"I*****l i*******ts", border, and related topics: What we want
Jun 23, 2018 23:34:41 #
Today I see 3 topics listed regarding immigrants. One says the problem started with the Obama administration. The other two, by their titles, assert an attitude that the Mexican government supposedly has regarding emigration to the U.S. But I want a topic which shows the relevant t***hs as I see them, and begins to explore what we want, regarding immigrants. So that's what this post is about.
I see a lot of talk about i*****l i*******ts assuming that they are bums, lazy, violent, don't care about their children, devious, and so on with the negative terminologies. However, as: (1) I don't happen to personally know any bad i*****l i*******t, but: (2) I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: (3) the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back), I am thinking maybe some or all of this negative terminology about i*****l i*******ts might be unfounded or biased.
I wonder how many of us have met i*****l i*******ts, how many of them, under what circumstances; and how many of us have gotten to know any of them. And, if we met them, did we know they were illegal, and if so, then how did we know?
And if we read about an i*****l i*******t in the news, would that be a typical i*****l i*******t, or instead would there be something exceptional about that one that made him or her newsworthy? Are we really seeing a representative sample of i*****l i*******ts; or instead is the sample biased?
My background is that I grew up in a tiny town, in what I now know is a politically "Conservative" area, for example the people there tended to be relatively homogeneous -- almost everyone there was just white (we called ourselves "Americans" and that's all we knew) so we didn't think about "race" up close (the only exceptions were a few part-Native-American people and one adopted black person who was there after I got to high school). I never heard any language other than English, until we began learning Spanish at school. Spanish was the one foreign language offered. Everyone there (including my family) was Protestant Christian, though generally no more devout than in most places. And, for example, lately I found out that some of them v**ed for Trump. And then I found out that a close family member of mine, who still lives there, gets all his news from Fox News. Overall, the area is mostly "Republican" and "Conservative".
Then I went away to college, at a small Methodist-sponsored private liberal arts college, and that's where I began to meet a greater variety of people.
I shall begin by telling you about the wide variety of people from other countries, whom I've known. Most of these were presumably "legal", but a few of them might possibly have been "illegal" at one time -- how would I know -- I never asked, and they didn't ask my legal status either. Then I'll tell you a little about the people I've seen around here more recently -- a few of these many people have presumably been "illegal" since this is metropolitan California where I live now and there's a wide variety of people here.
One of my half-dozen best friends in my freshman year at college was from Iran. He was Muslim. I also had friends from Nigeria and Japan that year, and a couple of years later, one of my best friends was from Peru. Some of these people did not speak good English when they arrived here. (The Peruvian spoke no English at all when he arrived.) (But the Nigerians all spoke British English.) A few years later I attended a public university where I had friends, roommates, and office-mates from India, Iran, Algeria, China, and Nigeria. Years later I worked at a research establishment where I got to know people from Taiwan, Singapore, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Iran (this time a Jew from Iran), and probably a few other countries I don't remember right now. One day I told the Jew from Iran that I would like to meet more people from Palestine, and he arranged that I had lunch with someone who grew up in the West Bank (that's part of Palestine) and was working at that same research establishment where I worked.
My undergraduate college was a place where students could get to know their teachers. One of my teachers, my first semester, was from Cuba. You may be able to imagine my reaction to that, according to my previous background. I was suspicious of him, because Cuba was a C*******t country. One day in class I spent the entire hour watching him very closely (he later said it made him uncomfortable). At the end of that hour I decided I could trust him. In my four years at college, I knew that Cuban-American teacher more than any of my other teachers. When he had come to the U.S. about 5 or 10 years earlier, he could not speak English. I consider him a political refugee; I don't know exactly what he considers himself.
To call any of those people lazy or bums, or even unintelligent or undereducated, would be laughable. The people from other countries tended to be smarter, better educated, and of course better informed about world affairs, than the people I knew who had lived only in the U.S. They were also good people. That includes the Mexicans; I didn't mention them yet; I knew a couple of young Mexicans here in the U.S. when I was in a different job; they didn't know any English and I t***slated for them a few times. They, too, were good people. And at least one, probably both, of them had gotten a better education in their school when they were in Mexico than I had gotten in my school in the U.S. at the same age.
Now I remember also, at the research establishment where I worked later I also met a Ukrainian-American and a Mexican-American; I remember the Mexican-American there told me about local government where she had been in Mexico -- very educational for me, as has been so many of my encounters with people from other countries. They are not at all the way U.S. people usually imagine them to be.
After attending the university I moved to a metropolitan area in California where I've been for the past 35 years, and this is a multi-ethnic place with a wide variety of people from all over. Presumably some of them would be classified as "illegal" immigrants. The news lately is about what's been happening at the border with Mexico. So I'll tell you a little about the people around here who look like they might be from Mexico, and I know for a fact that some of them are from Mexico -- the ones I've gotten to know well are very good people and presumably legal immigrants but of course I don't ask their legal status; that would just be rude; and they don't ask mine either. All the Mexicans or Mexican-Americans around here are a mix of people as good as, or maybe better than, the people in the little town and school where I grew up. If you see anyone around here who looks like they came from Mexico or Viet Nam or any other country, you can bet, and win the bet, that they are harder working than the people who have lived in the U.S. all their lives.
