Federal Appeals Court allows suit against company that hires illegals

Immigration can either bring a country the best and the brightest minds from around the world, or it can bring a country the dregs from every society on earth.

An immigration policy should be designed to encourage the former while discouraging the latter.

Our current immigration laws make insanely difficult for an immigrant to get a good legal job in America, while at the same time making it fairly easy for an immigrant to get welfare.

So who do we attract with our current policy? We do not attract the best and the brightest, because they have no interest in going someplace where they cannot legally work. We do attract those who want to come here to live off of our welfare system.

What is a more economically reasonable policy? Let anyone come here to work -- but no welfare.

Abolish the I-9 and abolish welfare and immigration will once again become the largest economic boon this country has ever experienced.

 

I-9?

I don't think we as a country has enough balls to abolish welfare....even if it's just limited to certain people...which would actually be unconstitutional if the person's a citizen [refer to 14 amendment].

 

Your original argument was one of a clash of cultures rending our "unified" culture apart (I have ignored the argument over what constitutes our "national culture") - your view is that immigration would lead to such a cultural cataclysm that, "as with civil wars of the past," we would be taking "a bullet to the head."

I was puzzled by this, as I don't see the Civil War as primarily a conflict between two cultures, but rather the very things we myself, as well as you - have been discussing: conflicts over tariffs, financial strictures, credit systems, concrete, military actions and the like. In other words, things that didn't have anything to do with some gossamer-like southern or northern cultural ideal, but very concrete economic, political and military conflicts, that had very real consequences for folks that mattered, in terms of policy, on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

I think it is a mistake to conflate cultural phenomena with political-economic conditions - from my reading of history, the former don't tend to cause anything; the latter do. The former help justify actions taken, just as they do in every war ("Kill the Hun," yes, but explosive growth in naval strength, and concomitant pressures on old-world empires, did have something to do with the likelihood of war pre-WWI Europe).

Since I don't see the cultural argument as determinant, neither do I ascribe some culturally, decisively destructive phenomena to immigration from Central and South America.

More later. Little lad needs his pa to read him to bed.

 

Christians in America had what they call a second 'awakening' on the slavery issue...not all of them, but many. This split the democratic party and put Linclon in power. I think culture is the fundamental foundation of most nations. Communism would have never took Russia, if people didn't believe in it. Same with Vietnam. What was one of the factors in Rome's depise...the inflitrating influence/division of outsiders.

Culture/ideas are the very foundation of philosophical movements. The common men doesn't dig into ideas, he absorbs them from his friends, family and society. Cultures either progress under a rational basis or they radical change, divide or disintegrate.

What you are concerned with are concrete reasons, but there's no vacuum in reasoning in why such exists. Culture/elites develop that,...even more so now -a- days than previous.

Those abstract reasons are very much a part of the whole. The north had a culture that didn't accept slavery from very earlier on...imagine if the culture of the north still had slavery,...do you think there still would have been a civil war?

You think that the elites of South America have absolute control over their people? It seems like your suggesting that.

What would be the underling reason why central and south america has been plagued with authoritians or extreme leftists? I'd say it's the emergence of cultural influences of the Marxists kind. Some through brute force and others by influence.

Look at Venezuela. Once a middle class society, but the evergrowing population of poverty made it a an extreme left-leaning country.

cool....

 

Curious...were do you reside? General location?

I live in the hub of illegal immigration, and I've seen quite a bit of change. Perhaps not to the naked eye, but there's a difference in culture. I remarked about this in another thread.

 

isn't the middle class essentially dead in high immigration cities like LA? Last I remember, about half of the people who live here earn less than $15,000 per year, while the median house price is about $500k.

 

What sort of political perspective do you think is going to come out of that?

LA is so far wacko left that it's almost unrecoverable. You can understand why early america moved left durning the industrial revolution,...because while things were getting better the political/financial power of the people and the businesses were not in line. Imagine just continuing trends like that all across America (in modern times)...going backwards. We shouldn't be eager to make America move left by default.

 

Large cities tend to go left.

As to the house issue in LA. It's not that bad. Here's the math:

Avg Salary: $15,000
Number of occupants: 20

Annual HOUSEHOLD salary: $300,000

See, it all works out.

 

Baahahahahahahaha!

We need to add a smilie to DP of the little guy rolling on the (virtual) floor laughing

 

I need to let 15 or 20 illegals live in my house! I wanna be a millionaire faster!

It is funny, though. 20 to 30 mexicans normally fit into vans in this area to pick crops, so that van really only cost them about $100 each LOL

 

Rick, my reading of history does not bear out the importance you impute to this concept of "culture." In the interest of space, let me take only your first example. The others follow similar developments.

