Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The like button is apparently taking another vacation, so I repped.
Build That Wall!!
- Thread starter BYE
- Start date
So you're treating one's country as you would one's possessions? I don't think it's the same. The US is "my country" for the simple fact that I happen to live in this geographic location. If anyone wants to come over and be part of my country, then they're most welcome. We'll get more workers, thinkers, artists, cooks, and everything else that makes life worth living. We'll also get some **** that we don't need (like crime), but hey, that's the price of dealing with humans.
Ideally, we would get rid of this whole notion of "countries", and live in smaller communities that are part of a larger global community. I don't see the issue with free movement across borders, and I don't think national sovereignty is all that it's cracked up to be.
I'm on my phone, so I might elaborate further at some future point.
Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. At first glance, it sounds a bit like a utopia. I also assume you have more of a Marxist perspective on societies in general. I agree that one of the greatest things that makes America great (note the present tense) is our diversity, in every sense of the word. To me, pure capitalism can be an absolute virus, but capitalism with a healthy dowsing of socialism, hopefully on a global scale, seems like the most sustainable way to have advancement and equality. I don't pretend to have the solution to the issues each of these alone produces.
I see each person's response to a border/geographical demarcation of an ideology and fixed resources as directly related to his/her fundamental leaning towards capitalism or socialism. As a society, we have ideas of space. We have ideas of boundaries. Within these boundaries, groups excel at certain activities. For example, a family is demarcated by a house, and within this house, they may have a particularly harmonious environment. They have the right to refuse or accept people into this environment.
If I apply to Harvard, and they don’t accept me, I cannot force my way into Harvard. They have set the standards for their particular group of thousands of people in a geographical space, and they produce some of the highest advancements in most subjects. Their act of exclusion is largely responsible for their advancement (plus the instruction provided). This group has an ideology and certain standards. This allows them to change the world and produce something exemplary.
Now, expand the numbers of people and multiply the space. This is a country. It can be Sweden’s 9.5 million or America’s 320 million. Either way, the exclusion of some people and inclusion of others allows a certain country to strive for a particular ideology and result. The same rules apply irrespective of the sizes involved. I could go on, but if one believes that capitalism in any form is a good thing, then, the logic of this model is sound. If capitalism is out, and socialism or communism in, then this model violates social laws at every level.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Your questions were implying nativistic answers. You asked questions that you thought led to a certain conclusion. You were confident in asking them, because so many non thinking jackasses have answered them so poorly, that you thought that the xenophobic views that you do not even recognize as such were universal. I'm passionate because they are people, they are my neighbors, and people are demonizing them.
Maybe you shouldn't be allowed into Arizona?
Giving them Visa's gives them an ID that allows them to do things like open a checking account, apply for a loan, and get a job that doesn't take advantage of their illegal status.
To a large degree we are responsible. We have controlled Latin American politics and policy. We have used our military might to force them to pay colonial debt to Europe. We have claimed those nations as under our sphere of influence. We have instituted coups. We have made them the front lines of our culture wars. We are as responsible as anybody.
Yes only a five year old or a xenophobic ******* or someone who hasn't really thought it through would shut people out without due cause.
They aren't just fleeing war and violence they are also fleeing poverty and chasing the American dream. Why can't they have that? Why can't they even try?
The issue is nowhere near as complicated as you think it is and you ignore a whole host of benefits.
If you don't have time to answer(let alone consider) the original questions I asked; Why? How? At what cost? At what consequence?, then you sir are the one that is intellectually lazy. I have answered your questions, aggressively yes, but honestly and without any hint of avoiding them. Rather than answer a question you have retreated to a position of vaguery and a piss poor attempt at being socratic. I answered your questions. If you cannot or will not answer mine then I am perfectly happy to see you resign from this conversation.
Just because the current system has proven fairly successful doesn't mean it's the only way (as in best). I have no problem in the movement toward increased economic interdependence, and I hope it continues. But none of that necessitates borders, or even national entities.
Your example of Harvard is a great way to make my point. The community that is Harvard University set a merit-based standard for admittance. Ideally, their system is to attract potential members who they think can contribute and succeed in the community. It makes sense for a community to set membership limits that matches its purpose for existence. That's how communities should work. Because as a far as a community's raison d'etre, all people ARE NOT equal. An electricians' union discriminates against those who are not electricians, and those who do not have the inclination to become one.
But what does a "country" in that sense even mean? The people in a country share an identity based on nothing but reinforcement of that identity between citizens. You're American because it was decided that an area between a bunch of imaginary lines is an entity named America. Now you can start curating the events of that entity as its history, separate from all others. But in all objective ways, the people of the country share nothing in common. There is no inherent reason for the system to exist.
