The Great "But My Granny Was Legal" Myth
One of the more amusing (and sometimes equally depressing) aspects of the current immigration debate is to watch so many grand-children and great grand-children of immigrants beat their chests and self-righteously proclaim that their families were "legal" rather than "illegals." There are, you see, the worthy immigrants (those already ceritified as being here) and the unworthy, those who are struggling to stay here.
A nice idea. But one totally inconsistent with American history. Immigration expert Mae Ngai serves up a hearty history lesson in today's L.A. Times, attempting to counter the prevailing myth among all those Italian-American, Polish-American, German-American, Irish-American and all other hyphenates that somehow their people came here "legally" and therefore hold some sort of moral high ground against the latest generation of "illegal" immigrants.
In a word -- baloney.
Until very recently in American history, there was no such distinction. Of the 25 million immigrants who washed up at Ellis Island before World War 1 -- with no papers, no visas, no "waiting in line," speaking no English and probably smelling pretty rank after travelling in steerage, only a mere 1% of them were excluded. And almost exclusively for health reasons -- including by the way my paternal grandfather (who, with either TB or emphysema, went instead to Canada and then came across the open land border on his way to California).
There was virtually no such thing as "illegal immigration" in the heyday of Ellis Island. And there still wouldn't be today if we had not started imposing rather irrational quotas on what had been an historic and predictable flow of immigrants.
Read Mae's piece, and learn something totally obscured in the current debate. And remember, your own Granny and Grandpa with a 95 out of 100 chance had no papers, no permits, and was standing in no line when they got here suitcase in hand, sand in their pockets and a pit of hunger in their unwashed tummies.
P.S. Here's the latest on the Senate debate. Relatively good news.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
There were no violators of Occupational Health and Safety laws back in 1885 either. And no violations of child labor laws.
Let’s go back to the good old days.
Ngai’s piece is anecdotally interesting and useful if you are running out of ammunition to prove most GOP congressmen tend to be ignorant, but it’s pure sophistry in regards to dealing with the issue at hand. The argument that immigration was always “illegal” because there were virtually no statutes in place regulating it a hundred years ago is totally bogus. It also mentions, but then studiously ignores in the context of it’s intended argument that immigration was unregulated, that in fact there were some pretty damned draconian laws in place for certain people. You can criticize immigration laws, but the proposition they are meaningless and can be ignored or negated because in their current, less draconian and racist form they’re relatively recent amounts to total crap. Typical of the way academics blow smoke.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Reg.. Im not being sarcastic. Could you take a moment and detail to us how your folks came here? Which type of visa were they holding? What process did they employ to get here? And what would differentiate their objective circumstances from a peasant in Veracruz?
Of course there were draconian statutes in place, as Mae, says, for Asians at one time. And for others as well. So? That’s not the point. The point is that for the 25 million who did come (with.. how many offspring after 2-3 generations? 150 million?) there was NO regulation, no illegal or legal distinction.
And while you’re at it– refresh my memory as to what exactly your policy proposal is… I know u support a workplace ID card.. as I do. But is that it?
May 16th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Yeah, what’s the deal with that stance, that “we were here legally” bullshit. That stance seems so Anti-American, so regimental. The spirit of America is missing from this debate. This is suppose to be a place where people — desperate and otherwise — can come to and be whatever they want.
Here’s another slice of baloney: The idea that people who came here “illegally,” but have remained here peacefully, should have to face some sort of punishment is disgusting, as if the time spent here was on credit, and now the payment’s due. Sometimes I think George Bush thinks he’s the principal of a high school. He’s still pissed the paddle was banned.
And since Mae showed that many of us have relatives who came here illegally, what kind of punishment should be handed down to them?
May 16th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
“And since Mae showed that many of us have relatives who came here illegally…” —- Mae didn’t show that. She showed that at the time of the first waves of mass immigration there were no laws in place, so there was no question of legality.
BTW - why were there restrictions placed on the number of Mexican immigrants in ‘65? What was the rationale at the time?
May 16th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Mine came in 1630 with John Winthrop. Please enlighten us with why this is the same thing. There were no laws restricting it and there is now. You know smart people put curbs on runaway growth. Populations are part of that.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
“The argument that immigration was always “illegal†because there were virtually no statutes in place regulating it a hundred years ago is totally bogus.”
And the argument from ignorance: since there were no laws governing immigration it must have been illegal! Brilliant up-is-down conclusion. And complete ass-backwards logic. It was legal then and isn’t from the time the law was passed. That’s the way a nation of laws works. Or should.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Well said, Marc. Thanks. I’ve found that many folks I talk with don’t even know their own family immigration stories. And that, of course, makes it all the easier to fantasize why one’s ancestors were somehow okay, while current immigrants aren’t. And to say that current immigrants should be subject to harsh, unrealistic laws while their ancestors were not.
And what’s more American than double-standards?
May 16th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
I have spent a total of almost three years in the US. Twice on student visas and two times on tourist visas. While I have traveled throughout the states i spent most of my time in the midwest(Iowa, Chicago, Minniapolis, and Madison,WI). My wife and I along with several of our Czech, Slovak, and Polish friends were offered several jobs(illegally), and were encouraged to seek permanent residence in the USA. We were patted on the back for coming from a former communist country. We listened to story after story of how someones grandparent or great grand parent came from the old country. I was asked by several men if I knew pretty slavic girls who might be interested in marrying wealthy Americans or “au pairing” for their family{I always said no).