I see Mexican-Americans working, and I can't know, nor do I care, about their legal status, but they are obviously hard workers, doing all kinds of work.
So, first point:
Are i*****l i*******ts lazy? Answer: No.
They did not come here as lazy bums looking for handouts. They came here for work and safety.
Second point:
Are i*****l i*******ts more dangerous than U.S. citizens? Answer: No.
The people who come up from Mexico and Central America and become classified as "i*****l i*******ts" in the U.S. have come from places which were too dangerous or which didn't have enough work. That's why they had to risk the journey to the U.S.: to be able to work to support their families in peace. Committing any crime (other than looking for work or safety) is the last thing any of them would want to do, because it could get them deported, which would be counterproductive to their aim of supporting their families in peace. They understand all this at least as well as you do; or maybe better than you do.
Of all the mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S. -- which occur often in the U.S., but not so often in any other country -- I have yet to hear of a single one committed by any i*****l i*******t.
If you really want to find a group of violent, dangerous people, then look at the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant 3rd- 4th- and 5th-generation U.S. Americans -- the same ethnic group responsible for genocide of Native Americans and s***ery of kidnapped Africans and their generations, and now the same group doing more mass shootings than anyone else. By the way, the mass shootings are "illegal", if it makes a difference.
The one thing about "illegal" immigrants which could make them more dangerous than some other group is simply that the government has classified them as "illegal" and harrasses them for it: it forces them to hide from the law rather than to live more openly and depend on the law. When the law is against you, everything has more potential for danger.
People are more important than laws. The right thing to do is to allow these people to be open about what they are, wherever they are; if they don't have a legal status, then invent some legal status that fits their situation, and accord it to them.
Here in the U.S., I can show my ID and get some benefits, but not all benefits. I happen to qualify for Medicare, as of next month. Here in the U.S., I can be jailed according to crimes I allegedly commit; do we want people to be jailed for seeking work or safety? No. Save the jailing for real problematic behavior such as violent assaults. This can work for everybody; I with my citizen ID and them with their new-immigrant ID. Some citizens qualify for Medicare (for example), but not all do. It can work the same way with the new-immigrant ID: each person either qualifies or doesn't for each particular benefit.
Wh**ever the legal status these immigrants may have, it will have its limits or benefits according to what that particular legal status is supposed to mean. They should probably all be given work visas automatically. A lot of the work they do is work that U.S. citizens don't want to do. You want "free trade"? The border allows money to pass through it; it should allow people to pass through it. Wh**ever you allow a dollar to do, you should allow a person to do, as the person is so much more important.
Stop harrassing them. It only creates problems.
Finally, what I want: I want all the people around me to be able to work and live in peace, without being harrassed. I don't care what their legal status is; they don't ask mine, and I don't ask theirs. Also, I want that people stop bad-mouthing the so-called "illegal" immigrants; those bad-mouthing people just sound ignorant and vicious; whereas the "illegal" immigrants have better things to do, like working to support their families.
I see a lot of talk about i*****l i*******ts assuming that they are bums, lazy, violent, don't care about their children, devious, and so on with the negative terminologies. However, as: (1) I don't happen to personally know any bad i*****l i*******t, but: (2) I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: (3) the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back), I am thinking maybe some or all of this negative terminology about i*****l i*******ts might be unfounded or biased.
I wonder how many of us have met i*****l i*******ts, how many of them, under what circumstances; and how many of us have gotten to know any of them. And, if we met them, did we know they were illegal, and if so, then how did we know?
And if we read about an i*****l i*******t in the news, would that be a typical i*****l i*******t, or instead would there be something exceptional about that one that made him or her newsworthy? Are we really seeing a representative sample of i*****l i*******ts; or instead is the sample biased?
My background is that I grew up in a tiny town, in what I now know is a politically "Conservative" area, for example the people there tended to be relatively homogeneous -- almost everyone there was just white (we called ourselves "Americans" and that's all we knew) so we didn't think about "race" up close (the only exceptions were a few part-Native-American people and one adopted black person who was there after I got to high school). I never heard any language other than English, until we began learning Spanish at school. Spanish was the one foreign language offered. Everyone there (including my family) was Protestant Christian, though generally no more devout than in most places. And, for example, lately I found out that some of them v**ed for Trump. And then I found out that a close family member of mine, who still lives there, gets all his news from Fox News. Overall, the area is mostly "Republican" and "Conservative".
Then I went away to college, at a small Methodist-sponsored private liberal arts college, and that's where I began to meet a greater variety of people.
I shall begin by telling you about the wide variety of people from other countries, whom I've known. Most of these were presumably "legal", but a few of them might possibly have been "illegal" at one time -- how would I know -- I never asked, and they didn't ask my legal status either. Then I'll tell you a little about the people I've seen around here more recently -- a few of these many people have presumably been "illegal" since this is metropolitan California where I live now and there's a wide variety of people here.
