ANTI-IMMIGRANT SENTIMENT: QUIZ #2

Irish and Mexican

Usually, when all of the above is one of the choices, it is the answer. I'm sure that all of these groups had these accusations levied against them. I hear some of them about Mexicans today. I know the Irish had to endure all of them, especially when the potato famine and British laws in the nineteenth century both acted against them and caused many of them to leave Ireland and begin new lives in the U.S.A. E is my choice.

I would say,

e. All of the above.

Human Nature tends to fear the unknown. When each of these groups came they brought their history and culture. They gathered together because they understood each other in language and culture. The other groups instead of saying they are different than us. Said they will ruin our culture with theirs and so on and so on. It continues to go on to this day and I bet it always will.

Ah... good participation! However... keep trying!

Wow, so E is not the correct reply? I will need to do a little research.

I have thought about it. I will choose D, especially for the reason that people fear what will happen when Hispanics become the majority group in this country. It could very well be C.

Thank you Edward!

The CORRECT ANSWER is C: THE IRISH! They were Catholics coming into a mostly Protestant culture, and the rites and rituals of their religion got them the label of "superticious" (part of a larger Anti-Catholic sentiment that came form England) … They also had different views about alcohol use, sex, and other types of behaviors that were repressed by Protestant (even Puritan) ideals at the time.

Rico you are good at spinning. Very few people oppose immigration they just oppose ILLEGAL immigrants. What you are trying to do is incite people by putting up these sentiments and applying to people emotions. Then when you have the Irish and the Catholic and the Jewish people sufficiently rilled up you turn around and say....and this is what they are trying to do with the immigrants now. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hilarious.

Rico, those who cross our borders illegally, shouldn't............we should stop them, wherever they're from. They're breaking our laws and invading our country.

I knew this to be Irish, since my husband is half-Irish (the other half is German).

However, if this is to draw some parallel between the arguments against illegal immigration and legal immigration you are way off.

Apples and oranges, dude.

Lori, Julie: What's you basis for saying that "very few people oppose immigration?" Take a closer look at the comments around immigration reform, from the "English-only" crowd to those who talk about "preserving our way of life" ... These arguments are not that different from those given over 100 years ago as a reaction to "too many" immigrants from one particular culture.

The "legal" argument is the handy one to use today (there usually is one... to your point, CA: apples, oranges, pears...). Our current immigration laws are woefully outdated and not in synch with reality (that's why there are so many American citizens who are "illegal" employers). When the law changes to reflect economic reality, because some type of reform is not a matter of if but when, you'll have to hold to some other argument... or find someone else to blame... or face your xenophobia.

Rico you should be dizzy with all the spinning you do. I DO NOT oppose immigration I do oppose the immigration reform that gives these illegals amnesty.

Lori: The current immigration reform proposal does not give anyone amnesty. Check it out.

Rick, it's not a matter of thinking less of the immigrant. We are talking simply about the number factor. Millions and millions of people cannot be absorbed into a society that quickly, or the whole boat sinks. It doesn't matter if those people are model citizens. It is simiply a matter of sustainablility.

Rico I suggest you read it....yes it does...they just disguise it as steps to become legal.

Rico...

While you always speak passionately, you often speak ignorantly.

Much like the current debate over immigration, it appears there are millions of us screaming (metaphorically) at you that it's not about immigration but about illegal immigration.

The current bill is about amnesty for illegal immigrants. I don't care how prettily you package, what color the bow is you place on top, or how much pomp and circumstance accompanies it, it is still an amnesty bill.

It hasn't worked in the past, and it will not work today.

The fact that you flatly refuse to argue this point is why while we hear your words, we lend them no import.

Perhaps both you and Lori are correct, Rico. Illegal immigrants have committed an immigration violation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. So, illegally entering the country is a crime. In fact, it is a felony. People who commit felonies are often subject to time in prison. In addition, according to our laws, it is a "removable" offense under the Immigration Act. So, deportation is also possible.

Now, consider the definition of Amnesty.

1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.

3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

The current immigration proposal would not subject illegal immigrants to either prison time or deportation. And, they would get to remain in the country.

So, Lori is correct.

However, according to the proposal, illegal immigrants may adjust status to lawful permanent residence once they pay $5,000 in fees and fines and their head of household returns to their home country. (They are actually trying to add an amendment that would remove the requirement for the head of household to return to their country of origin.)

So, Rico is correct also. There is a penalty. Now, whether or not it's much of a penalty is probably open to interpretation.

