dagblog - Comments for "How the GOP Didn't Get "Si Se Puede""

Ah, when in doubt, align

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:10:39 +0000

In reply to You very much "give a shit".

Ah, when in doubt, align someone with the GOP, guilt by innuendo/presumed association.

The basic fact is that Hispanic, mainly Mexican, population went from 35 million to 50 million in the course of a single decade, and continues to rise from high birthrate as the source of ~50% of US population growth, predicted to be over 130 million by 2050.

What that has to do with a more diverse high immigration period during the high growth industrial/high worker demand age of the 1880's when most areas of the US weren't settled, I've little idea. If it was predominately Irish immigrating at the time, you might have a parallel, except that the Irish spoke English and were used to living under the English yoke, so not much cultural shift. In 1860, white and black birthrates were still over 5 & 7 respectively, so there was no danger of the existing population being smothered, and the 3.5 birthrate by 1900 would have applied to new immigrant populations as well as old-timers.

For Chicago at the time, "By 1890, having burst from the ashes of 1871 to achieve metropolitan rank, it was earning the ambivalent reputation that all great cities had at that time—awesome in its bulk and wealth, yet condemned for its fleshpots, diseases, and poverty." So presumably by your logic we shouldn't worry about disease and poverty, because we've been through it before, and presumably would survive again.

As Mr. Obama notes, we don't have much use for bayonets and horses in the military anymore either.

I did learn one interesting tidbit though which is that abortion rose dramatically starting around 1860, and was subsequently banned in 40 states, though it was commonly thought that abortion before "quickening" was acceptable.

You very much "give a shit".

tmccarthy0 — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:58:24 +0000

In reply to Trust me, I don't give a shit

You very much "give a shit". It's kind of disingenuous of you to make that claim when it is plainly obvious you to anyone reading this that you give so many shits you are willing to brush facts off, sort of like, well Republicans.

That is all.

Trust me, I don't give a shit

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:39:13 +0000

In reply to Obviously you didn't read my

Trust me, I don't give a shit about "19.8%" out of context. In the middle of a global shift like 1880 in terms of immigrants moving around the world, in numbers much smaller than seep across the border every day today? Irrelevant. I don't give a shit if our neighbors continue to immigrate - if we need them, figure out a stamp to let them in. If we don't, ship them back. And balance this with Ethiopian, Russian, Kazakh, Indonesian, Kenyan, Brazilian, Irish, New Zealand/Maori, Burmese, Bhutanese immigration - we don't need more "Hispanics" meaning almost solely Mexican at the detriment of a balanced immigration program. Ya se habla bastante espanol - let's queue up Balinese dance and throat singing from Tuva, gracias.

What am I supposed to say,

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:33:33 +0000

In reply to Question - do you even think

What am I supposed to say, export legal immigrants from the stupid rules we set up over the last 20 years? How do we maintain quotas? We spit out a number, and that's all the immigration cards allowed, ain't that tough. Socio-economic balance? Just do like Canada does, if you have more than say $500K, you get to the head of the pack. Time frame? Yesterday or tomorrow, to quote the Beatles. Those here living outside the quota? Figure out if we need them to work or if there's a humanitarian/political repression issue, otherwise ship them back. Prioritize dealing with current quagmire? Just did.

Question - do you even think

Aunt Sam — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:33:08 +0000

In reply to Figure out quotas on the

Question - do you even think there's an immigration conundrum, or everything's hunky dory?

A silly question, as if.....Yes, of course, but it's not A problem, the reality is there a multitude of problems due to our, as ever, lack of achieving any meaningful/productive proactive processes that deliver the tools to achieve remedies.

Second question - do you think United States English as special and worth preserving, or if the U.S. becomes a hybrid or mostly Spanish speaking in 100 years, is that fine with you?

This is just a toss off query that doesn't really address the main issues. But, I do believe that English needs to be the language of our nation and duly preserved as such.

Now, I put forth the following query to you, the answer didn't seem to be forthcoming so I ask for a short, simplistic response (again) from you:

Is your anger, frustration, angst with the 'someones' noted or is it directed towards the Mexicans?

I asked: What do you believe 'is the answer' to our immigration conundrum?

Your reply: Figure out quotas on the world's 150 countries, and stick with them. Update every 5 years to maintain a balanced immigration policy across the board. Debate what a reasonable % of Hispanics vs. all other ethnic groups on earth should be. Decide if we're going to have some economic balance (i.e. not all poor immigrants?), humanitarian exceptions or yearly targets, economic vs. political refugees, what's reasonable for the mass of family reunions that's placed under immigration, but is often a huge gaming of the system.