One of my half-dozen best friends in my freshman year at college was from Iran. He was Muslim. I also had friends from Nigeria and Japan that year, and a couple of years later, one of my best friends was from Peru. Some of these people did not speak good English when they arrived here. (The Peruvian spoke no English at all when he arrived.) (But the Nigerians all spoke British English.) A few years later I attended a public university where I had friends, roommates, and office-mates from India, Iran, Algeria, China, and Nigeria. Years later I worked at a research establishment where I got to know people from Taiwan, Singapore, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Iran (this time a Jew from Iran), and probably a few other countries I don't remember right now. One day I told the Jew from Iran that I would like to meet more people from Palestine, and he arranged that I had lunch with someone who grew up in the West Bank (that's part of Palestine) and was working at that same research establishment where I worked.
My undergraduate college was a place where students could get to know their teachers. One of my teachers, my first semester, was from Cuba. You may be able to imagine my reaction to that, according to my previous background. I was suspicious of him, because Cuba was a C*******t country. One day in class I spent the entire hour watching him very closely (he later said it made him uncomfortable). At the end of that hour I decided I could trust him. In my four years at college, I knew that Cuban-American teacher more than any of my other teachers. When he had come to the U.S. about 5 or 10 years earlier, he could not speak English. I consider him a political refugee; I don't know exactly what he considers himself.
To call any of those people lazy or bums, or even unintelligent or undereducated, would be laughable. The people from other countries tended to be smarter, better educated, and of course better informed about world affairs, than the people I knew who had lived only in the U.S. They were also good people. That includes the Mexicans; I didn't mention them yet; I knew a couple of young Mexicans here in the U.S. when I was in a different job; they didn't know any English and I t***slated for them a few times. They, too, were good people. And at least one, probably both, of them had gotten a better education in their school when they were in Mexico than I had gotten in my school in the U.S. at the same age.
Now I remember also, at the research establishment where I worked later I also met a Ukrainian-American and a Mexican-American; I remember the Mexican-American there told me about local government where she had been in Mexico -- very educational for me, as has been so many of my encounters with people from other countries. They are not at all the way U.S. people usually imagine them to be.
After attending the university I moved to a metropolitan area in California where I've been for the past 35 years, and this is a multi-ethnic place with a wide variety of people from all over. Presumably some of them would be classified as "illegal" immigrants. The news lately is about what's been happening at the border with Mexico. So I'll tell you a little about the people around here who look like they might be from Mexico, and I know for a fact that some of them are from Mexico -- the ones I've gotten to know well are very good people and presumably legal immigrants but of course I don't ask their legal status; that would just be rude; and they don't ask mine either. All the Mexicans or Mexican-Americans around here are a mix of people as good as, or maybe better than, the people in the little town and school where I grew up. If you see anyone around here who looks like they came from Mexico or Viet Nam or any other country, you can bet, and win the bet, that they are harder working than the people who have lived in the U.S. all their lives.
I see Mexican-Americans working, and I can't know, nor do I care, about their legal status, but they are obviously hard workers, doing all kinds of work.
So, first point:
Are i*****l i*******ts lazy? Answer: No.
They did not come here as lazy bums looking for handouts. They came here for work and safety.
Second point:
Are i*****l i*******ts more dangerous than U.S. citizens? Answer: No.
The people who come up from Mexico and Central America and become classified as "i*****l i*******ts" in the U.S. have come from places which were too dangerous or which didn't have enough work. That's why they had to risk the journey to the U.S.: to be able to work to support their families in peace. Committing any crime (other than looking for work or safety) is the last thing any of them would want to do, because it could get them deported, which would be counterproductive to their aim of supporting their families in peace. They understand all this at least as well as you do; or maybe better than you do.
Of all the mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S. -- which occur often in the U.S., but not so often in any other country -- I have yet to hear of a single one committed by any i*****l i*******t.
If you really want to find a group of violent, dangerous people, then look at the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant 3rd- 4th- and 5th-generation U.S. Americans -- the same ethnic group responsible for genocide of Native Americans and s***ery of kidnapped Africans and their generations, and now the same group doing more mass shootings than anyone else. By the way, the mass shootings are "illegal", if it makes a difference.
The one thing about "illegal" immigrants which could make them more dangerous than some other group is simply that the government has classified them as "illegal" and harrasses them for it: it forces them to hide from the law rather than to live more openly and depend on the law. When the law is against you, everything has more potential for danger.
People are more important than laws. The right thing to do is to allow these people to be open about what they are, wherever they are; if they don't have a legal status, then invent some legal status that fits their situation, and accord it to them.
Here in the U.S., I can show my ID and get some benefits, but not all benefits. I happen to qualify for Medicare, as of next month. Here in the U.S., I can be jailed according to crimes I allegedly commit; do we want people to be jailed for seeking work or safety? No. Save the jailing for real problematic behavior such as violent assaults. This can work for everybody; I with my citizen ID and them with their new-immigrant ID. Some citizens qualify for Medicare (for example), but not all do. It can work the same way with the new-immigrant ID: each person either qualifies or doesn't for each particular benefit.
