We Kid You Not Childfree Forums

With Arizona's new laws at the top of the USAian news lately, I want to find out what other people think. I think this is too complex to be reduced to a poll, so I'll ask for opinions.

In the US, I am in small minority on this issue, it seems. I'll explain my views and hope you will tell me yours. I think the whole thing is totally absurd. If you think of a map of the world, and how humanity evolved and fanned out, we see that we began in Africa, moved north and east into Europe, then north and west into Asia, and down through the various island groups of the Pacific to Australia and New Zealand.

More or less at the same time, people crossed the Bering land bridge to North America and worked South through Central and South America. So the first "Americans" were "Asians" who used to be "Africans" and so on. So at that pre-Columbian point, all continents had their first humans in place.

Now along came the Spaniards, who although they did visit North America, concentrated primarily on South America. So Spaniards were in South America before Northern Europeans were anywhere in the Americas. They wiped out indigenous populations while mixing with them. Most current South Americans are mestizo right now.

Then came the Northern Europeans who wiped out North American indigenous populations, ignoring their nations, treaties, councils, tribes and so on. The governments in place for centuries were ignored, and a mostly white, Northern European culture took over, mostly not mixing with them but rather confining them away from white populations. The white Europeans eventually reached the Pacific and took over all the indigenous lands and called it the USA.

Now, they are telling southern Americans (Mexicans and others) to stay out. Out of an area we stole AFTER the indigenous Americans of South America and the earlier-arriving and better-assimilated Spaniards were already here?

I don't see people from south of here as trespassers. We stole everything, and now we're telling them they can't be here. What? Are you serious? Shut up!

So that's my take. I'd like to hear others.

Who actually owns and belongs in the USA is so controversial, there will never be a solution that will satisfy everyone. People have been immigrating to the USA for centuries. Are they (that includes most of the people here) any less American than other cultures that were here at earlier times? If native Americans or native Mexicans at some point in history thousand of years ago originally came from some other part of the world, do they still have the right to claim the land as theirs?

The one beef I have with Mexicans "illegally" crossing the border are pregnat girls/women who come into the US for the sole purpose of having their baby on American soil so that they can get American coverage for medical and various other benefits, paid for by the American tax payer while going back to their home town in Mexico.

No, this terrible "May we see your papers, please" law is a slippery slope to far more scary rights violations. I was born and raised in the US, but because I look kind of Mediterranean I get stopped and profiled nearly every time I fly. I get it, there's not much I can do about it, it's just how it is. But the thought of now needing to have my passport with me if I'm driving through Arizona just because of how I look is pretty fucking scary. I never thought I'd have to do that within my own country.

Unfortunately, I have to be in AZ for a couple of days in February for acupressure training, there was no way around it, I was hoping to boycott the state as long as this nasty law was in place. Is some cop going to stop me and make me produce my "papers"? And if I don't have a passport on me will I go to jail? It's really frightening to think that we're going in this direction.

(07-29-2010 09:35 PM)Dog Holliday Wrote: [ -> ]Who actually owns and belongs in the USA is so controversial, there will never be a solution that will satisfy everyone. People have been immigrating to the USA for centuries. Are they (that includes most of the people here) any less American than other cultures that were here at earlier times? If native Americans or native Mexicans at some point in history thousand of years ago originally came from some other part of the world, do they still have the right to claim the land as theirs?

The one beef I have with Mexicans "illegally" crossing the border are pregnat girls/women who come into the US for the sole purpose of having their baby on American soil so that they can get American coverage for medical and various other benefits, paid for by the American tax payer while going back to their home town in Mexico.

That's what I'm asking. If Afro-Asians became North/South Americans before any other people were here, do they have a claim? A good case might be made that they ruined it for other species that were already here, but lacking any form of communication or government, these species were unable to say "We got game." When Northern Europeans came here across the Atlantic Ocean, however, they found people already in place, with develeoped societies and cultures, whose only "error" was, they couldn't resist invasion.

I'm indigenous to Northern and Central Europe even though I was born on this continent. I'm not technically American at all. I'm European. My ancestors came AFTER other peoples had populated this area. Notice how China and Japan, although affected by Western culture, were able to repulse invaders enough not to be actually colonized. Why did Europeans respect them and their governments, but not indigenous Americans? Why could they colonize India and large portions of Africa, too? All these places had governments and cultures.

