Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Present Your Papers! Sir, Ma'am
#1
Wednesday, April 28, 2010



Deconstructing the Outrage [Victor Davis Hanson]


I have been trying to collate all the furor over the Arizona law, much of it written by those who do not live in locales that have been transformed by illegal immigration. These writers are more likely to show solidarity from a distance than to visit or live in the areas that have been so radically changed by the phenomenon.

On the unfortunate matter of "presenting papers": I have done that numerous times this year — boarding airplanes, purchasing things on a credit card, checking into a hotel, showing a doorman an I.D. when locked out, going to the DMV, and, in one case, pulling off a rural road to use my cell phone in a way that alarmed a chance highway patrolman. An I.D. check to allay "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" is very American.

On the matter of racial profiling: No one wishes to harass citizens by race or gender, but, again unfortunately, we already profile constantly. When I had top classics students, I quite bluntly explained to graduating seniors that those who were Mexican American and African American had very good chances of entering Ivy League or other top graduate schools from Fresno, those who were women and Asians so-so chances, and those who were white males with CSUF BAs very little chance, despite straight A's and top GRE scores. The students themselves knew all that better than I — and, except the latter category, had packaged and self-profiled themselves for years in applying for grants, admissions, fellowships, and awards. I can remember being told by a dean in 1989 exactly the gender and racial profile of the person I was to hire before the search had even started, and not even to "waste my time" by interviewing a white male candidate. Again, the modern university works on the principle that faculty, staff, and students are constantly identified by racial and gender status. These were not minor matters, but questions that affected hundreds of lives for many decades to come. (As a postscript I can also remember calling frantically to an Ivy League chair to explain that our top student that he had accepted had just confessed to me that in fact he was an illegal alien, and remember him "being delighted" at the news, as if it were an added bonus.)

On the matter of equality, fairness, and compassion, it is even more problematic. Literally thousands of highly skilled would-be legal immigrants from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe wait patiently while others cut in front and illegally obtain what others legally wait for — residence in the U.S. Meanwhile, millions of Mexican-American, African-American, and poor white citizens have seen their wages fall because of competition from illegal aliens who will work for far less compensation. It is a bit strange that those of the upper classes are outraged over Arizona without empathy for entry-level U.S. workers or lower-middle-class taxpayers who end up paying the most for illegal immigration. But then, those who express the most moral outrage often are the least sensitive to the moral questions involved (see next).

On matters of Mexico's outrage: The Mexican government has a deliberate policy of exporting human capital on a win/win/win/win logic: Dissidents leave central Mexico in a safety-valve fashion; Mexico saves on social services; remittances come back as the second largest source of foreign exchange; and a growing expatriate, lobbying community becomes nostalgic and fonder of Mexico the longer it is absent from it. To hide all this, the Mexican government usually plays the racial prejudice card, although most arrivals from Oaxaca will tell you that racism is more perncious in Mexican society than north of the border. This is a government, after all, that cannot provide the security, legal framework, or social services for indigenous peoples in its central interior but has no such problems when it is a question of attracting affluent North Americans to live in second homes along its picturesque coasts.

There is plenty of cynicism involved — not on the part of the exasperated voters of Arizona, but rather from domestic political, religious, ideological, and ethnic interests that in patronizing fashion seek new dependent constituents; from Mexico that in amoral fashion censures others for the sins it commits; and from a strange nexus between corporate employers and ethnic lobbyists who see their own particular profit and influence enhanced through the ordeal of millions of poor aliens, and the subsidies of the strapped and now to be demonized taxpayer.
Reply
#2
This $hit is not going to fly, so don't do any cartwheels yet.
Reply
#3
ClassicalLib17 Wrote:An I.D. check to allay "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" is very American.

Come on Harold this Arizona law is obviously against the 5th amendment. Driving a vehicle is very different than walking down the street. An officer cant arrest you for no ID if you state your identity when asked. This is a classic attempt to trade liberty for security.

It may be tougher for border states but that doesn't give them the right to infringe on our constitution. Arizona Pima county sheriff Clarence Dupnik wont enforce the law. This coming from the largest border county in Arizona and a guy who thinks students should be screened for citizenship for enrollment. He knows that laws already exist to detain illegals and hand them over to ICE.

I suppose you and your tea party compatriots also support Obama's National ID in the new immigration bill. Because citizenship papers vary from state to state from year to year sometimes even county to county. Even if this law is allowed to be enforced (unlikely) an officer wont be able to determine authenticity of documents unless there is a national standard.
Reply
#4
I have been trying to not fault those who are simply taking what is being given to them. The question is WHO is doing the giving? Tolerance for illegal entry into our country is a fairly recent phenomenon. Historically our borders were much tighter. So who is allowing fairly unfettered illegal entry into the United States to exist? Hint.... it's not either political party.
Reply
#5
This reply to my topic, from gmg77, sure looks like a breach of the rules regarding the outing of members to me. What do the rest of you think? As far as I can see, 'Harold' has not posted anything on this forum since his relegation to the penalty box back in March. I do wish that Harold would make a reappearance, though.
Quote:by gmg77 » Sat May 01, 2010 6:44 am
Come on Harold this Arizona law is obviously against the 5th amendment.
Reply
#6
So do I lock 'Politics' now or post an announcement and give everyone 24 hours to trash this section even more before the lock goes into effect?
Reply
#7
In my opinion I'd give gmg77 the benefit of the doubt. It's fairly easy to get confused between those two unique members because their style of posting is so similar. It's like when I occasionally call the toilet tissue Northern by the name of Charmin. To err is human.
Reply
#8
Maybe it would be wise to give gmg77 a warning, done privatly and ask him to refrain from this in the future.

So you could put him "on probation"so to speak.

And maybe from gmg77 it would be fair to post an apology concerning an error of misconception.

Then, both parties are satisfied I hope.

As Danno says: To err is human, we all make mistakes.

But only the Gods forgive Big Grin
"The Dutch Guy"
Reply
#9
admin Wrote:So do I lock 'Politics' now or post an announcement and give everyone 24 hours to trash this section even more before the lock goes into effect?

Admin don't lock it on my account. I'll take the ban so others can post. Sorry for my transgression ClassicLib wasn't trying to blow your cover who whoever you are.

My bad
-GMG77
Reply
#10
Everyone,

My problem isn't with the confusion with the people behind the names - it's the straying from the topic at hand to complain about it, report it, and take immediate offense to it.

So far as I know, everyone here is an adult. Work it out between yourselves, post a response that says "Sorry, you got me wrong", anything other than immediately shifting into crying out about a rules violation! This is the BS that's wearing me down with this section in particular. I'm all for everyone being able to discuss politics... but if the majority of the threads are going to turn into pissing matches about the rules at the slightest hint of offense, I'm not going to deal with it. I am confident that everyone here is better than this! PROVE ME RIGHT!

CL17 - if you can accept GMG77's apology, can we consider the matter closed and please just move on?

Slightly off topic - In order for a change in the rules to happen I need two things from everybody - ideas (obviously), and, more importantly, the ability to work out small problems between yourselves.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)