Wh**ever the legal status these immigrants may have, it will have its limits or benefits according to what that particular legal status is supposed to mean. They should probably all be given work visas automatically. A lot of the work they do is work that U.S. citizens don't want to do. You want "free trade"? The border allows money to pass through it; it should allow people to pass through it. Wh**ever you allow a dollar to do, you should allow a person to do, as the person is so much more important.
Stop harrassing them. It only creates problems.
Finally, what I want: I want all the people around me to be able to work and live in peace, without being harrassed. I don't care what their legal status is; they don't ask mine, and I don't ask theirs. Also, I want that people stop bad-mouthing the so-called "illegal" immigrants; those bad-mouthing people just sound ignorant and vicious; whereas the "illegal" immigrants have better things to do, like working to support their families.
Jun 24, 2018 00:06:29 #
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Today I see 3 topics listed regarding immigrants. ... (show quote)
You just wasted a truckload of words on the subject of wetbacks.
My hat is off to anyone who will actually read all that you just posted.
The Mexicans are still mad because we kicked their butts and took the land that is now the southwestern United States.
We're gonna keep it even if we have to kick their butts again.
Jun 24, 2018 00:28:01 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
You are not looking for discussion or debate, your mind is made up or should I say it was made up for you. You simply want to bad mouth honest Americans who have deep roots in our nation.
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Today I see 3 topics listed regarding immigrants. ... (show quote)
Jun 24, 2018 01:34:41 #
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Today I see 3 topics listed regarding immigrants. ... (show quote)
You are basing your opinion on your experiences and observations. Others have had different experiences and observations that were negative. Common sense tells us that some i*****l i*******ts are good people and others are not. Very few of us, if any, can see the total picture and we should realize that fact resulting in knowing our opinion is just that, one opinion. Therefore, your opinion may or may not resemble the overall t***h. Try to rationalize your thoughts with common sense.
Jun 24, 2018 01:35:38 #
What a joke is your reply. You are probably being humorous (and thus are innocent). Should I laugh now or later. Ha ha. But I am more serious. (It is a serious topic, after all.) (Or was, until you showed up.) Well, your "reply" is grist for my mill, anyway. At least you gave me something to work with, possibly a little better than no reply at all. Maybe it will generate some interest.
You did not curse (though some of the language was crude) nor insult me directly, but somehow I feel sort of insulted or disappointed.
Some people read.
Some other people facilely dismiss, with the slur du jour ("wetbacks"). And like to talk about "kicking butt".
If you've gotten to know some real people, who might be at all representative of how the i*****l i*******ts might be, then you could let us know your impressions.
From your comment, I gather you don't know much about them. Neither do most "wetback" "kicking butt" emitters. Is that what passes for thinking when you decide how to v**e?
That's why I posted: so that people can know better. I never expected you to read much of new ideas. I made it as palatable and real as I could. (I had to make it personal, that's the reality I have to offer, and yes that did require a lot of words to do.) A few people who are undecided or on the fence about this topic -- maybe just one or two -- may read enough to find out what such people (Mexicans, people from other countries, "i*****l i*******ts") might really be like if one actually meets some of them. A lot of people in the USA don't know much about people outside their own group, yet they think they know. Better awareness leads to better laws.
Some people write. I hope someone will read at least some substantial part of what I wrote, and then write something better. I know that sometimes I don't write very well, nor do I know as much as some others will.
You also wrote: "... we kicked their butts and took the land ...". This time you didn't even try to distinguish it from mere brutal theft. I guess you feel pretty good about forcibly taking somebody else's land? That's the characteristic of the USA that you're proud of, right? Small wonder, then, that you would back bad immigration policies or bad wh**ever. And you don't even read much! Hah hah! I wonder whether President Donald Trump is similar to you in these ways. Fun for a little while, but bad for the future of our children.
You did not curse (though some of the language was crude) nor insult me directly, but somehow I feel sort of insulted or disappointed.
Some people read.
Some other people facilely dismiss, with the slur du jour ("wetbacks"). And like to talk about "kicking butt".
If you've gotten to know some real people, who might be at all representative of how the i*****l i*******ts might be, then you could let us know your impressions.
From your comment, I gather you don't know much about them. Neither do most "wetback" "kicking butt" emitters. Is that what passes for thinking when you decide how to v**e?
That's why I posted: so that people can know better. I never expected you to read much of new ideas. I made it as palatable and real as I could. (I had to make it personal, that's the reality I have to offer, and yes that did require a lot of words to do.) A few people who are undecided or on the fence about this topic -- maybe just one or two -- may read enough to find out what such people (Mexicans, people from other countries, "i*****l i*******ts") might really be like if one actually meets some of them. A lot of people in the USA don't know much about people outside their own group, yet they think they know. Better awareness leads to better laws.
Some people write. I hope someone will read at least some substantial part of what I wrote, and then write something better. I know that sometimes I don't write very well, nor do I know as much as some others will.
You also wrote: "... we kicked their butts and took the land ...". This time you didn't even try to distinguish it from mere brutal theft. I guess you feel pretty good about forcibly taking somebody else's land? That's the characteristic of the USA that you're proud of, right? Small wonder, then, that you would back bad immigration policies or bad wh**ever. And you don't even read much! Hah hah! I wonder whether President Donald Trump is similar to you in these ways. Fun for a little while, but bad for the future of our children.