As you can see, these issues bother me

There's a museum in NYC that's very illuminating - called the Tenement Museum. They have a lot of information about what it was like for new immigrants. Before I went to this museum I had no idea that each new group of immigrants that came to the USA was horribly discriminated against. During the Irish potato famine, when Irish were coming to the USA by the thousand, businesses had signs that said "Irish need not apply" or "Irish not welcome". They were considered lower than dogs. The same thing happened with subsequent waves of people from other areas - Italy, Eastern Europe, etc.

ALL new groups faced this - apparently immigration over the years waxed and waned from different regions and as the make-up of the immigrants changed so did the discrimination.

So it continues.

I recommend anyone visiting NYC to take a couple of hours to check out the Tenement Museum. Amazing stuff. http://www.tenement.org/

(07-30-2010 09:42 AM)catsnotkids Wrote: [ -> ]There's a museum in NYC that's very illuminating - called the Tenement Museum. They have a lot of information about what it was like for new immigrants. Before I went to this museum I had no idea that each new group of immigrants that came to the USA was horribly discriminated against.

ALL new groups faced this - apparently immigration over the years waxed and waned from different regions and as the make-up of the immigrants changed so did the discrimination.

My parents are originally from Eastern Europe and they faced discrimination when they arrived here in the 1950's. They were told the same things immigrants from all eras were told-immigrants are here to take away jobs from people who were born and raised here, they're getting government assistance, even though they're not one of "us", etc. It's tough enough leaving family and going somewhere where they don't know the language and culture without all of the other crap. What the people who are screaming for immigrants to go back to where they come from don't realise is that at some point in their family tree, their ancestors were immigrants who came here from some other part of the world for a better life.

A friend of mine was in San Diego and visited a high school friend. They got talking about immigration and she was shocked how her friend and her husband were spewing such hateful rhetoric about Latino immigrants. She wanted to stop talking about it, but they kept going and now she does not want to see them again.
Nothing like a recession to get Americans to blame the immigrants for everything that is going wrong, especially in the border states.
NAFTA destroyed a lot of the Mexican subsistence farmers' livelihood, American-grown corn flooded the market. And we are surprised so many come North for jobs?
If the Mexican government would take better care of its citizens they wouldn't have to come here for work. The richest man in the world is Mexican, so much for the trickle-down theory of economics.

I find it a little odd that I never hear native American and other indigenous people's view on immigration and issues like the new law in Arizona.

Quote:Is some cop going to stop me and make me produce my "papers"? And if I don't have a passport on me will I go to jail? It's really frightening to think that we're going in this direction.

Isn't this what the Gestapo did in Nazi Germany to fish out Jews? Look how well that turned out.

I will have to play devil's advocate on this one. In the first place the police are only authorized to investigate if there's some kind of criminal activity going on. You would be pulled over by the police if you had a traffic violation, not by the color of your skin.

Other than that, this is about the law. They have entered this country illegally by crossing the border. How many countries do you know of that you can just come in without any visas and or paperwork that everyone else has to, and then just get a job and a place to live? People who have become citizens here in this country had to do it legally by applying and taking recommended courses to become citizens (or however that's done). Do you think it's fair for these people that they worked hard and did the right things, and then the illegals shall get a free pass in for breaking the law? On top of that, the money these illegals make goes to Mexico. They do not pay taxes.

It would seem like the illegals are mostly Mexican in Arizona and other border states. I feel that it's hypocritical that they would be outraged over this when Americans go to Mexico and get thrown into jail for some little offense that they did (or even no offense at all). In Mexico you have to prove that you were innocent; whereas here in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Also there had been Americans that had medical problems in Mexico and were not able to receive medical help by orders of the Government there.

Around 15 years ago, I guess it was, there were a boatload of Chinese people attempting to come to the US. Somehow they were off of Mexico and the Government there picked them up. They put all of the Chinese people in jail and then deported everyone of them shortly after that. Would we ever do that here? Bear in mind that the Chinese people would face execution when they went back. The Mexican Gov't
didn't care about that!

I know that the law is tough but something had to be done. Crime had just got out of hand. It is the Federal Govenment's job to secure the borders and they have not done it. I admire Arizona for standing up to all of this.

I do agree with Noell in her last two sentences.

Tommy, thanks for presenting the opposite point of view. At least here I can get that without getting into a fight.