If you're thinking these individuals won't have much money, $5000, could seem pretty stiff. But, if you're thinking of the other people who've committed felonies and are serving prison time - and would just love the opportunity to simply pay and get out, it probably doesn't seem very stiff.

C.A. -

"Much like the current debate over immigration, it appears there are millions of us screaming (metaphorically) at you that it's not about immigration but about illegal immigration."

True wisdom.
Rico, were you listening?

I was guessing Irish. As to legal, I suspect the law changed somewhere along the line... question is, given how much of the country clearly relies on illegal immigrants, was it a valid change in the law, or just a way to protect the rich at the expense of the poor?

It's either D or E I'm thinking E

Rico, how old are you? the way you validate your arguments is synonymous with an adolescent. Your manipulative use of these quizzes justifying YOUR point of view through an unverified validation is ludicrous. Lori's right your spin makes no sense and make you appear childlike.
But it does one good thing if this is the best you can do, it strengthens LEGAL IMMIGRATION! So thanks.

Interesting article Rico!!
I enjoy your articles!

"face your xenophobia."
Rico I like how like to "blame" those here who oppose the wholesale legalization of est. 12 million undocumented/illegal immigrants as being xenophobic, racist or bigoted.

As I have said before 1) there is no such thing as 'illegal immigrants', and 2) you can't stop people from migrating. They have been migrating all over the face of the earth since the dawn of civilization. After all there is only one planet earth, and there is only one human race. Political boundaries are man-made, therefore un-natural and artificial. Did the pilgrims come to this country illegally or did they have permission? This country was already inhabited by many small nations each with its own 'government'. What right did we have to treat them like savages? Our society does not have to provide immigrants with free education, jobs or medical care, but if they fit in and are better off than where they came from then let them stay. We don't have to tolerate criminals, but criminal immigrants probably don't number any more than those born here. We need to change from a society geared toward invading, conquering, and killing to one oriented toward humanitarian efforts both at home and abroad.

I know this is the Irish because of stories from my mother's side of the family. I have to say that I did become upset a few weeks ago when on 2 separate occasions, 2 relatives went on rants about immigrants and I don't mean illegal immigrants, just people who have come here who don't speak perfect Midwest-accented American English. I was surprised and reminded them that our great-grandparents spoke Irish Gaelic or German...and that it takes time to assimilate into the culture. :(

Disappointing.

Olga: That's exactly the argument used many times over against legal immigrants over 100 years ago.

Tom, Bret, C.A.: You get an "F" in this quiz and now go to the principal's office for being rude and for yelling in class. (And, are you in denial about anti-immigrant sentiment? Does it hurt you to look back at our own history as a nation? It existed way back, it exists today, and even when putting the legal/illegal hot potato aside, there IS anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. today... if you don't see it, I fear there's little hope for you... I wonder what else you don't see.)

Sorry, Thomas. Following your logic, we could say nothing is illegal.

If the government puts a law in place that says entering into the country undocumented is a crime - then the person that did it - did something illegal.

If there is a law that says you should not steal your neighbors car, and then you do it - you have done something illegal.

Closer to your logic - Even if the government had been ignoring car stealing, and even encouraging car stealing - the day a law was enacted that said car theft was a crime would make the person who stole cars after that - doing an illegal act.

Thomas, perhaps your argument would be stronger if you approached it from the standpoint that the government should eliminate or get rid of its laws that make entering the country undocumented a crime.

I don't think the country should. But, at least your argument would sound more reasonable.

"I was surprised and reminded them that our great-grandparents spoke Irish Gaelic or German...and that it takes time to assimilate into the culture. :( "

I was just wondering, how long do you think it should take to assimilate? My neighbor has been here over ten years that I know of and he still can barely speak English.

When Governor Schwarzenegger suggested that Latinos turn off their Spanish speaking television channels they got in an uproar. How do they learn English is they don't try? They watch Spanish television stations and stay around Spanish speaking people.

Our ancestors came to this country and WANTED to become Americans. We were a big melting pot back then. Their children went to school and were taught in the English language, the language of their new country. I just don't know if it's the same now. It seems like they want us to change to accommodate THEM!

They don't even care enough about this country to come here legally. They send extra money back to Mexico. They fly their country's flag above America's flag. They don't seem to care about this country other than to get what they can from her.

That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth and I guess I should head to the principal's office, too.

It's absolutely disingenuous to say that only illegal immigration has ever been opposed. People hated, feared, spat on, and discriminated against legal immigrants in this country for the last century. Germans, Swedes and Irish were considered a threat to "our ways."

