SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Adam Davidson at The New York Times has a story debunking the myth of the job-stealing immigrant:
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”
I’ve been thinking about my grandfather lately, because there are signs that 2015 could bring about the beginning of a truce — or at least a reconfiguration — in the politics of immigration. Several of the potential Republican presidential candidates, most notably Jeb Bush, have expressed pro-immigration views. Even self-identified Tea Party Republicans respond three to two in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, roughly as many people (18 percent of Americans) believed in 2010 that President Obama was a Muslim as believe today that undocumented immigrants should be expelled from the United States. Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:27AM
without any provocation whatsoever. What was at one time northwest Mexico is now the southwest united states.
There are many Hispanics whose ancestors lived there before the US showed up with guns.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:39AM
Just follow the historic El Camino Real (US 101 on the West Coast), you see lotsa of these deep-rooted families.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:03AM
Many of those Hispanics were colonizers just as the Texans were, and almost just as European.
In any case, how many decades or centuries are we going to push back the world map? Shall we bring back Prussia as well?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:55AM
What about three centuries? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:09PM
Everything everywhere was taken by somebody somewhere sometime. There is no moral argument to be made for or against right of conquest, because all of the pots and kettles are black. Your Mexican territory was forcibly taken from various tribes/cultures (Aztec, Incan, American Native, etc.) by Spanish conquistadors and self-aggrandizing Catholic missionaries.
Chill the misinformed self-righteousness and have a burrito.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 29 2015, @04:12AM
Iceland wasn't.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Sunday March 29 2015, @09:57AM
An unopposed conquest is still a conquest.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:42PM
The US took northwest Mexico by force without any provocation whatsoever. What was at one time northwest Mexico is now the southwest united states.
Spain took large parts of Central and North America by force without any provocation whatsoever. What was at one time the Aztek empire and various other native American lands is now "Mexico", a former colony of Spain.
Why is it OK when Spain does it, but not when England's colony does it?
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 29 2015, @04:18AM
In the case of America, as soon as the evil tyrant George III decided that all his subjects should be treated the same, well the English colonies revolted, led by the land speculators such as George Washington and with a lot of talk about rights and such so the common person would go along.
Of course the colonies that didn't revolt ended up almost equaling the Nazis in how they treated the native population.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 29 2015, @08:21PM
In the case of America, as soon as the evil tyrant George III decided that all his subjects should be treated the same, well the English colonies revolted, led by the land speculators such as George Washington and with a lot of talk about rights and such so the common person would go along.
What are you talking about? The conventional wisdom is that the American colonies revolted because of high taxes and no representation. Taxing people without giving them representation in Parliament isn't akin to treating all subjects the same.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday March 30 2015, @02:49AM
There was various reasons for the revolt and war of secession. The common people were riled up because their rights as Englishmen weren't being observed, which included taxation without representation. There was also the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which stopped western expansion by the colonies (and also gave rights to the Roman Catholics) and certain land speculators were not happy, which is why the rich wanted the revolt.
As usual things were complex and as most of the history was/is written by the victors...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763#United_States [wikipedia.org]