A big problem the Chinese had with assimilation was that for quite some time, they were not permitted to do so: I point out discriminatory legislation and restrictions on where they could live, just to name two items.
Someone here is not moving forward, but it is not me.
Such a magnanimous human you are. :dubious:
When I see guys like Rupert Murdock (FOX news) buy their citizenship (That was too quick, and he became an American citizen only to comply with the laws that there is a limit on how much a foreigner can own in media assets in America) I am only demanding some breaks for the poor that come here, Murdock did this all legally, I am just asking that some opportunities be given to the less fortunate to make things right.
And lets face it, all the problems that you mentioned will not be solved your way with the current leadership, other solutions have to be found.
I thought there was no need to explain, but it seems it is necessary in your case. The research that immigrant group did, fits will all the information you posted before regarding the economical effect of illegal immigration, (in other words, I did not ignore your posts)
In effect the researchers are saying: Yep, illegal immigration affects the USA negatively, oh BTW we also calculated that amnesty is a good solution to solve this economical problem.
Together with the fact that your solutions are just like navel gazing, I can let you behind with your non-progressive ideas. And agree to disagree.
May we see the specifics on how he bought his citizenship, on how he did not meet the immigration and naturalization laws in place at the times of (a) his initial issue of a “green card” and (b) his naturalization?
Word. for all of us jumping thru the legal hopes for legal amnesty, it’s a mockery to let illegals in.
i’d also wager most pro-amnesty have no idea of how involved a process it is for legal immigation. (btw, INS sucks monkey johnson.)
just a wag, but i’m betting those trying to enter legally generally are better off, college educated and reasoably fluent in english, and emphasis on their children entering mainstream America.
i think it’s a fair generalization that most illegal aliens don’t fit the above profile.
I want to know too, but I never said he got it illegally, I said so in my post.
IIRC there is an opening for very wealthy people to become American citizens, but there was another reason why I brought Murdock on this discussion since we are insisting so much in assimilation:
*“To become a citizen, Mr Murdoch had to swear allegiance to the United States. Here is the man, born to wealth in Australia, who moves his base of operation to the United Kingdom, and then, when his ceaselessly expanding appetite for riches makes it convenient, switches over to the United States. At the least, this is a bindlestift who doesn’t qualify as a member of the huddled masses.
He might better be categorized as a member of what the old-time Commies used to call a “cosmopolite,” which in their dictionary meant an international operator, without loyalty or ties of patriotism to any nation or ideal, who coursed the world looking for the main chance. Given Mr Murdoch’s track record, if things got tough here in the US of A, how long would it be before Old Rupert was sneaking for the exit, whispering to himself, “I’m outta here.” This guy’s going to fight for his country? Hell, he’s had so many countries, he wouldn’t know which one was his.”*
-Anderson Valley Advertiser 23 August 2000
Well, he is now one of the biggest supporters of the Iraq war, the problem is… that he was one of the biggest supporters to the buildup to it.
IMO with the kind of people Murdock supports, he has brought more division to America legally than many illegal immigrants would. Assimilate that.
Speaking of fighting for their new country, I would not be surprised that some of the electronic components I tested, that then did go to the tomahawk missiles, were tested when I was still an illegal, (company does not exist anymore).
Oh, I forgot to mention: I was the only illegal in my family, I was the only one that had to enter the country illegally because there was a threat to our lives and it was decided that I could not wait for formalities, the other members of my family got in legally. Yes, legally it sucks monkey johnson if you are not well to do.
You said he bought it. Now you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. Thank you.
Not so fast, did you miss what I said about the naturalization rules? saying that he bought it does not mean that was illegal.
And I still have to add that in my post I mentioned that he did it legally, you are only now trying to justify the misleading partial quote you did of me.
What’s misleading is you tossing out “he bought it.” Just because someone’s wealthy and also qualifies for a program does not mean they bought the benefits of that program.
IIRC, studies show that Hispanic immigrants are assimilating into American society (which, in the long run, seems inevitable), but at a much slower rate than previous waves of immigrants. The reasons are fairly obvious, and some have been pointed out already – the closeness of the border, the never-ending wave of new immigrants. Apparently Italians and Poles and Jews etc. didn’t really start integrating till the massive immigration from their home countries had slowed to a trickle. In addition, it’s much easier to maintain a Hispanic identity today, given the global nature of the media. Just about anyone with a satellite or cable TV in the US can pick up one or two Spanish-language channels, and the internet makes it easier than ever to maintain contacts with the homeland. Also, most Americans are much nicer and less judgmental nowadays, the downside of which is that there’s very little pressure for anyone to learn English and “act American.”
Once again: I said he did it legally.
I explained also that that was in the context of allowing others also to pay for their stay in america, some will call it a tax, I will call it a fine, but the idea behind allowing guys like Murdoch to become citizens is presisely to get his taxes. Besides, was concentrating on the misleading media empire he then obtained by becoming a citizen.
“He bought it” is a loaded expression, isn’t it?
Take a look at your own post.
First you assert (with no supporting evidence that I can see) that recent groups are not assimilating in the way that earlier groups did. In the next couple of paragroaphs you point to people in your own family who never assimilated, then cluck your tongue over two instances of people who had not assimilated after 30 years and 15 years, when I have already pointed out that there were groups who took 50 years, 60 years, and 100 years to assimilate. Your anecdotes are not making your case for you. Where is the evidence that recent groups are assimilating more slowly than 60 years ago or are resisting assimilation? Note that I have already noted small pockets of supporters of Aztlán, but they are a tiny group. (If anything, the group that appears to resist assimilation most fiercely are the Cuban exiles and refugees that we always make a point of welcoming as opposed to the people from Central America whom we disparage as parasites.)