Wolf counselor wrote:
You just wasted a truckload of words on the subject of wetbacks.
My hat is off to anyone who will actually read all that you just posted.
The Mexicans are still mad because we kicked their butts and took the land that is now the southwestern United States.
We're gonna keep it even if we have to kick their butts again.
My hat is off to anyone who will actually read all that you just posted.
The Mexicans are still mad because we kicked their butts and took the land that is now the southwestern United States.
We're gonna keep it even if we have to kick their butts again.
Jun 24, 2018 02:03:25 #
Rationalizing with common sense: of course. How about this as an example of that: "Committing any crime (other than looking for work or safety) is the last thing any of them would want to do, because it could get them deported, which would be counterproductive to their aim of supporting their families in peace." I thought that was pretty good reasoning. (It was in my original post.)
"experiences and observations": You are right in that my "experiences and observations" are only part of the whole. But you missed a deeper point which is that a typical person (me) who grew up in some typical community could have originally known so little and then found out so much from getting to know people outside that group! Getting out of my homogeneous community and getting to know people from different parts of the world was a necessary education, relevant to decision-making about the world. When I look back at how I thought before and how I thought later, I can see things, like what do people not know, how do they think, how do they make wrong decisions about other people, and so on.
As superficial experiences and observations, being part of the whole, they have some value. As a deeper point, that it's important to get to know different kinds of people before judging them, it has more value.
"experiences and observations": You are right in that my "experiences and observations" are only part of the whole. But you missed a deeper point which is that a typical person (me) who grew up in some typical community could have originally known so little and then found out so much from getting to know people outside that group! Getting out of my homogeneous community and getting to know people from different parts of the world was a necessary education, relevant to decision-making about the world. When I look back at how I thought before and how I thought later, I can see things, like what do people not know, how do they think, how do they make wrong decisions about other people, and so on.
As superficial experiences and observations, being part of the whole, they have some value. As a deeper point, that it's important to get to know different kinds of people before judging them, it has more value.
sisboombaa wrote:
You are basing your opinion on your experiences and observations. Others have had different experiences and observations that were negative. Common sense tells us that some i*****l i*******ts are good people and others are not. Very few of us, if any, can see the total picture and we should realize that fact resulting in knowing our opinion is just that, one opinion. Therefore, your opinion may or may not resemble the overall t***h. Try to rationalize your thoughts with common sense.
Jun 24, 2018 04:53:07 #
The multitudinous, admittedly (based only on his own experience) biased words of this "correspondent's" rank condescension literally leap from the page.
Definition of condescension
1. The trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior
2. A communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient(s)
3. Affability toward your inferiors in temporary disregard of your own exalted position or rank
Following are bare boned word definitions of which the author of the above thread displays, whether by neglect or choice, the most sublime ignorance:
Definition of illegal
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules
Synonyms
criminal, felonious, illegitimate, illicit, lawless, unlawful, wrongful
Definition of nation
: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a defined territory, i.e., border, and government
Synonyms
commonwealth, country, land, sovereignty, res publica, state
Definition of citizen
1 : a legal inhabitant of a city or town; or other political community, who thereby possesses all lawful rights and privileges
2. a native or naturalized member of a state who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled by it to protection
Synonyms
native, national, townsman, villager
When this author declares such stereotypical nonsense as: "I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back)," it is patently obvious this gentleman/lady has no regard or respect for his/her own family, ancestry, or country, and even less for the vital importance of the rule of law required to maintain a civilized nation.
The overcrowding and impending financial ruin of our schools and hospitals is ignored. The vast opioid crisis perpetuated by "illegal" cartels and gangs is equally ignored. The cruelty and danger poised by the murderous MS-13 gang is ignored. His final conclusion: Within the "illegal" community there is only goodness and light!
This is the most lethal combination of blind sighted bias, lamentable naivety and selective ignorance imaginable.
The entire conversation could and should end with one word: ILLEGAL!
"Thou hast set all the borders of the earth..." Psalms 74:17
Definition of condescension
1. The trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior
2. A communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient(s)
3. Affability toward your inferiors in temporary disregard of your own exalted position or rank
Following are bare boned word definitions of which the author of the above thread displays, whether by neglect or choice, the most sublime ignorance:
Definition of illegal
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules
Synonyms
criminal, felonious, illegitimate, illicit, lawless, unlawful, wrongful
Definition of nation
: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a defined territory, i.e., border, and government
Synonyms
commonwealth, country, land, sovereignty, res publica, state
Definition of citizen
1 : a legal inhabitant of a city or town; or other political community, who thereby possesses all lawful rights and privileges
2. a native or naturalized member of a state who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled by it to protection
Synonyms
native, national, townsman, villager
When this author declares such stereotypical nonsense as: "I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back)," it is patently obvious this gentleman/lady has no regard or respect for his/her own family, ancestry, or country, and even less for the vital importance of the rule of law required to maintain a civilized nation.
The overcrowding and impending financial ruin of our schools and hospitals is ignored. The vast opioid crisis perpetuated by "illegal" cartels and gangs is equally ignored. The cruelty and danger poised by the murderous MS-13 gang is ignored. His final conclusion: Within the "illegal" community there is only goodness and light!
This is the most lethal combination of blind sighted bias, lamentable naivety and selective ignorance imaginable.
The entire conversation could and should end with one word: ILLEGAL!
"Thou hast set all the borders of the earth..." Psalms 74:17
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Today I see 3 topics listed regarding immigrants. ... (show quote)
Jun 24, 2018 06:01:37 #
Zemirah wrote:
The multitudinous, admittedly (based only on his o... (show quote)
Thank you, well said.
Jun 24, 2018 09:09:25 #
Pennylynn wrote:
You are not looking for discussion or debate, your mind is made up or should I say it was made up for you. You simply want to bad mouth honest Americans who have deep roots in our nation.
Amen and Amen
Jun 24, 2018 21:24:55 #
Zemirah writes that the "correspondent" is condescending. The sole quote from the post, that Zemirah used for illustration, is:
"I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back),"
The full paragraph that Zemirah's quoting from is:
"I see a lot of talk about i*****l i*******ts assuming that they are bums, lazy, violent, don't care about their children, devious, and so on with the negative terminologies. However, as: (1) I don't happen to personally know any bad i*****l i*******t, but: (2) I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: (3) the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back), I am thinking maybe some or all of this negative terminology about i*****l i*******ts might be unfounded or biased."
I should not have appeared to pick on just "white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestants". I should have been more clear about what I meant by that. I explain it in one of the paragraphs below.
Zemirah has quoted from that paragraph, in an attempt to illustrate that I am writing "stereotypical nonsense" and am showing a lack of respect.
However, the paragraph clearly shows that I am objecting to what I perceive as stereotypical nonsense (which others have written and spoken, in what I perceive to be their lack of respect for "illegal" immigrants).
The paragraph and much of my post described counterexamples, which I have witnessed. They are counterexamples to the derogatory talk that so many in the U.S. engage in, in their stereotyping of people from other countries, including but not limited to "illegal" immigrants.
As another writer has indicated, examples or counterexamples do not prove anything about an entire population (and I was not attempting a proof). They are a sample that indicates that more thorough sampling or thought may be worthwhile.
My phrase "the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back)" might be misinterpreted. I should have been more clear. _I_ was white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant 3rd-generation American. A few of my own peers behaved just as badly as anyone else I've seen. My point is that other kinds of people are no worse than typical Americans; and of course I say this based on my own experience, since that's what I know best.
Some people here deride one's own "experience" as though that were unworthy. Experience is one of the things to consider, and preferably it will be broad experience from more than one person. One can reason and have theories, but without some experience to back them up, the theories are likely to be wrong.
If one doesn't have any first-hand experience of a thing, then one probably knows less about it, than a person who has had first-hand experience of it.
Now that I've shared some of my first-hand experience of people from other countries and of the kinds of people who could be i*****l i*******ts, the rest of you can also share your first-hand experiences, and then we'll have a greater pool of experience to consider.
Zemirah includes a definition of condescension (see it as included in Zemirah's reply). Readers will have to judge for themselves which people are being arrogant, patronizing, consider others inferior, fail to show respect, or are "affable". (Affable!) As should be obvious in my post, I object to the arrogance, patronizing attitudes, unwarranted put-downs, and lack of respect that I see around me, now particularly as some U.S. citizens display all these things toward "illegal" immigrants. My objecting to such does not make me such. Someone has to object to the careless stereotyping of "illegal" immigrants.
Some of the people currently regarded as "illegal" should not really be regarded as "illegal". For example, if they are legitimately seeking asylum then that's not really illegal.
Some of them really are "illegal" but have extenuating circumstances.
I think (but don't know) that most of them are either legitimately seeking asylum or have extenuating circumstances.
It is important to remember that these laws were created to serve people. Ultimately people are more important than laws. Sometimes we find that laws are wrong. I say this, to illustrate that "law" or "legality" is not the sole value to consider.
I've seen a lot of ignorance and lack of respect. I say that some people had ignorance and showed lack of respect. I object to that.
By fortunate, and perhaps unusual, circumstances I have 45 years of experience among a wide variety of people. Now I have shared some of my experience. I hope that it will alert some people to some new thoughts: that maybe those "other" kinds of people are not what they thought they were!
Then maybe they'll have some opportunities to find out more, either by meeting more kinds of people, or by reading what different kinds of people have written.
Zemirah mentions several items including gangs, schools, overcrowding, hospitals, financial ruin, drugs, and cartels, as though to blame all that solely on i*****l i*******ts. Well, surely _some_ part of all that might be blamable on _some_ i*****l i*******ts. That doesn't prove anything. In that long list of items, how much of the blame should be on the U.S. government or the U.S. citizens or the U.S. corporations? Regarding the "financial ruin", there's been more financial ruin coming from the big banks in the U.S. than from anywhere else. (See 2008, "Lehman Brothers", "AIG", "TARP", "bail-out", and "mortgage crisis".) So, to include "financial ruin" in a list of things to blame on i*****l i*******ts is either highly misleading or totally wrong. It looks like a mighty careless habit of blaming i*****l i*******ts for wh**ever.
