aliens lawbreakers I am directly referring to their violation of our immigration laws. It doesn't mean that I believe they all commit other crimes. You are reading more into what I said to fit your agenda.
One of the limitations of this format is that when you come here to post, if I see an ANTI posting as anonymous, I will treat you as all the other anonymous posters out there. I have no choice. There is nothing to indicate you are not the older anonymous poster that spewed junk at me. It helps to distiguish yourself by selecting a name from the others, which may also include PROs who are anonymous.
Nevertheless, you still get a couple of things wrong that I want to correct: One is that I'm not Pro-illegal, I'm PRO, in that I'm for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I don't believe in blanket amnesty and/or open obrders. I believe it is not feasible to deport our problems away, or for enforcement only approaches. I believe the 12 million or so who are undocumented should be penalized and should pay heavily for being here, but not deported or criminalized.
Another thing is that, when undocumented immigrants are referred collectively as law breakers or criminal aliens, it is a gross generalization that doesn't fit the population talked about. I'm not reading into it when many people choose to equate this population of about 12 million as "illegals". I'm sure you've heard this before, and that it sounds like a cliche, but 'No Human Being is Illegal'; that is something I firmly believe in, and that it is important that the words we use reflect that. Call me sensitive with words, or too 'PC', I see how words lead to attitudes, which lead to hatred, which leads to oppression and then violence.
anonymous said: E-verify is the answer to eliminating most jobs to illegal aliens and you know it!
Ok, let's see it happen!
Oh wait, it's not happening. Why is that? Maybe you can find out what's happening for me.
anonymous said: You must have a reading comprehension problem. We don't need to spend tons of money deporting illegals if the above occurs. Most will leave on their own if there are no jobs and benefits for them here.
It doesn't matter who objects to their leaving. The laws are the laws!
And laws are decided by whom? Government action relies on whom?
Anyway, I talked about cost of deportation on Dee's blog, regarding the ICE raid in Postville IA, which was a miniscule number compared to the estimated 11.5 million more workers that ICE would need to deport. The cost at Postville IA came to about $13,396 per immigrant worker! So, if you do the math, that would be about 154 BILLION DOLLARS to deport 11.5 million undocumented immigrant workers! Again, who is it that decides on laws and actions in our country? Will we ever get concensus to allow that type of spending to occur? Would we ever decide to give 154 BILLION dollars to ICE to do that?
That is exactly what I said! I said pro illegals are for rewarding illegals thru your version of CIR. Therefore they are pro-illegals! It means the same thing to me. I said nothing about open borders! I am totally opposed to your version of CIR. We can make sure that the majority of them self-deport. So it is feasible. You just don't want it for your own personal reasons.
It is silly to make the statement that no human is illegal because it has no place in the immigration debate. A person can be illegally in a country and you know that is what this is really all about.
One of the problems with your Pro-CIRers is that you twist legal and aptly descriptive words and terms into hate words when they clearly are not!
Dee,
You're welcome. The video was from 9500 liberty, which has more than several others that are just as informative and also troubling, but good to watch.
Still haven't had time to go over to your blog; had some car problems last night that led to a minor police incident, but it wasn't bad or anything. I might post about it, though. Or not. I haven't decided.
anonymous said: A person can be illegally in a country and you know that is what this is really all about.
Ah, but that is not all that he or she is! That is what this is really all about!
You can differ on what CIR, but I am not for amnesty. If I was, I would suggest doing nothing, because amnesty is already happening.
anonymous said: One of the problems with your Pro-CIRers is that you twist legal and aptly descriptive words and terms into hate words when they clearly are not!
Words are just words; what's behind them makes all the difference. Have you ever been verbally taunted, harassed, or threatened for who you were, or who you were percieved to be? Words can be very powerful; it depends on who uses them and how they are used, and what the intent of the person has, in using them.
anonymous said: We can make sure that the majority of them self-deport.
