Bullshigiddy!!!
I always thought that Sandra Bullock was Mexican.If not, at least Hispanic.
It just seemed likely because Ms Bullock is often a prominant topic of the Hispanic media.
I was at Rippa's site and commented that I thought as much, at which point I was summarily corrected.
Someone pointed out that Ms Bullock was of German and Euro-American descent.
But what the heck is "Euro-American"?
Do those from the Iberian Penninsula count?
If Ms Bullock's father was Spanish - wouldn't Ms Bullock still be Hispanic?
But this post is not about Ms Bullock and her current situations.
This post questions, "What is a Mexican?".
Most of those of Central American descent claim that America belongs to them by right.That Europeans took away their land by violence or had it given away by treaties such as the Gadsden.
But this is not true.
America was once made up of different tribes who spoke different languages, practiced different traditions and who had different cultures.
Is an Aztec or a Toltec the same as a Pueblo or Commanche?
Is an Englishman the same as an Italian?
Is an Englishman the same as an Italian?
Is a Chinese man the same as a Japanese man?
Is a Berber the same as an Yoruba?
Most of those who wish to immigrate to the United States are the Indios (Native Indian) or the darker of the Mestizos (Mixed Race).Those who look like Salma are members of Mexico's elite castes.
A while ago - I had a conversation with a proponent of a Mexican White Power group.
Apparently, even Mexico doesn't want it's indigenous peoples.
http://uglyblackjohn.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-am-what-i-am-pop-eye.html
http://uglyblackjohn.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-am-what-i-am-pop-eye.html
Okay, okay... that came from a member of a racist group.But let's take a look at what a Latino source has to say:
Odd that Mexico has the nerve to chastise American policies when their own policies against those from south of their border are even more restrictive.
But this is nothing new.When a message cannot be conveyed by claiming Mexican ownership of the Southwest...
Just change the story or flag to suit ones own needs.
Just change the story or flag to suit ones own needs.Personally, I'm in favor of a more strict interpretation of our current immigration laws.
Breaking up the families who crossed the border by choice illegally (Hispanics/Latinos) is not the same as breaking up the families of those who were brought here by force (Slaves).
I don't equate one with the other.
I know, I know...
I'm a quarter Native American and a quarter Mexican (Mestizo) and I should see this fight over immigration reform as my own.
But I don't.
I have my tribal papers.
My Mexican-American ancestors were here legally.
My family didn't sneak across the border, knowing it was wrong, in the hopes of never being caught.
My family didn't sneak across the border, knowing it was wrong, in the hopes of never being caught.
You see...
This is my point of view - you gambled and you lost, now pay the costs.
If your child was born here - he is an American citizen.
If you sneaked into the country - you are not an American citizen.
If you wish to leave your children behind with friends or relatives in order to take advantage of a better quality of life - that's his right.
If you wish to leave your children behind with friends or relatives in order to take advantage of a better quality of life - that's his right.
If you wish to stay behind because you had a child within the borders of a country to which you did not belong - kick rocks.
14 comments:
Well said.
Folk are always getting on my case because I'm not as "pro immigrant" (I guess) as I should be, given that my parents both hail from the Caribbean. But here is the rub, my parents came here legally. They entered the country the right way, not only that they worked payed taxes, raised children, and eventually became naturalized citizens. My folks pretty much had to do things the right way, because (Arizona law aside) if immigration his hard on those of Latin decent, it is doubly hard on just plain old black foreigners.
I'm not upset by the fact that millions of folks crossed the border and are now residing here illegally (they're not taking my jobs), but like you, I'm of the mind that as long as they are here they are gambling and should not cry foul when the bet against the house and lose. If they are caught or deported it's on them, simply because they knew the risks when they crossed the border.
Disclaimer: The above thoughts are not and should not be indicative of my support of the new Arizona laws. I support tough immigration laws so long as they are fair and constitutional (which the Arizona laws clearly are not).
Actually, I think Sandra is Jewish. I'm not sure, but I think I saw a entertainment news report of her having a Bris for her Black baby (fucking White people, seems like they are treating Black babies like some kind of new toy).
Anyway, I basically agree with your position. I have no problem with enforcing our immigration laws and policing the borders more stringently. I do object to the part of the Arizona law that sanctioned and compelled the Popo to profile. In all the debate that has raged, I've really not heard anyone define the criteria by which someone is suspected of being illegal. Also, the ability to jail a suspect if they do not have papers (emphasis on suspect, not yet proven). These aspects are egregious.
But yes, these folks know what they are doing when they knowingly break the laws and they should be subject to whatever the consequences are pursuant to our laws.
I think that no matter what your race if you entered legally you should be welcomed and accepted. If you entered illegally you should not be welcomed or accepted.
I don't understand why this has become such a flashpoint in this country.