There are people who oppose any immigration. This is true. But, I don't think this is representative of the majority of Americans. There are people who oppose a lot of things universally without thought or reason.

I think it's become convenient to say that if we oppose illegal immigration then really we're saying we oppose all immigration. This isn't true and simply clouds the possibility of solving the problem.

There are people on this site who welcome the opportunity to share what they believe. Rico has the opportunity to dispel real myths. He has real concerns that should be addressed.

So, what about it, Rico? Put down the myths for a minute - unless you have one for 2007.

You're clearly intelligent, articulate, and like it or not, sensitive. Right now, you're sensitive to the needs of illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, or people who did not enter the country through our current legal process or who entered legally and but didn't leave when their visa expired.

What is it that you would like an individual like me to consider about this issue? You mentioned in another post that perhaps we like to lean on the legal aspect of the problem. To a certain extent, this is probably true for me. Why is a position that says our laws should be enforced, not a good postion?

Believe it or not, I really do want to understand this from your point of view. I believe our republican politicians want the current immigration proposal to succeed because of their ties to companies wanting low wages. I believe democratic politicians want the policies because they sense a growing block of votes.

But, I believe you are interested from the human perspective. So, without all the innuendo, tell a person who is not anti immigration (I don't believe these people care about the human perspective) what we should understand about this problem?

I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that many of the people who enter our country illegally, really do simply want a better life. But, I also believe many people who steal, simply want a better life.

I believe the people who enter our country illegally would not do so, if we're talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico, if Mexico offered its citizens better opportunities.

I also believe Mexico will not offer its citizens better opportunities if it doesn't have to. I believe the only people who can truly make Mexico treat its citizens better, are Mexican citizens. I think every day that Mexicans leave Mexico - instead of demanding a better life in Mexico they delay the possibility of a better Mexico for their remaining citizens.

But, people come into America undocumented from many places in the world and for many reasons. Are we wrong as a country to say - hey, we have to know who you are, what you want to do here, and how long you plan to stay?

For those who came without our permission, are we wrong as a nation to be offended at their lack of respect for our laws and to ask them to leave and enter the country properly.

Help me understand.

Rico -

An immigrant just cleaned my house yesterday. She was legal - I made sure of it before I hired her. Needless to say, I won't even think of hiring an ILLEGAL ALIEN, even if they did the work for free. I have values that can't be bought.

Your article is highly specious, but hilarious.
Your conclusions are downright absurd.

So Rico, are you an "Open Borders" proponent?

Vicki: Your argument is perfectly logical. I'm not against laws. Laws are necessary for the orderly conduct of human society. What I'm saying is that it is not beneficial to anyone - to the human race - for any political entity to restrict the flow of people around the face of the planet. Naturally I make exceptions in the case of criminals and persons carrying contagious diseases. This country is a union of 50 distinct states each with its own set of laws. Any thought or consideration of prohibiting the movement of people among the various states would be ludicrous , unimaginable, inhumane. This policy SHOULD BE, and some day, when conditions are right, WILL BE, practiced on a worldwide basis.

Thomas,

You may be right. Eventually, countries may decide not to restrict or impede the flow of individuals inside or outside of their countries. But, I would be surprised if it's soon. In addition, thankfully, we do not have the restricted flow of individuals into and out of individual states within our country. I agree.

So, Thomas, let's say that we do not restrict the flow of people into this or any other country. How do you believe our society would be affected? You are suggesting perhaps a global society in the purest sense of the concept. Do you anticipate any problems with this scenario?

oh man i'm not very smart so i'm sure i'll fell this quiz : ( SOOO...I'm not going to take it .. However we as Americans are needing soilders we have a huge shortage Sooooo I think you smarter people know where I'm going with this...

Vicki: You have hit the nail square on the head. Perhaps some minor problems that mankind, free from prejudice, is smart enough to work out. But the broader principle must not be discarded in the name of unbridled nationalism. "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" is the new slogan for today, tomorrow, and all the tomorrows thereafter.

Sounds like Open Borders policy to me.

It doesn't matter what you call it; forget the labels. Look at the principle. It's a question of right and wrong, not what is politically expedient at the moment.

Thomas Millington -

I don't think you'll find many sympathetic ears in this country for a policy where the poor of another country can freely come to a richer neighbor country and ravish it's resources with minimal cost to the invaders...........and almost no penalties.