I guess I am still thinking Europeans took lands from people who were here first. So it's hard to justify telling people they can't have what we took. I think our arrogance is coming back to bite us in the butt.

Also, what Dog said. What DO indigenous North Americans have to say about all this? They were the original humans on this land.

I am Canadian so I don't always understand the American perspective. Canada houses all kinds of AMERICANS who flee their own land, from the underground railway of slave times to Draft Dodgers to gay refugees who want to get married and live here.

I do not agree with closing borders, considering yes, we are almost ALL of us either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. That being said, even Canada has strict immigration policies, where immigrants have to fulfill a set of criteria to be granted immigration status. This country is SO multicultural, it would be absurd to even imagine a Canada where cops asked people on the street for ID. Everyone looks like an immigrant in one fashion or another. Yes, even those descended from the Brits are still British immigrants.

I live in the part of Canada where almost all immigrants settle, so my view is kind of skewed. In college, I remember the prof asking us what the biggest immigrant population was, and I piped up, VERY assuredly, "OH CHINESE! Or possibly Somali". Nope. Not even close. Yes, those people settle in the Golden Horseshoe, but CANADA wide, the largest immigrant populations are English, French, German and I think Polish. I didn't believe it. He said if you look through the phonebook of Nowheresville Saskatchewan, you are NOT going to see Abdul Mohammed or Ying Lee. You are going to see McDonalds and Fishers and Dions. I had to admit, I'd been tainted by living at Ground Zero for new immigrants in this country, and the faces do change. Most immigrants nowadays are not white skinned, whereas in the old days they were.

I think American culture is harsh, and I think Arizona culture is harsher still. I don't get that attitude, that THIS LAND IS OUR LAND crap, and how anyone can think it's theirs when yeah, they stole it... TORTURED, MAIMED, RAPED and KILLED native populations for it. Ugh.

First off, I don't care about historical immigration. No we were NOT all immigrants at one time or another -- no one applied to the Native American Bureau of Immigration or anything like that. Times were different, and we were CONQUERORS, not immigrants. It's important to understand this -- because all laws, and all policies are about the mindset of the time the laws/policies were created, not about human constants or realities. What we now call "immigration" we once called "opportunity".

That distinction is vital, because from the perspective of most immigrants to this country, they come here for opportunity. But all "we" see are resource-sucking dark-skinned people who won't learn English, and who come here in such masses that we are afraid of a revolution where the white-skinned race will disappear (this fear feeds everything from AZ's law to all those studies about our "dying" population and low (white) birth rates).

Quote:You would be pulled over by the police if you had a traffic violation, not by the color of your skin.

This argument about the AZ law or any similar is mere whitewashing. Do you know why so many people are caught with drugs during car stops? -- because almost every state in the union, under pressure from police and citizen groups to "do something about drugs", created a traffic law where if your tire just TOUCHES the painted line on either side of your lane, you have broken a traffic law and are subject to being pulled over. Your driver's license application (in most states) that you signed had you giving consent to having your car searched, so you can't refuse now (although in my state, if you refuse -- which is your right under the law! -- you can be detained at the side of the road for many hours while they wait for the drug sniffing dog to snow up). Think about it -- how often have you touched the line while driving? -- how often have you changed a radio dial, answered the phone, searched your purse for a pen, avoided a hazard in the road, been muscled to the far side of your lane by a driver who's not paying attention, or nervously watched a police car in your rearview mirror even though you know you did nothing wrong? -- yet you committed EXACTLY the kind of infraction that will bring you to the attention of the AZ police, and make you subject to having your "papers" examined.

Quote:People who have become citizens here in this country had to do it legally by applying and taking recommended courses to become citizens (or however that's done). Do you think it's fair for these people that they worked hard and did the right things, and then the illegals shall get a free pass in for breaking the law?

No, it's not fair. But let's face it -- America's immigration policy is racist in the extreme. There are quotas for the amount of persons we will legally take from various countries -- more from the white European countries, a good chunk from white-ish Asian and sub-Asian countries, significantly fewer from dark Africa, etc.

Further, our immigration policy already favors those LEGAL immigrants who "take jobs away from Americans", and in this case, GOOD jobs! My sister works for the Philosophy department of a major southern California university, and in her first year on the job, she processed the work visas for three Philosophy professors. Part of the work visa application includes an affidavit to the effect that they cannot find a similarly qualified American to fill the job. Really! There are no Ph.Ds in philosophy working at McDonalds? I really doubt it. Heck, the lady who got me into real estate had a Masters in Philosophy. But the lie is made all the time, to bring in foreign workers who take HIGHLY PAID jobs away from Americans. The legal immigration system is just as screwed up as the illegal immigration system.

Quote:On top of that, the money these illegals make goes to Mexico. They do not pay taxes.

I agree that it totally sucks that the money they make in America is funneled back to Mexico. That is a huge reason why Mexico has ZERO incentive to reform their economy -- if I recall, money from expatriates is one of their top five or top ten GDP earning areas! Why mess with it, when it's like free money?

As to the taxes, though, I have to disagree with you. In America, you are now required to have ID (Driver's license and SSN) to get a job, and the failure of properly checking IDs rests with employers now, who can be severely fined and penalized for hiring illegals. What this means, then, is that illegals use a fake SSN, or they steal the SSN off someone else who works, or they take the SSN of a dead person. This means they ABSOLUTELY pay taxes, including Social Security payments, and Medicare payments. But since they don't like to work too closely with the US government, they rarely, if ever, file their tax forms and get their refunds!!! Illegal immigrant payments of taxes and SS are net GAINS for this country. Although in the case of SSN, the money is, in a virtual sense, set aside until the claimant files, and thus there are billions of dollars in unclaimed SS money that the government gets to use to spend on other things. But that is all a Federal issue -- more pertinent for local authorities is that illegals pay SALES tax (which tax goes to states, cities, counties and schools, depending). And if you've ever been in Walmart on a Sunday, you know they buy stuff like crazy, and pay their fair share of SALES tax.

Quote:I know that the law is tough but something had to be done. Crime had just got out of hand.

What crime is that? I keep hearing this -- all this crime in AZ, and the Mexicans are to blame. Hey! AZ, and in particular the Phoenix area, took the brunt of the housing bubble bursting along with Las Vegas! People have lost jobs, their houses were foreclosed on, they have no place to live and nowhere to work. Can it be that CITIZENS might be committing the crimes, assuming crimes are indeed on the upswing there? (And of course, if you have read "Freakonomics" you also have to ask yourself if any upswing in crime in any area is due to restrictive abortion laws enacted in those areas.)

My experience in South Georgia, where we DO have a large Mexican/Guatemalan population of farm workers and such, is that they tend to avoid trouble as much as they can. They don't want to come under the scrutiny of the government, and risk deportation, so they tend to fly under the radar, avoid situations which might put them in trouble, and basically just work, send money home, take care of their families, and MOST OF ALL avoid eye contact! It's kinda weird, actually. But that's how badly they DO NOT want to commit any sort of infraction that would draw any sort of attention.

Further, illegals are prey for home-grown criminals. If they work under the table, they can't put their money in banks, so they keep it at home -- in Georgia, home invasions involving Mexicans are very much on the upswing, as are murders of immigrants during these burglaries. And the number is shaky and largely unofficial because they don't want to be noticed, so they don't call the police to report a crime committed against them. It is a huge problem for caring local police who want to keep HUMAN BEINGS safe in their community, but who have not been able to establish trust with local immigrant communities (often because country police departments have no one who speaks Spanish). And in cases where trust has been established, now comes a law that requires police to arrest anyone they suspect is an illegal. You know what a caring cop is thinking right now? -- thanks a fucking lot, all my hard work in establishing trust just flew out the window.

Yes, I am VERY concerned about crimes involving illegals. I am concerned for the cash worker who is robbed by a bunch of teenage rednecks. I am concerned about the immigrant family terrorized in their home because they can't use a bank to safeguard their hard-earned wages. I am concerned about legal dark-skinned people, because rednecks and thugs don't typically check "papers" to see if they are truly attacking an illegal. I am concerned about immigrants left to die in the desert by unscrupulous coyotes. I am concerned for the lives of Americans living on the rural border areas, who mistake desperation and thirst (perhaps even mania caused by thirst) for intrusion, and who shoot first and ask questions later (or who never get a chance to shoot first, because the desperate illegal thinks every American is out to get him, so he'd better defend himself right off the bat).

My problem with the AZ law -- and with all the hysteria surrounding illegal immigration -- is that these recent immigration policies are focused on denying the humanity of desperate people. They aren't human beings who need protecting from unscrupulous coyotes -- they are illegals who deserve what they got. They aren't humans who should be safe in their own home from thieves and murderers -- they are illegals who deserve what they got. They shouldn't have been here in the first place. They shouldn't have taken a job from an American (but show me an American willing to work in the hot southern sun, in July, picking 20 pound watermelons for minimum wage).

I would LOVE to see the study that shows the net gain from illegal and/or unskilled migrant work. The beautiful lawns and trimmed shrubs in areas where the Mexican gardener prevails. The babies rocked to sleep by a Spanish-speaking nanny. The crops harvested all over this country at below minimum wage, to ensure that the grapes and cantaloupes are cheap enough at the store that you will buy them. Heck, there was a Mexican (legal? illegal? who knows?) making the donuts at the donut shop yesterday. There was one at the butcher's shop making sausage last week. There were four at the loading dock of the Goodwill store yesterday when I made a donation of furniture. There were fourteen at the lunch buffet at a local restaurant, all wearing construction boots and dirty shirts and pants, all paying for a lunch provided by an American-owned business that is still in business in these hard economic times.

Yes, by all means -- kick these horrible, no good people out.

Oh, speaking of Mexican farm workers...

I live on a farm now, and having taken up gardening on an EXTREMELY small scale compared to acres of farmland.... well, farming is HARD WORK. Sweat, hot, heavy hard work. Friends of friends own a large tobacco farm and my friend told me they hire Mexicans at harvest time EVERY year to do the work. At the time, I didn't get it. I said "HUH?" She said, Jo, seriously. Locals will NOT DO THIS WORK. They won't. And it's not like they are being paid pennies... it's all legal, over the table, they are bought over on work visas and they make something along the lines of minimum wage plus housing during the time they are here.

I had no idea.

Turns out, there is a website now -- http://www.takeourjobs.org/ -- where Mexican labourers are encouraging locals TO TAKE OUR JOBS (they know full well Americans will not do this work). By the time the head of that organization showed on the Colbert Report, he said THREE Americans had signed up to take the challenge. Colbert said, "MAKE IT FOUR. I'M IN". I think it's great he's going to draw attention to it.

(07-31-2010 01:40 AM)tommy14 Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to play devil's advocate on this one. In the first place the police are only authorized to investigate if there's some kind of criminal activity going on. You would be pulled over by the police if you had a traffic violation, not by the color of your skin.

Other than that, this is about the law. They have entered this country illegally by crossing the border. How many countries do you know of that you can just come in without any visas and or paperwork that everyone else has to, and then just get a job and a place to live? People who have become citizens here in this country had to do it legally by applying and taking recommended courses to become citizens (or however that's done). Do you think it's fair for these people that they worked hard and did the right things, and then the illegals shall get a free pass in for breaking the law? On top of that, the money these illegals make goes to Mexico. They do not pay taxes.

It would seem like the illegals are mostly Mexican in Arizona and other border states. I feel that it's hypocritical that they would be outraged over this when Americans go to Mexico and get thrown into jail for some little offense that they did (or even no offense at all). In Mexico you have to prove that you were innocent; whereas here in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Also there had been Americans that had medical problems in Mexico and were not able to receive medical help by orders of the Government there.

Around 15 years ago, I guess it was, there were a boatload of Chinese people attempting to come to the US. Somehow they were off of Mexico and the Government there picked them up. They put all of the Chinese people in jail and then deported everyone of them shortly after that. Would we ever do that here? Bear in mind that the Chinese people would face execution when they went back. The Mexican Gov't
didn't care about that!

I know that the law is tough but something had to be done. Crime had just got out of hand. It is the Federal Govenment's job to secure the borders and they have not done it. I admire Arizona for standing up to all of this.

I do agree with Noell in her last two sentences.

I agree with everything you said here. I've seen countless flamewars break out over this war on various forums I visit, and it's so easy to pick out the people who haven't actually read the law (namely the part stating that you must be arrested for another offense before you can be questioned about your citizenship - you can't just be plucked off the street and asked for your papers). I fully support the law and admire Arizona for doing what the federal government should be doing.

There are countries that will execute you if you cross their borders illegally. I certainly don't support that drastic of an action, but the point remains that it is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. If you want to come to America, do it through legal channels.

But Nadleeh, Western Europeans didn't come here through legal channels. They just stomped in, took what they wanted, and ruined entire nations. Why do laws matter now, if they didn't matter then?

I think the point is that they weren't breaking the laws back then.

I'm against the law in Arizona, but... the porous border is clearly causing a huge social and legal problem and something should be done. I prefer the Canadian plan (although it's much easier for us to execute as they have little incentive to cross our borders illegally) which is to welcome them and look after them openly. The Mexicans are needed to do the work in the US, so why not open your borders officially. It's the fact that the process has become black-market and illegal that is the problem, and not the fact that there are Mexicans in the US.

Oh, and Eslbee:
Your comments seem to suggest that 'because they did it back then, we should be allowed to do it now'. That sends shivers up my spine. It's part of the US military mentality that because the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan do not follow the Geneva Convention and Law of Armed Conflict then the US won't either. Every other nation follows those laws, and treats the 'bad guys' to a certain moral standard. We hate the US's policy, as what differentiates the US from the insurgents now? They are just as bad one from the other, and we try to disassociate ourselves from the US for that reason.

Ziggy, I think you are misreading me. I think Native Americans have every right to kick us clear back to Europe. And I don't see how we can say, "It was okay when there were no civil laws, just moral ones. But now our civil laws trump your rights to be." And then quote the Bible and claim manifest destiny or something. When and where do you draw the line? And how do you decide?

I guess I'm also wondering why we can't examine our situation with a critical eye and say, "Our ancestors messed up. Can we do better?" Europeans stomped in because Native Americans had no idea they needed to protect themselves from such a complete takeover. Among the tribes, they somehow worked things out when there were territorial disputes. Otherwise, I guess, the strongest nation here would have taken over all the others. I'm not sure if anything like this ever came close to happening.

(07-31-2010 07:55 PM)Nadleeh Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to come to America, do it through legal channels.

Nadleeh, Tommy, this article may clear this issue up for you:
An exerpt from "They Take Our Jobs!" and 20 Other Myths About Immigration by Aviva Chomsky.

Myth 7: THE RULES APPLY TO EVERYONE, SO NEW IMMIGRANTS NEED TO FOLLOW THEM JUST AS IMMIGRANTS IN THE PAST DID

One of the most oft-repeated—and most puzzling—comments regarding the debate on immigration goes something like this: "I'm not against immigration, but I'm against illegal immigration. New immigrants should play by the rules, like our parents and forebears did."

The sentiment reveals a lot about how we've been taught to think about U.S. history: we've been taught to think of this as a country of white, voluntary immigrants. The history of people who don't fall into that category is incidental, rather than central, to the story we learn in school. "The rules," though, were different for Europeans than for Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. For the latter, "the rules" meant enslavement, exclusion, and conquest.

What the people (generally of European origin) who point to "the rules" ignore, moreover, is that when their parents and grandparents came to the United States, they in fact did exactly what so-called "illegal" immigrants are doing today. They decided to make the journey, and they made it. All they had to do was get together the boat fare. The rules were different then. U.S. law explicitly limited citizenship and naturalization to white people. Nonwhites, however, were denied both entry and citizenship. Through a complex process of omission and commission, the law dictated open immigration for white people and restricted immigration for people of color. Immigration and naturalization law created, in the words of Aristide Zolberg, "a nation by design."

Between 1880 and World War I, about 25 million Europeans immigrated to the United States. They did not have visas or passports. A very small number of them—about 1 percent—were turned back at Ellis Island because they were deemed to be criminals, prostitutes, diseased, anarchists, or paupers. There were no illegal immigrants from Europe because there was no law making immigration illegal for Europeans.

It wasn't until 1924 that numerical restrictions were placed on white European immigration, creating a situation in some ways similar to today's, in which would-be immigrants had to compete, before they left home, for the few available visas to come to the United States. The restrictions placed on Europeans, though, pale in the face of those that the 1924 legislation placed on non-Europeans: as "aliens ineligible to citizenship" because they belonged to the "colored races," they were excluded altogether. Although the 1924 quotas did not apply to the Western Hemisphere— Congress couldn't figure out what "race" Mexicans actually belonged to—the legislation also invented the concept of the "illegal immigrant" and created the Border Patrol to keep Mexicans out. (I describe these restrictions in more detail in the section on immigration and race in my book.)

The last major immigration reform, in 1965, finally removed the racially defined quota system, and replaced it with a uniform quota system for all countries. But the new laws of 1965 were only one factor leading to the huge increase in immigration from Latin America and Asia.

Even more important has been the acceleration of what we now call "globalization." Today's globalization builds on structures developed during the centuries of colonialism that preceded it. One aspect of globalization in the second half of the twentieth century has been a huge population movement from the former colonies into the lands of their former colonial masters. In order to comprehend this global phenomenon, we have to look at the socioeconomic and cultural legacy of colonialism.

In broad strokes, the European colonialism that shaped the modern world could be described as the conquest of people of color by white people, the massive transfer of natural resources out of the colonies and into the colonial powers, and the dispossession of formerly self-sufficient native inhabitants as their lands were taken for the export economy. Modern colonialism began with Spanish and Portuguese expansion in the 1400s, followed by northern European expansion in the 1600s and 1700s. By the end of the 1800s the European countries had carved up much of Africa and Asia, while the United States was extending direct and indirect rule into the newly independent countries of Latin America.

Formerly self-sufficient natives of these lands conveniently served as a cheap or coerced labor force to exploit the resources (land, minerals). The colonial powers received the raw materials and agricultural products that allowed them to industrialize; the colonies were left with depleted lands and political structures that were geared toward tyranny and exploitation. If the dispossessed masses rebelled, colonial armies were quickly mobilized to repress them.

Consider the example of the Dominican Republic. It was colonized first by Spain, then by the United States. (The U.S. invaded and occupied the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924 and again in 1965.) The first U.S. occupation brought about massive dispossession and transfer of Dominican land into the hands of U.S.-owned sugar plantations; the second brought about the modern version of colonialism (sometimes called "neocolonialism"), in which the governments of poor countries are forced to create low-wage, lowtax, low-regulation environments for the benefit of U.S. corporations. (The proliferation of these export-processing zones there explains why so many of our clothes bear tags saying "Made in the Dominican Republic.")

The United States has the highest standard of living in the world, and it maintains it by using its laws, and its military, to enforce the extraction of resources and labor from its modern version of colonies, with little compensation for the populations. It is no wonder that people from these countries want to follow their resources to the place where they are being enjoyed.

Most of today's immigrants come from countries where the United States has been deeply involved in the past hundred years: in addition to the Dominican Republic, they come from such countries as Mexico, the Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Given the numerical quotas and the preference system that privileges family members of those already in the United States, for most would-be immigrants from the Third World (i.e., people from former colonies—i.e., people of color) there is literally no way at all to receive permission to come here. Even immediate family members, who are granted priority, have to wait up to twenty years to get permission. For those without family members who are citizens or permanent residents, the current law is little different from the one passed in 1924: it permanently excludes them.

The law, then, is inherently discriminatory. It primarily benefits close relatives of U.S. citizens and of permanent residents. For most people who want to come to the United States, the law simply forbids it.

When the law prevented blacks from sitting at a lunch counter reserved for whites, black people protested the law by breaking it—sitting down where they were told they weren't allowed. On many occasions in the past, people have struggled for equality before the law by committing civil disobedience and entering an institution, a neighborhood, a city, a state, or a country that forbids their presence. Today, we think of many of those who broke the law in the past in the interest of equal rights as heroes.

I guess we'd better take down that silly poem Emma Lazarus wrote about the Statue of Liberty, before someone tries to take it seriously.

I know indigenous white Europeans, such as myself, can't all go back to Europe, although I am tempted. Between us we have a choice of four delightful countries we could probably talk our way into. But it's patently absurd that the descendants of the original natives of this continent, and South America, live in squalor that was imposed on them by our ancestors while we live in relative luxury. This is where socialism would come in very handy. If we did spread the wealth, none of us in this group would be likely to lose anything. Some would almost certainly gain, and only the fantabulously wealthy would "lose" anything at all, which they would most likely not even miss except it would piss them off.

For me 'legal' immigration brings benefits to the immigrants that they don't obtain if they sneak in, which is why I prefer to promote that option. In order to do it properly there has to be a much more open policy, which I think is the US's problem from my point of view.

The way that it was done in the past is definitely not right and the current system doesn't seem to be working too well for the US, but I can't imagine that the culture over there would ever allow for a good solution. The majority of the population doesn't want to welcome too many of immigrants in an official capacity, while the need for them is so huge that farmers will gladly take advantage of them.

The immigrants are there because the US wants them to be there... although why they don't document them, tax them, and offer them social services in return is beyond me. (My guess is that this would require an increase in pay that the farmers couldn't afford).