I referred to Sandra's father as "Euro-American" as shorthand for white. I have no idea what his particular background is but "Bullock" is an Anglo-Saxon name so I would guess that his forebears were British or German. For those with deeper interest there is a genealogy chart available... =)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/celeb/bullock.htm
As far as what is "Hispanic" and what is "white" I think that's often a matter of individual interpretation. There are some "whites" who look "Hispanic" and some "Hispanics" who look white.
But I don't think the term Hispanic includes whites from Spain. The actors Paz Vega, Pilar Lopez, Penelope Cruz and Antonio Banderas are all Spanish but I don't know that they identify as "Hispanic". George Lopez and Rep. Luis Gutierrez on the other hand, clearly do.
People from Spanish speaking countries are gonna have more problems delineating themselves based on the names given them by White folks in power than Black folks. Hispanics came from Hispaniola, Columbus' landing spot when he came to this country. If you expand that to all the Islands of the Carribean, they would be Hispanic. That wouldn't cover the folks who were on the mainland or those directly from Spain (the Mexicans I hung with in Chicago took great exception to being called Hispanic).
With that out of the way, I agree with your premise about undocumented citizens being held to the law, but the approach to regulations, and the focus on regulations is so blatantly racist that in following that path we lose the moral ground to make any such laws. You somewhat alluded to my point with your post about Canadians in Hollywood. Canadians can come over legally much easier than Mexicans can. Even the inspections for people with high levels of melanin are more thorough. I know this from trying to come back into the states with a White buddy of mine in the 80's. One time he said, "these inspections always take longer when I'm with you", to which I replied, "Well, they are always much faster when I'm with you".
Totally ignored in our desire to enact stricter laws is the fact that Mexico by an enormous amount leads the world in the number of legal immigrants that come here. Totally ignored is the fact that laws to punish those who hire illegals are not enforced. That is the same premise as cracking down on the Black street dealer but not the White distributor. Again, a moral ground issue. Also, we export jobs like telemarketing to India, but not Mexico, when it would make sense that if we set up jobs for Mexicans in Mexico, they wouldn't come here.
I lived in Buffalo, NY, where I could walk to the bridge to Ft. Erie Canada in about 20 minutes. There are illegal Canadians, Somalians, Ecuadorians, Hungarians, you name it, that come across the Canadian border every day. ALL DAY EVERY DAY. But the furor to chase them down isn't the same as it is in the south and southwest. That is because politicians there need a scapegoat to pin the problems of the White people in those areas on.
I'm not saying we don't need stricter laws or increased border coverage. But if we enforce that laws that apply to hiring illegal immigrants, ammend the laws for granting work visas, and encourage the economic development of Mexico the way we do with India and Pakistan, we will address the issue in a much better way than trying to catch families sliding under barbed-wire fences in the middle of the night. The moral high-ground makes enforcing the legal remedies more acceptable for everybody.
Legal - Illegal, I think we get too hung up on the law. When one of immigrant ancestry, which is all of us except American Indians, touts that their ancestors followed the rules, they better look up what those rules were in comparison to now.
Do I fault someone for breaking a law when it is done to feed kids and family? I have more of a problem with those who complain about Mexicans taking jobs from American citizens. Who said just because you were born here you deserve something more than an individual who is willing to risk death and live a life in fear... because it is better than the alternative?
I'm more in favor of naturilazation and a real adjustment in immigration law. Bring on the Mexicans! America needs an influx of people with an appreciation for family and strong work ethic.
yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm not in Texas or Arizona. It doesnt change the humanitarian nature of this issue.
Shady
It's a flashpoint because while most everybody agrees that illegal immigration is wrong, folks don't agree on HOW wrong.
So, you have some folks who want to take drastic measures and others folks who see it as no big deal.
Personally, I don't support illegal immigration and I don[t have a problem with folks being deported. We do it to Haitians all the time.
I just have a problem with the rules we have about who can stay and who has to go, and the morass that is the legal immigration process. We correct those issues and we undercut any arguments about illegal immigration.
@Brohammas, I found some interesting information about who actually comes in as legal immigrants to the US from year to year.
http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/immigration.shtm
As you can see the US accepts legally anywhere from 700,000 to over 1,000,000 legal immigrants each year. Mexico sends the largest number of people. The US already accepts more immigration than any other country AFAIK.
Generally speaking, if someone breaks the law they should have to suffer the consequences. I haven't heard any public figure yet make a good argument why US immigration policy is in and of itself, unjust.
I think America accepts enough immigrants as it is now. Other Americans may disagree. But surely that debate, however it may end up is something that should be properly and calmly discussed among Americans-not others?
The situation as it is now with people illegally entering the country and telling us what our immigration policy should be is intolerable. No other country would accept that or does accept that.