I think you underestimate the power and resiliency of the people in question, and you forget just who makes up this country. People like...me! Look at your statement again: We can make sure that the majority of them self-deport.
Utter nonsense. Self deport? Get real.
So you think that 12-20 million illegals will stay here without jobs and benefits? You are the one who should get real. They can't all work under the table and hide out forever.
People like YOU are among the minority in this counry and thank God for that!
"It is also not reasonable to think that self-deportation will happen on any significant level, no matter how many laws get enacted making life miserable for the undocumented. There are too many undocumented people and people who advocate for them."
This is a troubling statement to me. If you take this to the next logical step, you will end up here: if amnesty is granted, the power of this constituency will only grow. If they decide they want open borders (and that is the ultimate agenda for many of them, not merely "humane" treatment for those already here), then by your logic, open borders we will have as there will be "too many people who advocate for it." Do you see the inherent danger in going down this road?
There are too many people now who are only looking out for their particular groups' best interests (or their own personal interests) without a care in the world as to how it affects the nation as a whole now AND IN THE FUTURE. This attitude will only continue and grow stronger with yet another amnesty untile we are no longer able to maintain our sovereignty (which is the goal of many on the pro illegal side.)
You may not want open borders, but many on your side do. There are the "everyone should be able to come here for a better life" types and the globalists who think that sovereign nations an anachronism and want a never-ending supply of cheap labor until we are all reduced to third world status. I don't think people who hold your views see the big picture in what is going on. There is much more at stake than you are willing to acknowledge.
Do you realize that since the blanket 1986 amnesty that we have had six more targeted amnesties?? Our immigration laws are becoming a joke, only applying to those who CHOOSE to respect them. This needs to stop. And it will not stop with yet another amnesty. All that will do is send out a strong message yet again that we do not take our immigration laws seriously and that anyone who can make it in here or overstay a visa need only hang in there and wait until the political pressure builds for another amnesty. Again comes that word: national sovereignty.
I agree that raids are not all that effective. The raids are mostly targeted towards those who have defied standing deportation orders, known felons, or those involved in identity theft. When ICE goes on these raids, they know for whom they search. It does not address the problem.
What is needed is internal enforcement such as e-verify or a tamper-proof national I.D. and a data base to track visa overstayers. Until we cut off the magnet which draws illegals here; namely, jobs, benefits, education for their children, they will continue to come.
Mostly, those against yet another amnesty feel this way for a variety of very practical reasons, none having to do with race. At least that is my experience.
I appreciate your comments, Sam. I also appreciate that you point out that not everyone on the Pro side thinks alike, just as I am not quick to call everyone on the Anti side a racist, or injecting race into the issue.
Regarding people who advocate for undocumented immigrants, they do not necessarily advocate for increasing the numbers of undocumented immigrants coming here.
You make the assumption that open borders would be the next logical step just from sheer numbers of a supposedly unified constituency. You forget that the 12 million includes people that already live here and are contributing members of society that want to be part of this country, and given citizenship status, of course, after paying heavily for their being undocumented or unauthorized, plus a few other stipulations, would not necessarily be all for open borders, not even a majority of them. You forget that we also live in post 9/11 America; no matter how many open borders advocates argue that terrorist threats coming from the South remain to be seen, it is still conceivable that terrorists can sneak in; it just makes sense to have a closed border. Open Borders will never happen. Yes, there are some who feel like an open border would make sense. I can’t speak for everyone on the Pro side, but I don’t think that is the majority, nor do I think the constituencies could collectively advocate for that to happen. But I do see the big picture and it does include things that the Anti side wants in terms of greater security and enforcement. I do acknowledge that there is a lot at stake. It is a complex problem that deserves a well thought out plan of action, but it can no longer be ignored and deserves more than an enforcement only approach.
aonymous said: People like YOU are among the minority in this counry and thank God for that!
Am I the minority in this country?