No, Bret, no one should be allowed to come in to a country and "ravish its resources". But they should be allowed in, and if they can't make it on their own they have the option of going back home or moving on.

Thomas Millington -

Why would any immigrant come here other than to take resources? They can do that in their home country.
They come here to take our resources because they're so abundant. The 'ravishing' part comes when they realize how generous we are as a nation.

For instance : if you've ever lived on the Texas or Arizona borders like I have, try going into a hospital emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night. Observe the pandemonium. Often, there isn't a citizen of the United States in the whole waiting room. Those are valuable resources that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS come to America to get. Why don't they demand their home countries provide those services? Why come here to ravish our resources?

Bret: In order to be eligible for the lower state resident's tuition a prospective student must have been a resident in the state for a certain number of years. I would propose a minimum period of residency requirement before ANY free or reduced cost public service is available. Prior to that minimum time an immigrant would be required to pay the full amount or go without (except for life-or-death emergencies). In that way we would eliminate the 'great expectations' incentive. Also, presumably, the immigrant would have been paying taxes during that waiting period.

Thomas Millington -

To receive almost any type of medical services here in the U.S., all you need is a heartbeat..........and it doesn't even need to be that strong. Hospitals are forced by law to accept anyone. This is wrong.

How many Illegal Immigrants have come here just to have a baby for the free citizenship and the free medical care?
Health care is expensive, and with so many citizens without it in the U.S., why would we let this resource go to Illegal Immigrants?

Bret: It seems you and I are in full agreement. Can we shake on that?

Let's shake when the new 50 foot high, 30 foot thick, 2000+ mile wall is built along our southern border. Then we'll have something real to celebrate.

Bret: Do you remember the Berlin Wall? Its purpose was to prevent people from moving from one place to another. Was it a positive for anyone? Did it last?

Thomas Millington -

The Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN.
It wasn't a positive for those being kept in, but pretty funny for the West Berliners partying on the other side of the wall. The West Berlin economy boomed within sight of East Berliners scraping to get by.
It didn't last because the focus was on imprisonment of a whole country.

Why not use a better example of what I'm proposing? Like, say, the Great Wall of China. Was it a positive? Hell yes. It kept out the Mongol hordes from the North. Did it last? Hell yes.

The reason the Great Wall of China was great, other than its size and length, was its protective nature to those INSIDE the wall. It was built as protection, and it worked!
The Southern Border wall has a very similar purpose. It keeps out the Mongol hordes from the South.....lol.

I guess you have a point. I have no idea what those hoards to the north thought about the wall, and I can only imagine what the Mexicans might think. Will they be insulted? Will they find some other way to get in?

Thomas Millington -

Just like the Mongols before them, our invaders from the South will go to see the wall for themselves. Then, when denied entry like the Mongols before them, they'll go home, dejected. Sure, a few will try some fakery to get in, but when that doesn't work they'll turn back too.
At that point, the Mexican government will have to turn inward and find realistic, difficult solutions to corruption, poverty, and lack of care for their very own citizens. They will no longer be able to pawn their problems off on America.

In the long run, Mexico will be stronger because of the wall...........but not before some tough times.

Vicki: If you didn't get it with my first article on immigration, I have to wonder if you really want to understand. I do feel that you perhaps want to THINK that you want to understand...

People who broke OUR laws by entering illegally came because WE (American citizens) hired them, and they effectively work for US (there's another article on that) and WE even give them a promotion when they learn some English. We're engaging them in commerce FULLY, as a society, yet we do not give them legal status. The current immigration laws are woefully outdated and do not reflect our current reality, that's why they need to be fixed. Now it seems that we have to wait until 2010 or so...

Bret:

You say that "An immigrant just cleaned my house yesterday. She was legal - I made sure of it before I hired her."

Please, DO tell me HOW you made sure she was properly documented? Most undocumented immigrants use all types of false documentation, including false social security cards, and FYI there are plenty of American Citizens involved in this illegal activity of false documentation, because the market is huge. In fact, the proposed immigration bill that died in the senate this week included a lot of fixes to that side of the immigration issue. But since it didn't pass, there are still plenty of ways to go around the law.

So, tell us, HOW DID YOU DO IT?

It is all of the above, and you add Native Americans and African Americas as choices and it becomes g. All of the above.

Rico -

The LEGAL immigrant from Mexico who cleaned my apartment has a U.S. passport now. I called the embassy and checked her out. Since I do this at my work with many of our workers, it was easy. She also had 3 years of IRS filings on record and provided those too.