As far as who deserves what I think that's not the question. There are some 2 billion people on this planet who live on less than $5/day. Should the US take all of them in for humanitarian reasons? Obviously we can't do that. We do have limited resources. It's not fair to the legal immigrants who followed the rules to then throw out the rules and accept all of the illegals.
There may be an argument to get rid of nation-states completely. But right now that's not the argument that pro-illegals are using.
The best thing that the US can do to force reform in Mexico is to stop acting as Mexico's dumping ground for excess labor. Mexico needs reform and change. That won't happen as long as the US is the safety valve.
Although for various reasons, legit and not so legit, Mexico (and other points South) is the poster child for illegal immigration, I don't want illegal immigration from anywhere.
@Hey Big Man!
Yeah, that's the issue "How Wrong".
If it was just a few people than I probably would be on the side of "what's the big deal, let them stay and become citizens".
But when you have millions of illegals that are impacting the labor markets it's a different story.
I do think there is a lot of racism/xenophobia on both sides of the issue. There's enough hypocrisy to go around for everyone.
a little early morning salma is always welcome, and any old discursive excuse is fine if it results in her image becoming part of the package....,
Dwane T said:
"There are illegal Canadians, Somalians, Ecuadorians, Hungarians, you name it, that come across the Canadian border every day."
How does a Canadian become an 'illegal Canadian'? And how does a Hungarian become an 'illegal migrant' when no visa is required for citizens of EU states?
Brohammas,
Co-sign. I believe in open borders, persecuting someone for seeking gainful employment is ridiculous when goods and capital can flow across borders. Until wealth is re-distributed more evenly across the globe, people will always migrate, 'documented and undocumented'.
Undocumented migrants make a significant contribution to the economy in various ways. What would happen to the economy if they all had to leave Cali, Texas and Florida?
The technologizing of industry has a far bigger impact on job loss for American citizens than worrying about undocumented persons.
KonWomyn, let me upgrade my statement: Those people come across the border and establish permanent citizenship without going through the appropriate channels as they apply to them. When there they need a visa upon entry, or get a temporary pass via the EU, after they are here undocumented for a couple of years (which many are) they are here illegally. One of my female buddies has been married to her Hungarian husband for about 11 years. They relocated from Buffalo to VA. And they are chillin'.
Anyway, my point, which your point about the Europen Union made even more evident, is that the laws are unequally made and enforced, which makes the situation racially unjust. Laws are good, unjest laws need to be Amended. Equal access under the law should also mean the converse, equal denial under the law. I believe we should have control over our borders for alot of reasons, but I can go either way... as long as there is fair application.
Co-sign. I believe in open borders, persecuting someone for seeking gainful employment is ridiculous when goods and capital can flow across borders. Until wealth is re-distributed more evenly across the globe, people will always migrate, 'documented and undocumented'.
What will we do when the "new normal" unemployment rates guarantee that millions of citizens cannot find work? What will we do when millions of children of illegal immigrants want to make into the middle class and can't? Will they be satisfied being part of a permanent under class?
Excellent post!!!
Very comprehensive and well thought out; but to be honest, the thing I'll remember most about this blog is reminding me just how much I'd like to have sex with Salma Hayek.
If you sit back and think about it, tell me who hasn't been invaded at one time or another. Man's legacy is one of violence and aggression. Anyone who doesn't recognize that just isn't paying attention.
For those who believe in open borders, do you also believe that someone less fortunate than you has the right to enter your home and partake of the goods and services you have worked to enjoy?
I'm betting that you don't believe that.
America already accepts more legal immigrants than any other country. The problem is that some people have got it in their skull that the immigration laws need not apply to them. Because interests across the political spectrum have looked the other way on this for decades it will be difficult to disabuse people of this notion. But it must be corrected. The US simply does not have the resources to take in every person who wants to live here.
In addition, you cannot have a country if you have "open borders". It contradicts the definition of a state. There are roughly FOUR times the number of Indians who live in desperate poverty as the ENTIRE population of Mexico. What if they all got the bright idea to move to the US?
Bottom line, this is our country and WE get to decide who enters and who stays in accordance with our desires and needs.
And let's just be real here. There are racists and bigots on both sides of this issue. If the largest influx of illegals were white Russians or Eastern Europeans that were swamping the eastern states (and voting conservative once they or their children became citizens) I KNOW that many, not all, of the current vociferously anti-illegal people would mute their critiques.
On the other hand I also KNOW that many (not all) of the black people or Hispanic activists lining up to do battle for illegal Mexicans would change their tune in a heartbeat if there were more whites pouring into the country. At that point you would probably see Luis Gutierrez and company start talking about "border security", "visa checks" and "what part of illegal don't they understand"?
The only fair thing to do is to insist that everyone, regardless of race, national origin, or ethnicity follow the rules.
Post a Comment