Or a much simple example. I’m a lawyer. When I need something served, I call up someone who is good at this, she gets it done, and I pay her. She is not my employee; she is a contractor, just like Purolator or FedEx is a contractor. I do not know what her nationality is, and I do not have to know if she is eligible to work here. I deduct the cost regardless of her immigration status.
I can’t remember the thread or the poster, but someone here who understood the immigration process had a very good post that explained that the legal process of gaining entry into the country was so inefficient that in practical terms it doesn’t really exist. IIRC, it was posted about a year ago or so. Anyone remember it?
Yes, the “whiteness” of an immigrant is definitely a consideration. However, speaking of being in touch with history… jayjay mentions how the Irish were also viewed as less than human at one point in the nation’s past:
I recall this book-length discussion on the topic of the perception of Irish immigrants: How the Irish Became White. As one of the reviewers mentions, “people with white skin (in this case the Irish) were not necessarily treated or regarded as “white” automatically; white isn’t just a colour, it’s a social position that the Irish had to struggle very hard to get.” Question is, will Hispanic immigrants manage to become “white” at some point too?
No, you let one more group in behind yours. That way you don’t get stuck at the bottom.
Was it this one?
Ah, yes. Thanks.
That would entail ending affirmative action? Based on educational results of third generation migrants that seems unlikely.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=
That study seems off kilter. For example, there’s this:
The study then concludes that past immigrant groups showed a noticable difference between the second and third generations of immigrant descendants. Current Hispanic immigrant groups don’t show this third generation rise.
Now the study concludes that this is a sign that Hispanics are not assilimating as well as past immigrant groups did. But there’s another alternative explanation - Hispanic immigrants may be assilimating better than past groups did. They may be hitting an assimilimation plateau in a single generation rather than the two generations that was common in the past. This would explain why there is no noticeable difference between the second and third generations - it’s not that the third generation stalled out, it’s that the second generation already crossed the finish line.
And I’ve seen evidence that would support this alternative explanation. There’s evidence that indicates current immigrants are assilimating faster into American society than past immigrnats did. It’s not really a difference in the immigrnats themselves. It’s more an indication that things like public schools, television, and the internet push assilimation along much faster.
Admittedly, the article does make other points. It says that the descendants of Hispanic immigrants have lower education levels and lower income levels than the descendants of non-Hispanic immigrants. That may be true - but I think it’s a leap to conclude that that’s proof of non-assilimation.
Citation? Someone posted something a while ago, but when you went through it the claim didn’t stand up.
Right, but that does pose a problem when education is particularly important as the economy becomes more complex & technology improves.
We should fix that.
That would cost just as much money as actually guarding the border.
But be vastly more effective, and would cost less in the long run.
The problem with just more guarding of the Mexican border is threefold:
- No matter how high a wall you build, someone can build a taller ladder,
- There’s a lot of ways to get into the USA besides fording the Rio Grande, and
- Blocking border traffic has many economic and social downsides; making the immigration system work properly does not.
Putting a zillion border guards and dogs and mines and machine guns on the Mexican border will simply push illegal immigrants to find new routes in, will interfere with legitimate cross-border business and harass law abiding people, and would keep costing money forever.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but our local paper yesterday said that the law in question also allows citizens to sue the police if they (the citizen) feel that the police aren’t asking ENOUGH people about their immigration status. Is that the case? And if so…man, I see the court system in Arizona becoming absolutely GRIDLOCKED with lawsuits from all sides of this dogshit of a law.
(bolding mine)
There’s no obligation to carry or even have an ID in France (although it would make your life a bit complicated since it’s asked for a lot of things like writing a check, opening a bank account, receiving registered mail, etc…). Note that many french people believe themselves that it is mandatory.
Similarly, the police can’t check your identity at any moment for whatever reason. The main cases when it’s allowed is if you happen to be present in the vicinity of a place where a crime has been commited or if an attorney allowed or ordered it in a given place for a given purpose and a given duration (that could include searching for illegal immigrants). Note again that many (most?) french people themvelses believe that the police can request an ID at any moment for any reason.
Finally, if the police asks (legitimately) to see an ID and you don’t carry one, you can prove your identity by testimony (no clue how it works in practice) or the police can detain you up to 4 or 6 hours (I don’t remember exactly) to establish it.
For the record, I’ve never been asked to show an ID by the police in my life (I’m 44). Now, if I were black/chinese/arab (hence a possible illegal immigrant) it probably would be another story.
Not quite. The law allows citizens to sue (actually, file complaints against) employers who they believe are employing undocumented workers.
You can read the full text of the law here - the blue parts are the newly implemented language.
Cool, thanks.
I still think it’s going to end up bringing the Arizona court system to a screeching halt as Joe McRacist sues the local burger joint for hiring too many dark-skinned people to bus tables, and dark-skinned Arizonans sue because they have to start carrying their birth certificates.
Hardly. That ship sailed in 2001.
Probably. But you get what you deserve.
Those are obviously *frivolous *lawsuits, so they can just be dismissed, for the good of the community.
That coming through Ellis Island was legal? That the government knew who you were, knew where you were going and knew you had no communicable diseases?
Did I get it right?