| Drolefille |
08-03-2010 12:12 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
(Post 1962651)
Really, it's not completely hypocritical - immigration to fill vast expanses of unpopulated land, as was the case when most European immigrants came over, or out of force/servitude, isn't all that analogous to the current situation with immigration in the southwest. They simply bring along far different problems, of a different scope and scale, and with decades of differences in the social pressures and political problems associated with immigration. Sure, you'd expect a little more compassion, but recognizing problems that require solutions is still important.
As much as the specter of crime is a talking point for the far right that doesn't exactly hold water, the "Nation of Immigrants" point is hollow and rhetorical as a talking point for the far left.
Much more important, to me anyway, are the founding ideals of the United States, all of which would seem to indicate a course of action basically 180 degrees away from what Arizona/many bandwagon Republican leaders seem to support. It seems clear immigration was never intended solely as a "brain drain" on the Indian subcontinent for our benefit, for example - the notion of the United States as a 'safe harbor' for those under oppressive or restrictive regimes makes much more sense, even transposed a few hundred years.
For me, the "huddled masses" argument is completely different than the "Nation of Immigrants" stuff, and really gets to the ironic root: a nation of Patriotic Minutemen(c) wants to ignore what's written on the Statue of Liberty (and limit the rights of red-blooded Hispanic citizens in their own state).
|
I think it's just absurd when people here claim to want to keep "those foreigners" out. And that applies to whether it's legal or illegal immigration, whether it's anti-African, Arab, Persian, Hispanic, whatever sentiment, it's ridiculous and then angering at the same time.
However your last point made me think of this article Tea Party activists at colonial Williamsburg .
Quote:
The executives who oversee Williamsburg said they have noticed the influx of tea partiers, and have also noted a rise in the number of guests who ply the costumed actors for advice about how to rebel against 21st-century politicians. (The actors do their best to provide 18th-century answers.)
"If people . . . can recognize that subjects such as war and taxation, religion and race, were really at the heart of the situation in the 18th century, and there is some connection between what was going on then and what's going on now, that's all to the good," said Colin Campbell, president and chairman of Colonial Williamsburg. "What happened in the 18th century here required engagement, and what's required to preserve democracy in the 21st century is engagement. That is really our message."
...
Sometimes, the activists appear surprised when the Founding Fathers don't always provide the "give 'em hell" response they seem to be looking for.
When a tourist asked George Washington a question about what should be done to those colonists who remain loyal to the tyrannical British king, Washington interjected: "I hope that we're all loyal, sir" -- a reminder that Washington, far from being an early agitator against the throne, was among those who sought to avoid revolution until the very end.
...
And when another asked whether the Boston Tea Party had helped rally the patriots, Washington disagreed with force: The tea party "should never have occurred," he said. "It's hurt our cause, sir."
|
|