Dave, the problem is that we cannot take any action towards legalizing any of those here unless we secure the borders, and create an efficient system for internal enforcement and to track visa overstayers. Anything less is just a repeat of 1986. We'd have to be totally stupid to repeat that debacle as we can see where it led us.
Whatever we do, we do not want to end up with yet another situation where we have another 10 or 20 million illegals here in another 10 or 20 years. And that is exactly what will happen if we do not do what I said above.
Once the illegals are legalized, they will no longer be able to be exploited. That would be a good thing. However, without a secure border, internal enforcement, and a tracking system, employers will only hire more illegals who make their way in.
The plain truth of the matter is that many Americans, myself included, do not trust the government to secure the borders and stop illegal immigration. There are too many pressure groups and lobbyists who are gaining from this constant influx of illegals. I believe you underestimate the power of these pressure groups. The ethnocentric groups do not want to stem the flow; they have an ethnic/political agenda to fulfill. The globalist, free trade types want their unending supply of cheap labor.
American citizens were promised back in 1986 at the time of the last blanket amnesty: Henceforth our borders would be secured and the immigration laws enforced. We will never revisit the topic of amnesty again.
Why would we possibly believe them this time around, particularly when both the ethnocentric special interest groups and the open borders globalists have even more influence than they did 20 years ago?
I am not sure that open borders will not happen. We really have had de facto open borders for 40 years, and despite 9/11 they still have not really been adquately secured. Many of those who will be legalized also have friends and relatives who will want to come here. This is what happened after the last amnesty. That amnesty only encouraged more illegal immigration of folks coming to join their relatives here who aided and abetted them. This cannot continue. We have a right just as any other sovereign nation to control our population and immigration.
As well, I hope you understand that immigration policy is set for the benefit of the receiving country and not those wishing to immigrate. No country sets immigration policy to suit potential immigrants.
In this hypercompetitive global economy, we need immigrants who will help us to maintain a competitive edge. Millions upon millions of mostly uneducated and poor immigrants is not what we need to stay competitive in the 21st century.
I personally think we need to go to a point system such as the one used in Australia. That would be an objective system which would give people from a variety of countries a chance to immigrate here. We need to change from a mostly "family reunification" process to one based more on a merit-based approach. Family reunification should only apply to spouses and minor children, with parents in hardship cases ONLY if the family assumes responsibility for them.
We really have no choice if we wish to remain competitive in this global economy. We can no longer treat our immigration system as some kind of extension of affirmative action. We cannot maintain our standard of living and opportunities for our citizens if we do not make these changes.
Another comment I forgot to include: while some of those here illegally wish to become part of this nation, many could care less about it. They merely came here to work; they retain their affinity and loyalty to their country of origin and if conditions were to improve in their own countries, they would return like a shot.
I see no benefit to offering people such as this citizenship when they did not come here to become citizens. They only came here out of a desire to improve their economic situation. Some of them had jobs in their home countries, but chose to come here where they could make even more $$$. When they get what they want, they often return home to start up their own businesses, build homes, whatever. I see no point in offering people with no interest in this nation citizenship.
In fact, quite a few of these illegals have a downright hostile attitude towards this nation and its population in general. Maybe you don't see it so much where you live. But if you lived in So. CA, it would be very apparent that what I am saying is the truth.
Too many people have died fighting for this country--of all races and ethnicities--to so cheapen U.S. citizenship IMO.
Sam,
Again, thank you for posting. I actually agree with a lot of what you point out and are saying. I too don't want a repeat of 1986 amnesty.
Again, there is a lot to this, but you do bring up very good points.
Dave
Sam, I agree with your comment. I live in a border city and have experience a lot of hostility and just plain bad manners from some of the 85% Hispanic that live in my city. I do not consider it good manners when an Hispanic switches to Spanish when I enter a room. That is hurtful and childish and I cannot understand why they would do that other than they are showing animosity towards me for the color of my skin and trying to send me some kind of message.
Post a Comment