Unsurprisingly, the concept and mechanics of a country is a recent thing. When did it start? Peace of Westphalia? I believe that's the usual date given. Before that, it was more fluid. And there will come a time where countries cease to exist in their current form, and humans will create other systems in their stead.
So we have a conflict in the assumptions that we make about the world. You treat countries as an inherent, meaningful, and beneficial thing. I don't. "They" can't take "my" job, because to me the division is artificial and nonsensical.
In conclusion (I'm high and I really wanna go to bed), it's difficult responding to you point by point because we are not coming from the same place. You just assume that your worldview is the default one. Your statements and questions are worded in a way that forces your perspective. So I hope I succeeded in illuminating the essence of my disagreement.
Red
Well-Known Member
I like to view the immigration "problem" from the broad perspective of the European migration to the Americas. I don't see the United States as a finished product. It's part of a continuum that we think of beginning in 1492. In fact there were Portuguese fisherman off the coast of North America decades earlier, and at least the Norse before that, but generally speaking 1492 marks the beginning of what is best seen as a great human migration and subsequent European and African population growth in the Americas. It represents, over a several hundred year period that represents a very small span of time, relative to our history on this planet, a great migration or movement of humans. (Note: I recognized that Mormons may subscribe to a different history of the Western Hemisphere which has people from the Old World arriving here far earlier)
There were people here already. Native Americans.
I look at the past several hundred years from that perspective. There are still tribes living in the Amazon jungle, close to how they have lived for thousands of years. For those tribes, the contact period of the 16th and 17th centuries is happening now. So this movement is still an ongoing process, this impact of European culture and people's on the native inhabitants of this hemisphere.
And, in seeing things in terms of this broad movement in history, I consider that most Mexican illegals, and those from Central America, are in fact Native American, and their movement now is a part of the movement and period begun in 1492. The entire history of the past leads to the present, and I'm sure one could without much difficulty see the movement of Mexican Native Americans north as precipitated by the onset and continuation of a great movement of people commencing in 1492.
Further, Native Americans of the Ute-Aztecan language groups, which most Mexicans are, originated north of the Mexican border in all likelihood. So you could view most of these Native Americans from south of the border as returning to ancestral homelands when they cross the border illegally.
I am writing from the perspective of a political fantasyland, obviously, since this is not 1492, or the aftermath of the Mexican War. It's the era of the political borders of 2016, and we expect those borders to be recognized and defended. That Mexicans are Native Americans is irrelevant in this real world. Still, understanding things as part of a movement of people set in motion in 1492 somehow increases my own tolerance, and I prefer as broad a perspective as possible.
Here is a more extreme point of view, overstated in terms of the real world just mentioned, but nonetheless, it perhaps has merit. This writer is no doubt Native American. I am not, but that has no bearing on trying to view the history of this hemisphere since 1492 in the fashion I have chosen. History is usually written from the perspective of the victors, not the vanquished. But, when seen from the perspective of the vanquished, in this case Native Americans, the increasing migration north of Latinos/Hispanics(read: Native Americans) can be seen as the re-browning of North America. Hispanics or Latinos crossing borders illegally are not really illegal aliens if in fact they are the only true native Americans to begin with. And the re-browning of America may just be the next phase in the movement of peoples commencing way back in 1492. The United States is a work in progress, not a finished product, and the events begun in 1492 are still ongoing. If descendants of white Europeans don't like this development, maybe they could think of it as the real Montezuma's revenge. So, from the perspective of history's vanquished, it is perhaps informative to realize Hispanics/Latinos, as we call them, are actually the original Native Americans, and it is possible to view history through the lens of the vanquished:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/brow...legal-aliens-please-stand-up/466715553409848/
There were people here already. Native Americans.
I look at the past several hundred years from that perspective. There are still tribes living in the Amazon jungle, close to how they have lived for thousands of years. For those tribes, the contact period of the 16th and 17th centuries is happening now. So this movement is still an ongoing process, this impact of European culture and people's on the native inhabitants of this hemisphere.
And, in seeing things in terms of this broad movement in history, I consider that most Mexican illegals, and those from Central America, are in fact Native American, and their movement now is a part of the movement and period begun in 1492. The entire history of the past leads to the present, and I'm sure one could without much difficulty see the movement of Mexican Native Americans north as precipitated by the onset and continuation of a great movement of people commencing in 1492.
Further, Native Americans of the Ute-Aztecan language groups, which most Mexicans are, originated north of the Mexican border in all likelihood. So you could view most of these Native Americans from south of the border as returning to ancestral homelands when they cross the border illegally.
