[FoRK] Day without illegals in the bay area

Brian Peisley < brian.peisley at gmail.com > on > Tue May 2 15:40:23 PDT 2006

On 5/2/06, J. Andrew Rogers <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Brian Peisley wrote:
> > If China or India or any other country that had people who wanted
> > to come
> > to the U.S. was connected to the U.S. by land, there would be many,
> > many
> > more people immigrating illegally from there too.  So just because
> > somebody
> > couldn't walk here is hardly reason to let them sit up on a high
> > horse.  If
> > their options were different, they might have made a different choice.
> Again, completely missing the point.  You painted all immigrants of
> all types from all places with the same broad brush, and made
> assertions about what immigrants think based on that strawman.   It
> is not a "high horse" when Chinese immigrants resent the fact that
> the US tacitly allows people from neighboring countries to bring
> family into the US but makes it nigh impossible for them to do the same.

I'm not sure what point I'm missing here.  Are you suggesting that
I break immigrants into two groups?  The shiny ones from overseas and
the evil, thieving, virus ridden immigrants who got here by land?  Or
maybe I should just break it down by immigrants from Mexico and Canada,
and immigrants from elsewhere.  Since you seem preoccupied with people
who can immigrate here by walking here, that would make sense.  Since
illegal immigrants can and do immigrate from everywhere, you couldn't
possibly mean that.

Seriously though, if anybody is painting immigrants with a large brush,
you are.  I can at least acknowledge that these are people we are talking
about.  You're the one who seems to insist on using pejorative names.
When you have to resort to calling entire groups of people by names, so
that you can feel superior to them, it really doesn't say much for
your character.

It may not be a high horse when a person who immigrated here legally
resents the fact that not everybody immigrates here legally.  I would
call it a high horse when somebody holds themselves or others to be
superior to another person or group simply because those others made a
choice they don't like.  That appears to be what you're doing.

> Why should overseas immigrants support illegal immigration?  It does
> not benefit them.  I was not making an argument of comparative
> morality, just making the observation that overseas immigrants do not
> have much of a reason to support illegal immigration.

I can't say why for sure, but my empirical evidence points to the fact
that they do.  Maybe the reason they support other immigrants is just
because they understand exactly why people want to seek opportunity

Really, I don't see that it's harming them much either. People immigrating
from India, China, et al, aren't really coming here for the fruit picking
jobs or to work as day laborers, or to be auto mechanics.

> > This is such complete and utter crap!  Do you honestly think that
> > people
> > who immigrate here illegally just simply hop back and forth across the
> > border any time they want?
> I was talking about legal immigrants, so what does this response have
> to do with anything?  This controversy has never been about legal
> immigration, only illegal immigration.

I was talking about A.  The controversy has never been about A, only B.
And you question my response?

Maybe if you didn't insist on referring to immigrants as walkers and
floaters, it would be more clear what you're talking about.  Again,
try thinking of them and referring to them as people, it might help.

> Legal immigrants from
> neighboring countries benefit significantly from illegal immigration,
> and so they have a different stake in illegal immigration than legal
> immigrants from overseas.

> Up until about two years ago, it actually was pretty simple to hop
> back and forth across the border, and many illegals did it all the
> time.  They've told me that security has recently gotten much tighter
> such that there is now a real risk of getting stuck on the Mexican
> side if they go back over. Legal immigrants bringing relatives over
> the borders illegally has always appeared to be a pretty common
> practice, particularly since there was little risk in doing so.  For
> the longest time, the Border Patrol has largely concerned themselves
> with drug trafficking and similar.

Wow, the border patrol thought cocaine might be more harmful than
illegal immigrants.  How unsurprising.  I agree with them.

> > Where exactly does you experience come from?  Talk Radio?
> I dunno.  I lived on both US borders for many years.  The vast
> majority of people I have worked and lived with in Silicon Valley
> were immigrants or resident aliens.  Lots of immigrants in the family
> too.  In fact, in my day-to-day life I probably interact with more
> illegal aliens than native-born Americans.  I live in Silicon Valley,
> so all this is to be expected.
> Perhaps ironically, being deported back to the US for immigration
> violations is not unknown in my family either.

If you've lived on both borders, then I find your attitude simply

Since you live in Silicon Valley now, how many tech jobs are being filled
by illegal immigrants?

> > Very, very few of them reserve the kind of venom you're spitting
> > for people who immigrate here illegally.
> Where is this venom you speak of?  I pointed out that many legal
> immigrants, particularly ones from overseas, do not so eagerly
> support illegal immigration and you went apoplectic. The legal
> immigrants from south of the border tend to be more ambivalent in my
> experience, primarily because they invariably have at least one
> relative living up here illegally.

Gosh, I guess I'd have to point to the intolerance suggested by your
tone and word choice.

> > Yeah, people who immigrate here illegally have bad, nasty cooties!
> > Please...
> Controlling the spread of hepatitis and drug-resistant tuberculosis
> is a serious matter of legitimate concern and with significant
> financial implications.  This is not just a problem for the US; the
> Canadian government, particularly in British Columbia, has similar
> issues.  Illegal immigration is a significant vector for these
> diseases, as that population has an incident of these diseases that
> are *much* higher than either the US or Canada native population.
> Traditionally, much of the purpose of controlling immigration was to
> prevent the spread of infectious disease.

Do you really think that whether or not a person immigrates here legally
or illegally has some effect on the spread of diseases?  Maybe we should
stop allowing people from other to vacation here, and stop people from
here vacationing elsewhere too?

> > Yeah, how dare a government not stop it's people from trying to find
> > a better way to provide for themselves and their families than stuff
> > like subsistence farming.  Shame on them.
> Instead of not stopping them, how about eliminating that oh-so-
> profitable corruption that fills that country with subsistence
> farmers in the first place.  Is that supposed to be some kind of
> reach around from the Mexican government, while they are shafting the
> average person there?
> > You obviously fail to understand something that even Bush gets.
> > These are
> > human beings we're talking about.  Not some abstract concept, not
> > something
> > you can just will away.
> Most of your responses were to things you imagined I meant but which
> were not in evidence in what I wrote.    Less emotional outburst,
> more thoughtful comprehension.

As I said, your tone and your words smack of intolerance.  So how about
less intolerance, more thoughtful compassion.

Maybe I just have fond memories of when Michelle Valdez was just the cute
girl down the street, not the cute Mexican girl who should be held at arms
length and treated with suspicion.  It's just ridiculous.

Brian Peisley
brian.peisley at gmail.com
Die Grenzen meiner Sprache sind die Grenzen meiner Welt. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

More information about the FoRK mailing list