The point regarding the immigrants who came and returned home was simply to note that there have always been large groups of people who chose to not assimilate (and who took/sent their earnings out of the country). It is not a new phenomenon, so cries of horror that the situation occurs now strike me as simply alarmist claims. The situation is far less different between then and now than the children of the earlier migrations would like to believe.
Monty, I realize that the point you are making is to seek evidence that Murdock used his wealth to secure an early naturalization, but your framing of this question falsely imputes a claim of illegality in the transaction when GIGObuster expressly indicated that the process at the time was legal.
It would be interesting to see evidence that Murdock’s wealth had any part in the speed with which he was naturalized, but I suspect that this topic is better dropped before bad feelings grow into intemperate behavior.
In case I was not clear, I think that *both * of you should drop the issue at this point, barring a citation from someone indicating how Murdock’s wealth influenced his naturalization.
My claim clearly had a qualification indicating why I think that is a valid conclusion: “But the large population coming in from the south are NOT assimilating. At least not at a rate that surpasses the new influx to make their isolated communities grow larger and larger.”
No. I said ONE of my grandmothers. And just because she didn’t assimilate doesn’t mean it was a good thing that she didn’t assimilate or that assimilation as a concept is not a good thing.
Interesting. I thought the mods were supposed to try to temper the debate, not inflame it. I’ll hold my tongue for now.
Maybe that’s because I offered them up as just anecdotes, not as proof of a point I was making. Sheeze, the jury duty thing concerned just two people.
See above.
Don’t forgtet that the current mmayor of LA used to be a member of MEChA (“Everything for the race. Everything outside the race, nothing”). An organization he refuses to denounce as racist. I think Cuban immigrants should be treated the same as any other immigrants.
Surely your not saying that sending money out of the country is the same as living here for twenty years, saving your money and then deciding to move to your native country or any country. And I think you over-generalize to imply that all those older immigrants, or even a majority, or a significant number, of those who stayed here for twenty years and left did not assimilate. One can assimilate and still long for his home country or desire to move to another one.
I didn’t know the Moderator Cape came with power to read minds. Tell me, werre you reading just my mind? Or the minds of all children of all earlier immigrants? Surely you’ve had access to research that shows what these people wold like to believe. I mean, you wouldn’t be just clucking your tongue…
I addressed what I see as the necessity in the first half of my answer, so that leaves #2. I am not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read I think that there are two ways that the intended meaning of the 14th Amendment can be reinstated. One is through a case brought to the court that challenges their previous decisions. The other is through the amendment process. I think this does have a chance as the public is finally onto the unholy alliance forged by the dems and repubs who both want open borders, albeit for two different reasons. The former for a voting bloc, the latter for cheap labor for big business.
The fact that immigration is finally being discussed and Bush has finally changed his tune on immigration I think shows that the pressure from the populace is taking effect. Just one yeasr ago the issue was noticeably absent from the debates. Given the wording and intent of the existing amendment (as well as the reasons I mentioned in my previous post), I think it will be hard for politicians to skirt the issue any longer.
Basically, the interpretation of the 14th Amendment comes down to the interpretation of one phrase. I’ve underlined it here:
So, the debate is: is there one or are there two criteria for citizenship at birth? Is it enough that persons be “born or naturalized in the US”? Or do they also have to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as well?
The 14th Amendment was proposed to ensure that Black Americans, who had just been emancipated, would be guaranteed citizenship by the states. Upon its introduction in 1866, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard spelled out the intent of his proposed amendment:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
The proposal even excluded Native Americans, whose citizenship rights were handled in a later bill.
More and more politicians are taking up this issue. I think this will be the first part of the immigration problem to be solved, because compared to the others —deporting ilegals, locking down the borders, and hiring enough agents to go after the employers—it can be done with relative ease. A few simple votes and it’s done. I realize that hyperbole in that statement, but I mean it in only in comparison of the other steps the need to be taken.
Let’s see: You offer an opinion unsupported by evidence, then are upset that I point out that it is merely opinion unsupported byt evidence.
You then offer a couple of anecdotes that do not not even support your opinion, but now want it made clear that they were only anecdotes.
I am confused why you even posted the submission to which I responded since it does not actually support your position and you have supplied no further evidence to provide that support.
See what above? See your anecdotes that do not demonstrate any refusal to assimilate that differs between the early and late periods of the 20th century? Where is the evidence that immigrants today are refusing to assimilate as quickly as immigrants of 100 years ago?
Oh, piffle. ¡Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada! was a call by the earlier (and diminishing) Aztlán group and has nothing to do with M.E.Ch.A. (Ever notice how the only people who seem to use that phrase are the racists attacking M.E.Ch.A. and that you never see it in any M.E.Ch.A. literature?)
The people who came, worked for 20 years, and went home often spent those 20 years sending their pay back to the families they had left behind, just as the people do today. As to the rest, I am not sure how you define assimilation when a person works only a few years and leaves.
I did not claim that all children of immigrants share your belief. However, with the exception of a few Indians, all people who share your belief that today’s immigration is radically different than yesterdays’s are the children of immigrants.