Finally, Zemirah also writes "this gentleman/lady has no regard or respect for his/her own family, ancestry, or country, and even less for the vital importance of the rule of law required to maintain a civilized nation". That strikes a nerve. To me it shows that Zemirah either doesn't know much about me or doesn't know much about civilization; and (of course) certainly doesn't know much about my life. If things were only to be judged by (A) the letter of a static (and sometimes wrong) set of laws, as they are (B) unevenly implemented by a sometimes corrupt government, and (C) a blind unquestioning allegiance to a nation, then I'd be guilty as charged and glad of it; because I do question corruptions and nations, mainly the U.S. and its various levels of government, since that's the nation I have experience with. That questioning is part of my civic duty, as I see it, though maybe not as Zemirah sees it.
Yes it is true that rule of law is important, it's just not the only thing of importance, and we have to question it sometimes.
Zemirah may have a valid point about the MS-13 gang. I don't know much about that. Sorry if this seems too "affable"; I don't mean any disrespect by it. I'm just acknowledging and identifying the item.
The reply that Zemirah had written appears below.
[begin]
Jun 24, 2018 04:53:07 #
Zemirah
The multitudinous, admittedly (based only on his own experience) biased words of this "correspondent's" rank condescension literally leap from the page.
Definition of condescension
1. The trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior
2. A communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient(s)
3. Affability toward your inferiors in temporary disregard of your own exalted position or rank
Following are bare boned word definitions of which the author of the above thread displays, whether by neglect or choice, the most sublime ignorance:
Definition of illegal
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules
Synonyms
criminal, felonious, illegitimate, illicit, lawless, unlawful, wrongful
Definition of nation
: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a defined territory, i.e., border, and government
Synonyms
commonwealth, country, land, sovereignty, res publica, state
Definition of citizen
1 : a legal inhabitant of a city or town; or other political community, who thereby possesses all lawful rights and privileges
2. a native or naturalized member of a state who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled by it to protection
Synonyms
native, national, townsman, villager
When this author declares such stereotypical nonsense as: "I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back)," it is patently obvious this gentleman/lady has no regard or respect for his/her own family, ancestry, or country, and even less for the vital importance of the rule of law required to maintain a civilized nation.
The overcrowding and impending financial ruin of our schools and hospitals is ignored. The vast opioid crisis perpetuated by "illegal" cartels and gangs is equally ignored. The cruelty and danger poised by the murderous MS-13 gang is ignored. His final conclusion: Within the "illegal" community there is only goodness and light!
This is the most lethal combination of blind sighted bias, lamentable naivety and selective ignorance imaginable.
The entire conversation could and should end with one word: ILLEGAL!
"Thou hast set all the borders of the earth..." Psalms 74:17
[end]
"I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back),"
The full paragraph that Zemirah's quoting from is:
"I see a lot of talk about i*****l i*******ts assuming that they are bums, lazy, violent, don't care about their children, devious, and so on with the negative terminologies. However, as: (1) I don't happen to personally know any bad i*****l i*******t, but: (2) I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: (3) the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back), I am thinking maybe some or all of this negative terminology about i*****l i*******ts might be unfounded or biased."
I should not have appeared to pick on just "white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestants". I should have been more clear about what I meant by that. I explain it in one of the paragraphs below.
Zemirah has quoted from that paragraph, in an attempt to illustrate that I am writing "stereotypical nonsense" and am showing a lack of respect.
However, the paragraph clearly shows that I am objecting to what I perceive as stereotypical nonsense (which others have written and spoken, in what I perceive to be their lack of respect for "illegal" immigrants).
The paragraph and much of my post described counterexamples, which I have witnessed. They are counterexamples to the derogatory talk that so many in the U.S. engage in, in their stereotyping of people from other countries, including but not limited to "illegal" immigrants.
As another writer has indicated, examples or counterexamples do not prove anything about an entire population (and I was not attempting a proof). They are a sample that indicates that more thorough sampling or thought may be worthwhile.
My phrase "the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back)" might be misinterpreted. I should have been more clear. _I_ was white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant 3rd-generation American. A few of my own peers behaved just as badly as anyone else I've seen. My point is that other kinds of people are no worse than typical Americans; and of course I say this based on my own experience, since that's what I know best.
Some people here deride one's own "experience" as though that were unworthy. Experience is one of the things to consider, and preferably it will be broad experience from more than one person. One can reason and have theories, but without some experience to back them up, the theories are likely to be wrong.
If one doesn't have any first-hand experience of a thing, then one probably knows less about it, than a person who has had first-hand experience of it.
Now that I've shared some of my first-hand experience of people from other countries and of the kinds of people who could be i*****l i*******ts, the rest of you can also share your first-hand experiences, and then we'll have a greater pool of experience to consider.
