« Garance's History of the United States | Main | Flu Stories »

March 27, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d8347e40b253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Backdate Anti-Immigration Laws to 1492:

Comments

Sound immigration policy cannot come out of this congress, or in a midterm election year (the bases need ginning up to come out and vote).

But unsound policy can be stopped.

I'm really glad you posted this today. I was just reading coverage of the protests and also Krugman's column on this today, which seems to be saying, "I don't know what the fuck to do so let's not do anything." It is probably the most sage advice, but I'm not sure one could run a campaign on it.

I was taken aback recently by an immigration thread on one of the popular liberal blogs where a large number of commenters claimed to be "pro-immigrant, but against illegal immigrants." I don't know anything about the (im)migration debate so I didn't want to jump in, but on the surface this position seems absurd -- if the question is who should be legal, how can one define one's position in terms of who is legal?

Is there more to their position than I'm giving them credit for, or if not then what might have been an appropriate way to respond?

One of the arguments you'll hear from left-of-center anti-illegal immigration posters is that the people being hurt most by such immigrants are legal immigrants and native-born Americans in blue-collar fields. Meat-packing plants, for instance, have been union-busted over the past two decades, and the generally non-Latino workforce has been replaced in large part by Latinos, a portion of whom are undocumented, and wages lowered. In the construction trades, it's said to be considerably worse.

George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

That seems to be a pretty good summary both of what is going on today with respect to the immigration debate in the US, and of the inevitable outcome. How can you have globalization without exploitation of the weak by the powerful? And how long can that go on before the powerful eventually either "kill the geese that lay the golden eggs", or overreach themselves and get overthrown by the people who will no longer accept their domination? It may take a while, but eventually all empires have collapsed under their own weight.

don't fuck around, back date the laws until the beginning of time

and three cheers for using the term "MIGRANTS"

I live on the west coast of the north american continent. People have been walking up and down the coast of this continent for 40,000 years, and hopefully they will be waling up and down the coast of this continent 40,000 years from now

GET USED TO IT, PEOPLE

I'd like to see the anti-migration people required to prove the legality of their ancestors' migration. (I certainly can't prove legality for mine - although some became legal upon arrival, by taking an oath of allegiance, they may not, probably weren't, legal when leaving their previous country of residence!)

The discussion about immigration and immigration law fails on a major point -- Congress has never taken real responsibility for creating and financing an enforcement process that actually matches the legal requirements laid down. Whether it be adequate border patrol, case workers handling naturalization of status adjustment of visa holders -- it is so resource poor and under funded it is dysfunctional -- and essentially says that no one is really very serious about the laws on the books. Since most voters have no interface with the immigration bureaucracy -- Congress has every reason to treat the services as orphans.

If as it now appears the Senate may pass a huge legalization program -- they darn well better face the need to massively expand the service that leads to naturalization and support all the necessary programs such as English as a Second Language classes and all. (If I were in the Senate, I would tax employers of substantial immigrant work forces to pay for these services. -- I would also require them to provide health insurance.)

What gets me about the people who claim that illegal immigration is taking their jobs is that ... if the immigration were legalized, a hotel owner couldn't pay $3.00 / hour to their cleaning staff and require 50 hour work weeks "or else". What is broken about our immigratoin policy is that "illegals" who are willing to perform low skill labor most "Americans" won't do for wages that make obscene profits for the already ultra rich are not protected AT ALL by our laws. If all immigrants were legal, you'd have to pay them at least minimum wage and follow federal workplace protection laws. That's the bottom line to this 1/16 Choctaw. We let your ancestors in, and we're willing to let our southern brothers in too. In fact, they will probably be more salutory for us than you were...all things considered.

I have now lost my posting privileges at DailyKos for the sin of confronting DHinMI's bullying.

Thought you should know.

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.

While comparisons are being made to the proportion of previous immigration to native population, and its true in a relative manner, there is one fact being ignored, and that is prior to the 1940's the United States was still expanding as a nation. We are no longer in an expansionist phase of developement, nor do we need the tired and huddled masses to come into this country and continue to suppress the wages of the working poor and help the industrialist break down the unions. To allow this mass invasion to continue is to sell out every veteran who has shed blood in the defense of this country. Let's just give the vet's jobs to the illegals, while we're at it lets give George Bush's job to an illegal.

You were doing fine until you told me history of 500 years ago will hold true for immigration today. This is not 1492 and a very different world. The indian problem has been over for a very long time (the indians tell me this). There is not one person alive that can be bound to their ancestors 'finder's keeper's loser's weepers' rules either.

You lost me after that, and decided not to persue the rest of the article. Up to that point you are writing in a vacuum.

thank you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad