Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Newt Gingrich: "Abolish Bilingual Education"

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Whether they know it or not, that's what they're doing. The idea behind civil disobedience would be that people don't obey the laws they don't believe in to change the law. I'm sure that Mexicans would like to make getting in to and working in the US safer.

I'm sorry but that only works for those who fall under the umbrella of the law. US Citizens fall under that, not illegal aliens. I cannot go to another country like Iraq, Iran, Germany, et. al. and expect to be civilly disobedient to change their laws. I'm sure that ALL nationalities would like to make getting into and working the the US safer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've calmed down. It's your turn. No, I didn't pull that number out of my ass. Statistics show that every time the INS has tightened down across the board, crime rates have shot up close to the border on the Mexican side.

Please provide something to show that evidence. I'll already state that correlation does not imply causation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm afraid your assumption about the implications of my guesswork would be flawed. Imagine this: a family, out of work and starving, needs to get across the border into the US in order to work. Imagine there are a thousand of these families. Imagine they all try to cross the boarder with their belongings over the time span of a week. Now imagine that there is no more immigration anymore. Suddenly you have an influx of poor families into small border communities. They are desperate, and they make good prey from former coyotes who now find themselves out of work. Not only that but the families are now starving and need to start stealing themselves in order to eat. It's a damn dangerous situation.

The alternative is that many of the families make it to the US and get work. Once they have work, they have some security. They're not likely to need to steal to eat if they can afford food. They also send a little home, which keeps their family in Mexico more safe and less likely to need to turn to crime.

I guess you've not been to the Philippines, where those same things happen as well. Did you know that Filipinos come to the US legally sent home more than $10.7 billion in 2005, equal to about 12% of the gross domestic product. Has it changed the fact that there are millions of people still living in squalor and uneducated? Crime is still high, morbity rates are also quite high. There are other issues for their impact on society, but as you can see below they have organized their government to make it easier to emmigrate to any country. I don't see the Mexican government doing that at all. Yet a country thousands of miles away gears up and gets people going overseas legally.

Quote:

LATimes.com
The money they earn trickles into towns and villages, helping build houses, open restaurants and send children to school. But the absence of so many industrious and skilled people — mothers and fathers, engineers and entrepreneurs — exacts a heavy toll.

Across the Philippines, children are being raised by their grandparents. "Now children can buy a lot of computer games, but they don't have a mother or father, or both," Santo Tomas said.

For the sake of supporting their families, the overseas workers endure years of loneliness. Some, especially maids in the Middle East, suffer beatings and sexual abuse. In countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, they are jailed for running away. Yet the Philippines has grown so dependent on remittances that the thought of doing without them is frightening.

"Money from abroad is the only thing that keeps the economy in motion," said Ding Lichauco, former head of the country's economic planning office. "If you don't encourage the employees to go overseas, you will have revolution."

Providing sailors, maids, entertainers and other workers for a growing world market is a big business.

In this competitive arena, the Philippines has an advantage. Many Filipinos speak English. They are generally better educated than workers from countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Indonesia. And they have a reputation for being good-natured.

An entire bureaucracy has been created around them. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration helps find jobs in other countries, encourages workers to go abroad and processes some job applications.

The Technical Education and Skills Development Agency offers free training in welding, driving heavy trucks and other skills. The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration stations diplomats around the world to look after the Philippines' foreign workers.

Those who bring or send their earnings home pay no income taxes. And the government offers returning workers low-cost equipment and tools to help them start small businesses.

With that level of encouragement, an industry has developed to match workers and jobs.

There are more than 1,500 licensed recruiting agencies. Some provide training — six months for dancers, four months for seafarers, two weeks for housekeepers — in return for a cut of the worker's earnings.

A cook on a cargo ship can make more than Arroyo's official salary of $1,000 a month. A bar singer in Japan can earn more than a Philippine senator. But the fees can run into the thousands of dollars; the better the job, the greater the cost.

Dozens of agencies in Manila's Ermita district attract job seekers from all over the country. Applicants line up on the streets, luggage in hand, ready to go anywhere.

Notaries sit at small wooden desks on the sidewalk. Using manual typewriters, they help workers fill out the 14 documents they are required to submit. Large copy machines on the sidewalk crank out duplicates.

Laboratories conduct blood, tuberculosis and drug tests to certify the workers' health. Nearby are cellphone shops, money changers, cheap hotels and restaurants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

NAFTA is just another way for the US government to give a free ride to US corporations to move in to Central America and exploit them freely. I'd like to see NAFTA destroyed. The free trade thing only works when corporations can be held responsible for their actions. If they can't, then free trade is a weapon.

so that fact that NAFTA created jobs for these impoverished groups doesn't mean anything. In your opinion they all need to come live in the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

cyn,

i thought about the shit not stinking analogy when i posted it; i agree it doesn't express exactly what i want to say, but i'm having trouble putting the thoughts into words. perhaps it rolled up in the waiting in line analogy; as i said before, it seems to me that when you lump all illegals into a category and assign them a blanket sentence, it starts to head in that direction of unsmelly shit to me. if i was waiting in line at the bank, and someone just like me cut in, yeah, i'd be pissed. but what if they're elderly, or if they don't look well, or if they have kids with them, or if (somehow i know) that they are more desparate than i? i can wait a bit because i've got an hour lunch break, and a few minutes won't kill me.

i'm not trying to trivialize your family's previous predictaments...how could i? i don't know their situations...but in answer to the question, as i said: i can't say across the boards that illegal immigrants are always just a bunch of immoral rule breakers fuckers. sometimes rules are broken, but as has been pointed out that's a different consideration from fundamental morality, in my opinion. incidentally, i agree that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time, but that doesn't mean i look down on someone who does the crime necessarily. it also means i don't look down on them if they do the crime and don't get caught. in situations like illegal immigration, if they are a good person, etc, i tend to think more along the lines of "hats off the them." as has been previously stated, its not like they're taking the easy way out. they're taking on a lot of risk and danger to try to make things better for themselves and their loved ones. not always, but in a lot of cases.

Maybe that's the distinct difference of approach. You're willing to give them the opportunity of doubt first, whereas I'm of the opinion that they cheated from the beginning, now I'm giving them the opporutnity to prove themselves otherwise and convince me that they are different enough to warrant the compassion you are looking for.

I agree that there is something to being accommodating, but also there has to be a line where it stops. Should there always be mitigating circumstances that makes that situation okay? If there are, then enact laws that address that. Examples of this have been established like political and refugee asylum. But again, there are finite numbers of applicants.

Quote:

Asylum status and refugee status are closely related. They differ only in the place where a person asks for the status. Asylum is asked for in the United States; refugee status is asked for outside of the United States. However, all people who are granted asylum must meet the definition of a refugee.

A refugee is defined as a person outside of his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinions.

The Refugee Act of 1980 regulates U.S. asylum policy as well as governing refugee procedures. The Act, for the first time, established a statutory basis for granting asylum in the United States consistent with the 1967 United Nations Protocol on Refugees.

I don't know how densely populated of an area you are, but I can tell you that if I didn't get to the cafeteria by 10AM there were no plain bagels left. Saying I woke up late, the bus was stuck in traffic, the baby was cranky, the dog needed to be walked, "the person in front of me ALWAYS gets a bagel why don't I get it this one time." None of that changes the fact that there just isn't enough to go around. It doesn't change the fact that there is a finite amount. It is just a fact of scarcity. There are finite amount of seats at the movie theater on a Friday or Saturday night, I may have to line up an hour before the show to make sure I have good seats. I may even have to purchase the ticket online an pay $1 extra so that I get it before it sells out. My point with this is that there is a finite amount of things. Scarecity is a reality. There are not enough goods and services for every human being on the planet. When the music stops not everyone will have a seat.