Zemirah includes a definition of condescension (see it as included in Zemirah's reply). Readers will have to judge for themselves which people are being arrogant, patronizing, consider others inferior, fail to show respect, or are "affable". (Affable!) As should be obvious in my post, I object to the arrogance, patronizing attitudes, unwarranted put-downs, and lack of respect that I see around me, now particularly as some U.S. citizens display all these things toward "illegal" immigrants. My objecting to such does not make me such. Someone has to object to the careless stereotyping of "illegal" immigrants.
Some of the people currently regarded as "illegal" should not really be regarded as "illegal". For example, if they are legitimately seeking asylum then that's not really illegal.
Some of them really are "illegal" but have extenuating circumstances.
I think (but don't know) that most of them are either legitimately seeking asylum or have extenuating circumstances.
It is important to remember that these laws were created to serve people. Ultimately people are more important than laws. Sometimes we find that laws are wrong. I say this, to illustrate that "law" or "legality" is not the sole value to consider.
I've seen a lot of ignorance and lack of respect. I say that some people had ignorance and showed lack of respect. I object to that.
By fortunate, and perhaps unusual, circumstances I have 45 years of experience among a wide variety of people. Now I have shared some of my experience. I hope that it will alert some people to some new thoughts: that maybe those "other" kinds of people are not what they thought they were!
Then maybe they'll have some opportunities to find out more, either by meeting more kinds of people, or by reading what different kinds of people have written.
Zemirah mentions several items including gangs, schools, overcrowding, hospitals, financial ruin, drugs, and cartels, as though to blame all that solely on i*****l i*******ts. Well, surely _some_ part of all that might be blamable on _some_ i*****l i*******ts. That doesn't prove anything. In that long list of items, how much of the blame should be on the U.S. government or the U.S. citizens or the U.S. corporations? Regarding the "financial ruin", there's been more financial ruin coming from the big banks in the U.S. than from anywhere else. (See 2008, "Lehman Brothers", "AIG", "TARP", "bail-out", and "mortgage crisis".) So, to include "financial ruin" in a list of things to blame on i*****l i*******ts is either highly misleading or totally wrong. It looks like a mighty careless habit of blaming i*****l i*******ts for wh**ever.
Finally, Zemirah also writes "this gentleman/lady has no regard or respect for his/her own family, ancestry, or country, and even less for the vital importance of the rule of law required to maintain a civilized nation". That strikes a nerve. To me it shows that Zemirah either doesn't know much about me or doesn't know much about civilization; and (of course) certainly doesn't know much about my life. If things were only to be judged by (A) the letter of a static (and sometimes wrong) set of laws, as they are (B) unevenly implemented by a sometimes corrupt government, and (C) a blind unquestioning allegiance to a nation, then I'd be guilty as charged and glad of it; because I do question corruptions and nations, mainly the U.S. and its various levels of government, since that's the nation I have experience with. That questioning is part of my civic duty, as I see it, though maybe not as Zemirah sees it.
Yes it is true that rule of law is important, it's just not the only thing of importance, and we have to question it sometimes.
Zemirah may have a valid point about the MS-13 gang. I don't know much about that. Sorry if this seems too "affable"; I don't mean any disrespect by it. I'm just acknowledging and identifying the item.
The reply that Zemirah had written appears below.
[begin]
Jun 24, 2018 04:53:07 #
Zemirah
The multitudinous, admittedly (based only on his own experience) biased words of this "correspondent's" rank condescension literally leap from the page.
Definition of condescension
1. The trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior
2. A communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient(s)
3. Affability toward your inferiors in temporary disregard of your own exalted position or rank
Following are bare boned word definitions of which the author of the above thread displays, whether by neglect or choice, the most sublime ignorance:
Definition of illegal
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules
Synonyms
criminal, felonious, illegitimate, illicit, lawless, unlawful, wrongful
Definition of nation
: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a defined territory, i.e., border, and government
Synonyms
commonwealth, country, land, sovereignty, res publica, state
Definition of citizen
1 : a legal inhabitant of a city or town; or other political community, who thereby possesses all lawful rights and privileges
2. a native or naturalized member of a state who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled by it to protection
Synonyms
native, national, townsman, villager
When this author declares such stereotypical nonsense as: "I have met many good people from a variety of other countries, and: the bad people I've known were U.S. citizens (they were white Anglo-Saxon-or-Germanic Protestant and their families were U.S. citizens for two or more generations back)," it is patently obvious this gentleman/lady has no regard or respect for his/her own family, ancestry, or country, and even less for the vital importance of the rule of law required to maintain a civilized nation.
The overcrowding and impending financial ruin of our schools and hospitals is ignored. The vast opioid crisis perpetuated by "illegal" cartels and gangs is equally ignored. The cruelty and danger poised by the murderous MS-13 gang is ignored. His final conclusion: Within the "illegal" community there is only goodness and light!
This is the most lethal combination of blind sighted bias, lamentable naivety and selective ignorance imaginable.
The entire conversation could and should end with one word: ILLEGAL!
"Thou hast set all the borders of the earth..." Psalms 74:17
[end]
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.