That's it? Seriously? This is all ya got? If so, then how do we maintain the quotas? What specific processes would we need to implement to achieve this goal? What time frame is realistic to put this in place? Decisions about socio-economic balance seem a bit pie in the sky at this juncture. What do we do with those already here who are 'outside' the quota? Shouldn't we prioritize and place dealing with the existing immigration quagmire here first?

Obviously you didn't read my

tmccarthy0 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:45:51 +0000

In reply to Why are you using 1970 as a

Obviously you didn't read my entire response or you would understand why the year 1970 is there. The 1970 number would not be considered a base number but a year in which the Latin American immigrant population appeared in the census.

Even given that the immigrant population was up to 12.8% it hasn't reached the height of 19.8% of 1890 immigrant population.

There are reasons why people immigrate to America, mostly it is for economic and personal liberty, those two go hand in hand. As I've already discussed, there are reasons that there are not as many Europeans immigrating here. Europe has changed since the 1880's and even since 1920. Our neighbors to the south continue to immigrate here to look for work, to be able to have the promise of economic mobility for their families, greater freedom, and education for their children. Until Latin American nations improve their economies and expand freedom for their citizens it is to be expected that they will continue to immigrate here.

Amazing - the US is a

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:46:28 +0000

In reply to I'm still trying to get over

Amazing - the US is a "melting pot" whether 1 culture is doing most of the immigration and hardly doing any "melting". Discard their family's heritage? Oh no, they just re-create it, including "Si se habla espanol aqui". No muss, no fuss.

It's "turning up our nose" to contemplate our own family's heritage - we have to just be ready to discard ours to make room for whoever's moving in.

So while Mexico Part I will actually pay attention to its population growth, like many developing countries around the world, it would be impolite for us to consider, much less restrain, population growth in Mexico Part II.

In California, 51% of children are Hispanic - mainly Mexican, of course. "The group predicted to post the most dramatic gain is the Hispanic population. It is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million, from 2008 through 2050" according to Census 2000.

26% of babies <1 nationwide are now Hispanic. 15% of youth 16-25 in places like Connecticut are now Hispanic - Hawaii is at 11%, 12% Kansas, 13% Rhode Island. Where is the model that shows a culture assimilating once it's the majority?

Well in that case, it's the

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:24:45 +0000

In reply to In the ghetto we have an

Well in that case, it's the US that's the last victim of fence jumping and illegal settling, even though we've never quite squared exactly how much illegal work is economically beneficial and how much is a drain on local workers, though Cuba may be the last victim from our long embargo and political abuse. Some of these are complicated issues - a shame we seldom discuss in detail with different options, rather than grandstanding absurd positions. Who knows if deporting 400,000 Mexicans a year serves any good purpose policy-wise, but that's what we're doing, side-by-side with the DREAM Act. All things to ~~all~~ some people.

In the ghetto we have an

jollyroger — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:11:16 +0000

In reply to Holy Blood! It's Holy Blood!

In the ghetto we have an aphorism that no one complains more bitterly when stolen from than a.thief. That said, I am willing to give primacy to the victim most recently in line.

Holy Blood! It's Holy Blood!

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:08:00 +0000

In reply to EL TOPO! (o/t shoutout) On

Holy Blood! It's Holy Blood! (o/t)

We stole Florida, Texas, the rest of the Southwest/West, Cuba and Puerto Rico from them, plus we tore off Panama from Colombia to build our canal.

Though Guatemala stole Central America from Mexico, but the Mexicans stole the Yucatan back.

Napoleon stole Louisiana from the Spanish and then sold it to us for a song.

We stole the midwest across the Appalachians from the French who'd stolen it from the Indians, and then we stole our own colonies from the British. The British kicked many of the French out of Canada, sent them on death frigates to Louisiana.

The Spanish stole Mexico and the rest of Spanish America from the Aztecs (including horrid military genocides in Argentina and Chile). The Aztecs imprisoned and repressed most of Central Mexican tribes once they left their garbage-island exile in the Lake Texcoco swamp.

Simon Bolivar stole much of South America from the Spanish.

Portugal lucked upon the large Brazil because the Spanish didn't have the Eastern extent right on their maps - oops! (The Spanish had intended to screw Portugal, but instead gave them say 1/3-1/4 the continent?). And then they stole Africans from Africa to work the land. (only 10% of American slavery was in the US - by far the most in Brazil, with another bunch around the Carribean).

Life's a bitch, but the puppies are cute. Kinda.