It's easy if you just ask the logical questions. Anyone can do it. If they don't have the paperwork, just don't hire them. Simple.

I knew it was the Irish. What I don't understand is the point of the article. Would someone help me out.

As to the comments. Illegal immigration is a problem to be sure but it is hardly our worst problem.

"Vicki: If you didn't get it with my first article on immigration, I have to wonder if you really want to understand. I do feel that you perhaps want to THINK that you want to understand..."

Wow, Rico. It seems I've ticked you off. I apologize. I am a new gather member. I don't know your 1st article from your 21s article. You see, Rico. I believe you have just proven why there is no discourse. There was a time, when I believed in the death penalty. But, the more I read, and the more I spoke about the issue with others, the more I began to wonder if I could support my stance. Today, I no longer believe in the death penalty.

Now, there are some issues that I believed in when I was young that only became stronger over time. As I interacted with my world and environment, my opinions have sometimes changed and sometimes they've gotten stronger.

But, okay, Rico. Perhaps now I understand and it seems I overestimated your sincerity. You see, I am willing to assume that I can be wrong on an issue. It seems you assume that you can only be right. This negates any debate. We would only create an environment where people wouldn't listen to each other. They would simply keep saying the same thing over and over again.

Now, Thomas and I had a dialogue. We disagreed. And, yet, because Thomas was capable of sharing with me - I do understand his point of view. I'll work with what you did offer me, however.

People entered the US "illegally" because corporations hired them. These people knew the law and chose to disobey. The corporations that hired them, knowing they were illegal, also chose to disobey the law. I now see two wrongs that need to be corrected. But, I do not see how one wrong justified the other.

Now, this exchange has been informative. Because now I believe either 1) You don't "really" feel your position is justifiable. In your heart, a part of you knows that what has happened was wrong and should be punished. But, you're hoping America's heart is big enough to "forgive" the infraction. Because, although these people broke the law, many of them felt driven to do it. And, the new hoops an illegal immigrant would have to go through, to become illegal - would still be part of an act of forgiveness on the part of the US. Or, perhaps 2) You didn't think you should have to justify or discuss it. The immigrants who entered the country illegally haven't done anything wrong. It's every man for himself, regardless of laws broken or consequences incurred. Americans should get over it and move on because after all the country couldn't exist if not for the millions of immigrants. As, I've heard on television - our economy would shut down if every illegal immigrant were to leave.

No, Rico. I didn't want to "think" that I wanted to understand. I wanted to understand. However, I did want to "think" you were sincere in your grand comparisons of today's immigration issues with yesterday's immigration issues. There were some geniune similarities. But, now I "think" you were just spinning.

That's why there wasn't a "real" bill. Everyone just wanted Americans to agree and move on. Not, actually have an opinion and want a discussion.

The reason the Great Wall of China was great, other than its size and length, was its protective nature to those INSIDE the wall. It was built as protection, and it worked!

For some time, anyway.... Then the Manchu were able to cross it, took Beijing and instituted their own rule (the Qing dynasty).

I believe the point of the article, Joe, is that the same sorts of things people say about immigrants today were said about earlier groups of immigrants, those now held up as examples of legal, hard-working, assimilating immigrants.

Aniko -

The Manchu went AROUND the wall. Hopefully, we'll build our Southern wall all the way across our border.

I have no problem at all with LEGAL immigrants. Its the ILLEGAL ones that I dislike. I think that's the feeling of the vast majority in America.

The Manchu went AROUND the wall.

No, someone opened a gate for them. But before that, the Mongols crossed it several times--it was relatively easy to scale, and many parts of it were unmanned, as any wall of this length would have to be. What the wall did well was prevent cavalry units from crossing. But infantry had no problem at all.

Bret, I've heard a politician say the same about legal vs. illegal immigrants. Turns out he's also campaigning for zero immigration, which would mean there would be no legal immigrants.... Maybe that's not you. I'm just saying that you need to look behind the catchphrases to see what people really mean.

Aniko -

I used to live in McAllen, Texas. I know this issue first hand. At my work, I used to hire a lot of workers from Mexico...........but only the ones with the proper documentation. I've seen every scam in the book, so I checked everyone's stuff. Once the word gets out that your company does background and documentation checks, the scammers go elsewhere. I just wish every company would form a united front against those in other countries trying to get into America illegally.

The number one thing that the country of Mexico fears is a visible, unmovable deterrent like a wall. Then they can't export their country's problems to us any more.