I am writing from the perspective of a political fantasyland, obviously, since this is not 1492, or the aftermath of the Mexican War. It's the era of the political borders of 2016, and we expect those borders to be recognized and defended. That Mexicans are Native Americans is irrelevant in this real world. Still, understanding things as part of a movement of people set in motion in 1492 somehow increases my own tolerance, and I prefer as broad a perspective as possible.
Here is a more extreme point of view, overstated in terms of the real world just mentioned, but nonetheless, it perhaps has merit. This writer is no doubt Native American. I am not, but that has no bearing on trying to view the history of this hemisphere since 1492 in the fashion I have chosen. History is usually written from the perspective of the victors, not the vanquished. But, when seen from the perspective of the vanquished, in this case Native Americans, the increasing migration north of Latinos/Hispanics(read: Native Americans) can be seen as the re-browning of North America. Hispanics or Latinos crossing borders illegally are not really illegal aliens if in fact they are the only true native Americans to begin with. And the re-browning of America may just be the next phase in the movement of peoples commencing way back in 1492. The United States is a work in progress, not a finished product, and the events begun in 1492 are still ongoing. If descendants of white Europeans don't like this development, maybe they could think of it as the real Montezuma's revenge. So, from the perspective of history's vanquished, it is perhaps informative to realize Hispanics/Latinos, as we call them, are actually the original Native Americans, and it is possible to view history through the lens of the vanquished:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/brow...legal-aliens-please-stand-up/466715553409848/
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
As I read this I found myself thinking, "Is he high?" By the time I finished at least I got my answer to that question.
Last edited:
Tinkerbell, that is an extreme view considering Mexicans are, for the most part, a mixture of Spaniards and Natives. Calling them native is in no way indicative of their blood lines any more than calling white Americans Anglo-Saxons. Both populations are mixed-breed so to speak. One is more native by way of heritage length? 500 years is a pretty damn long time.
Aren't we going to call the Haitian transplants native too? They are at this point.
Not sure what you have against Tinkerbell and fairies, but I appreciate that Red introduced a new factor into how we are constructing our national identity and how we work this into our thinking when understanding immigration. You've pointed out many of the obvious failings of the approach above and seem to be suggesting that we start here, theoretically speaking, with little regard to past events (heritage length, within reason, or manner of settling the land) and priority of immigration/migration when considered from what might be called a neo-cultural perspective. I agree that the reality of "pure" bloodlines and "mixed" bloodlines makes most theories like this untenable.
I was only commenting on the La Raza type facebook post Red linked to, which Red seems to disagree with as well.
What point are you trying to make by changing the quote of every person ever? That you are unenlightened? That a neighborly spat is currently invading your cushy little world? That migrant movements and bowel movements are related?
My point is preferring's got nothing to do with it. Obviously people want to be able to improve their situation, just as I want unlimited free frozen yogurt and free flights to wherever I want. I prefer this, that means that people who own airlines and frozen yogurt stores should allow me to have what I want because I prefer it, right? There are quite often open spots on airplanes, and they must waste lots of frozen yogurt throughout the day at yogurt shops. It wouldn't hurt a thing if they let me have what I want, so why don't I get it?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Some of us aren’t as cogent and polished writers as you obviously are, so, sorry for my “rambling.” It would be much better if you could simply pontificate your dynamic ideas unencumbered by the simpletons of the world. Then, we could achieve intellectual rapture. Thank you for deigning to listen to the simple people, or at least simple person.
I do not claim to be an expert on border security, nor do I have the time to answer all of the questions I proposed. I’ll mention a few basic provisions for securing our borders and limiting immigration and emigration (criminals, sex-trafficking, etc.) without touching on the general theory of nations and immigration, since that has been what has mostly been discussed so far, i.e., the general theoretical approach to immigration as it pertains to a nation. Your suggestion was for “a free-for-all.”
As far as security is concerned, I actually think that our present system is pretty good. The northern border is pretty secure at this point. On the southern border, we apprehend hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year and deport sometimes hundreds of thousands who have a certain level of criminality. I think that we should definitely concentrate on arresting and deporting illegal immigrants with a certain level of criminality. All unaccompanied children should be welcomed into the country. We should also concentrate on admitting families who are refugees, particularly from conditions more or less directly caused by our interventions. In other instances, we should work with other countries and individual states to evenly settle refugees in safe environments.
One idea might be to have some estimate of the economic impact of immigration by a bipartisan council of economic and sociology experts, along with border patrol officials. This panel could then determine what a reasonable amount of immigration would be before our resources were exhausted and we were unable to address the social issues of our own country. If we had more families wanting to immigrate, then we would be able to expand this by having these families stay with American families who would volunteer their lodgings, food, etc., for a given period of time. We could then work with other countries and private individuals to take in more immigrants if necessary.
We should also maintain the present system of passports and the documenting of people on flights.