In Russia, the weakness of Nicholas' government was made manifest with the gross mishandling of food and other necessities; his personal venture into the war showed him to be an inept general and the army tide shifted. This set the stage for anybody - anybody with the right political entrepreneurship in place - to take over. Once the Tsar lost the army, he lost his state. The same obtained for Louis XVI; the same did not obtain for DeGaulle in 1967 - when the "Guerre des Paves" became a very real possibility, remembering his French history, he left the country to ask of his generals, "who are you with?" They assured him they remained with the state, and the student revolts were summarily put down.

The Bolsheviks, in distinction from both the Tsar's and the provisional state, were exceedingly well organized, and maintained a structural cohesion down to the lowest levels - commands issued from the top were carried out to the letter, even to the factory level. This, coupled with the promise of material betterment, the apparent means to make good on that promise, and the aid of German money, meant the Bolsheviks were able to capitalize on a weak state and seize power (which they almost immediately lost - again, economic crises to blame, not a "cultural struggle").

From there, an exceedingly strong state presence ensured societal compliance with what was, "culturally," anathema to most of Russian society. Forced expropriation, summary justice, and other state instruments ensured Lenin's, and later Stalin's, policies were maintained. No amount of shining Lenin posters had more sway than terror.

These are the brief material developments in Russia leading to the long-term survival of the Communist state. Throughout the Soviet satellite system, a similar extractive power was put in place - at the end of a gun. It was a wholly artificial system and there was absolutely nothing "cultural" about communism that led to its adherence throughout the SSR's, oblasts and other structural state subdivisions of the U.S.S.R.. At the Soviet End of Days, Perestroika and the "Parade of Sovereignties" was an acknowledgement of what had been the reality for quite some time - economic and party structural stagnation was so salient that it could no longer be covered by state apparatchiki - and not the cause of that stagnation. Something had to be done, concretely, in terms of greater autonomies, politically, economically, and, later, militarily and the rest is, as they say, history.

Or, admittedly, not a random sample, but perhaps illustrative: My wife's family is Estonian. I assure you, nothing about "communist culture" kept them at bay for 60 years.

Now, turning to the rest of your post:

I don't understand you here. What did I say that led you to derive this?

There are several reasons, and all of them are structural. Some of the regimes (such as Peru), coopted a mass movement by action taken from above. Others, such as existed in much of Central America, were based on strong personalistic, patronage ties between authoritarian rulers and the social elites; power was maintained on a client-patron basis - in other words, buyoffs of various kinds. Most of the authoritarian regimes were classically "bureaucratic-authoritarian," based on a strong military-technocratic alliance, as well as significant economic reforms, and support from private elites, domestic and foreign (not the least of which includes U.S. interests).

As with the Soviet system, adherence to an authoritarian model is costly. Once the well of largesse dries up (and by largesse, I mean among those who wield, or have the potential to wield, power), the ability to provide what some have called danegeld - what I call "social buyoffs" - becomes increasingly limited. Looking at the geographic area of your concern, economic disruption, time and time again, punches the authoritarian model right in the chest. Because there is no "cultural affinity" strong enough to weather the loss of patronage, these regimes live and breathe on their ability to buy the peace. Once their purse empties, they have been screwed.

The problem I have with the use of the word "culture" is that it doesn't say anything. In all the examples provided above, some notion of "culture" was meaningless as a causal variable. Actions taken - economic, political, or military interests favored, structural alignments congealed - were all that truly mattered.

Hence, I again say, I do not see a burgeoning Civil War over a "clash of culture" should America continue on its present immigration path.

 

I now live in the middle of nowhere, though that's once again to change, likely next fall.

I was born and bred in Southern California. I lived at the edge of East L.A. Not quite central "Mi Vida Loca" locale, but close enough. As I have said, these years formed my abiding respect for immigrants from Central and South America.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization



I disagree with your general view on pushing culture to the side ie saying it's not considered a factor in many things. It's not always, but I think it certainly plays a role in some things.

In many countries and places, things don't melt together quickly...it takes time. I believe such fast changes spaw cultural differences, rather than similiarities. You (I believe) are much older than I, and probably haven't seen a lot what I've seen. I believe in such phenomenom as 'white flight', which I don't think is primarily a racist action...

Refer to this thread (and my personal experience):
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=145503&highlight=white+flight

With huge increases of unfettered immigration comes vast changes...that I've seen through unfiltered situations (ie not in a workplace). I was young and in school when this first started ( refer to link), and I can see vast changes in the landscape ahead of us. Many of the sentiments will grow worse and I dislike that the transition is not of a rational position.

 

I'm confused by your statement - "you are much older than I [sic], and probably haven't seen a lot of what I have seen." I'm 45. Don't know where that puts me in the "ageist" camp, but there you go. Facing the shit end of the 1960's, with a family that seemed to thrive on violence as a means to feel alive, I left home at 15, dug ditches, hitchiked up and down California, slept on the side of freeways, been knifed, been held up (two "Mezcans," L.A.), served in the U.S. Navy, stopped rapes, muggings and other assorted skullduggery in progress in Chicago, New England and L.A. (wondering - am I out of my fucking mind? Am I the only one who sees this shit?), and put assholes down to near hell for crossing the line. I ended up as an honors grad, then grad student at UC Berkeley, chef (since 12, French food), lived as a direct, live-in disciple (uchideshi) to a Japanese Aikido and zen master, one-time professional beer brewer, actor, director, writer, husband, father. I watched L.A. go apeshit during O.J. and Rodney King, and lived to tell about it. I have seen my own blood boil in racist bile and held the head of a soon-dead, homeless, black man, in the gutter, crying with him, knowing his life was mine and mine his. I contend with an ancient anger every day, and know the gift of love in my boy's eyes - every moment he's alive, his life is a testament to good.

In other words, I've lived a little. Enough to know my mind, and I've thought a little. Don't presume.

On the cultural argument: You may disagree, Rick, but so far, all I have seen in defense of your "culturalist" argument is your opinion, and I don't consider the "white flight" thread that much different; I have drawn evidence from the very history you brought up, to show how relatively unimportant the "cultural" factor was in determining anything there. Have you got more?

 

ie

You probably haven't seen the anti-white sentiment grow in the youth, as I have.

Which wasn't cultural at all....?

That's very sweet. Somehow I think of a quote by Bill Hicks, but I'll reserve myself....

'Probably' is a good word, don't you think? I used it in my above sentence, and it's highly appropriate for this situation.

Actually I reserve myself, because I find nothing of value being derived from this. You state situations as though there's a void of ideas present...which is the essence of my arguement. It's as though those ideas aren't important, and there's a form of determistic futures by only 'structural' factors. History is not dictated by just structure alone...man is a concious being, and ideas are extremely prevalent in the scheme of things.

Call it silly, but I think people like Aristotle, Locke, et al...have a bigger role in setting a cultural destiny of our lives, rather than it being purely a product of 'structure' . The very foundation of America is based off of ideas that formented a culture which highlighted the Enlightenement. Madison,Jefferson, Washinton, etc...all couldn't have their opinions, if they hadn't lived under the influence of those ideas or read them....which they got both.

Our country wouldn't be the same if our founder's culture wasn't what it was. But call me crazy in thinking culture has power!?

You ignored the very essence of what I saying. Especially with Communism. The Bolshevik existed on ideas (ie it was philosophy in essence...a way of life). If I wanted to create the next 'whatever party', I still would have to create a culture of ideas that people would feign to. The Bolshevik orginated from Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, which was created in 1898. It took many years of catering to people to develop a sophisticated organization such as the Bolshevik.

Ideas and a group=a culture.

Not that the situation wasn't heading somewhere, but if people were not influenced in 1898 to join a stupid party like the RSDLP, then Communism probably wouldn't have been as prevelant.
-------------------------------------------------
I think I know what the problem is....

 

I ignored nothing, Rick. You stated something, and I gave you concrete, historical facts in support of my main contentions, that happen to contradict your suppositions. I never disputed ideas "were present", nor have I denied they don't have their place - only that they are not typically causal or deterministic ("determistic" in your language) in origin; rather, they usually serve to provide legitimacy and validation to the "winning" coalition.

I agree with you, that nothing further is to be gained from this.

Regarding my son - kiss my ass. I had thought we were in an honorable debate, but you show your true colors there. You "reserve" nothing, and leveled some kind of puny insult, without the courage to finish your thought. Pretty basic - I honor and love my wife and son - if that is too much for your half-formed ass, move on.

 

Hey, I didn't say anything about your son. I thought your comment was nice ....I was in no way putting your son down.

It just so happens some of your words almost match a bill hicks quote. That's nothing to be offend by. The net is a bit hard to interpet, but I'm sorry if I've offend you in any way. It really wasn't meant.

 

But they also created the winning coalition...as far as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party goes.

 

I guess I must have missed your drift, then. It read to me that you wanted to post along the above, but "reserved" in the interest of civility - but this was anything but. That did not sit well with me. But if your intent was otherwise, I apologize for misconstruing it.

 

As I earlier said, Rick, I agree with you in that this will not go anywhere - we are going to go round and round, because we are looking at the same histories and drawing wholly different conclusions. It isn't enough for me to see a winning coalition, witness an idea, and causally link the the two - or even necessarily associate the two. From the history I have read, other things have tended to be at play.