At the same time, many of these same people derided hispanic and asian immigrants as if they were ruining the USA. Chicago and New York today are full of illegals from central and eastern europe, working in Mcdonalds, walmarts, etc. who don’t face near the discrimination or stereotyping of (especially) hispanic workers. We don’t sneak across your borders, we come on airplanes and pass right through customs at O’hare and JFK. We also don’t speak English any bettre than the average hispanic worker. Yet I don’t thnik its a coincidence thast our country of origin and skin colour was more appealing than others.
Frydek_Mistek
Let me note that we are not any less rascist or xenophobic in Europe, in many ways Europeans are much worse.
Frydek-Mistek
May 16th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Well there’s always ancestry.com to quell those doubts. There’s no double standard about it. Hint: there’s an immigration record database. The folks you’re defending aren’t in it.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Marc…you really don’t give a shit what my proposals are, because I’ve posted them endlessly. Your discourse on this issue has been less than stellar.
If you don’t get why this argument about “everyone was illegal because there was no ‘legal’ ” is bullshit and beside any possible point in 2006 I can’t help you.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I’ve got more breaking news that should help clarify the immigration debate. The U.S. southwest and west were originally colonized by Spanish conquistadors, displacing the hegemony of native peoples. Nobody who currently calls themselves a “Texan” or “Californian” was even alive when these events took place. I think we should consider the implications of this history before we get all worked up about social constructs like “citizenship” or “borders”. I mean, do other countries engage in such demeaning impositions ?
May 16th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
reg,
Once we’ve decided that being in the United States, illegally is no longer a misdemeanor but a felony…then what?
May 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Why are you asking me this…I’ve opposed Sensenbrenner’s bill since this discussion started. It’s really pretty pointless for me to say anything more. (Marc asked me a question here that I was also asked and responded to in length on the previous thread. As for my grandfather, et. al., it’s a long somewhat interesting story that leads me firmly to a position of absolutely no enthusiasm for immigrants like him who fail to assimilate and engage in “ethnic pride” and cultural nostalgia in response to both real and percieved humiliations and discrimination in their adopted land. I can sympathize to a degree, but also realize that it’s a dead-end that can be crippling. This personal narrative has, of course, absolutely nothing do to with rational debate of our current immigratioin policies. So I’ll spare you.)
But I will note that the Ngai piece’s biggest flaw - of many insofar as it’s an attempted intervention in current discussion of illegal immigration - is that it pretty much treats anyone who would attempt to immigrate legally like some sort of fool for following these irrelevant social constructs called “laws” that didn’t exist for their great-grandparents (except, of course to explicitly exclude “Asians” and some others).
May 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I agree with Marc. There’s such a basis for people to suck up on them a feeling of moral superioirty. Like the group “You don’t speak for us”, and others for example, who sound as if their greatest achievement in life was to Enter US, legally. It’d be a better thing to be a good person for the rest of your life, though.
First off, the demonstrators blatantly spoke for themselves, and no one else. They reacted to threats of severe punishments for their precense here. Those threats were against the illegals, not legals.
I think this immigration debate looks pretty similar to racist debates, or anti-semitic debates. You set up a few criteria which based on you will refuse to accept the other peron, regardless of how good he or she is.
Those bragging about being legal, well, apart from being silly, they make it sound as if the illegals are about to reverse all their gained priviliges in America. Like, When you come the legal way you’re autoamitcally granted rights and priviliges that you just don’t receive as an illegal. There’s so much more to this debate than dividing up people between illegals and legals along some righteous line. People have to ask themselves first, if they would even find it viable to enter the US illegally, as opposed to what they’re doing now which is to make it a matter of moral choise by alone. They say ” We waiting in line”–as if that line can be joined by anyone who wants. It’s not that simple, yet they imply so.
They simply exploit the illegals’s status to elevate their own glories, but when you look at the facts, the vast majority of illegals have it much tougher than the legals. The illegals often live in gang ridden, poor neighbourhoods, earn lower wages, can’t vote, afraid to see the doctors, etc etc. The question is if those proud legals would even dare to, or find it a feasable option to live the life on an average illegal, before they go on to claiming some ridiculous moral superiorty which isn’t even defined by a persons’ legal status.
Too many children in the debate, currently. There’s such a devoid of important reflections that give instead, way to incessant judging. And there are terrorists who hate us and want to kill people.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
“I think this immigration debate looks pretty similar to racist debates, or anti-semitic debates. You set up a few criteria which based on you will refuse to accept the other peron, regardless of how good he or she is.”
That’s incredibly stupid. Really. I can’t let crap like that stand. If you are operating at that level of reductionist garbage, you really don’t have a clue as to what the issues are. This isn’t about abstract “moralism” - it’s about a workable and sound social policy. This moralistic shit is an abdication of serious discourse. I could come up with a hundred issues that - argued on the basis of abstract moralism - would have homeless people camped in your living room, among other things.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
I’ve got a similar story. I go to a gym with some very successful business men and lawyers. I’m working out with a huge 3rd generation Polish dude who loves to brag about how his grandmother never learned English and remained Polish to the core, refusing to leave her corner of Chicago. The Italians try to brag about how close to the old country their dear ol’ grandmothers were, and how sweet gramma refused to learn English cuz she didn’t want to betray her roots. This is always spoken in the most braggadocio {sp}voice they can conjure. These successful men still speak in the accents of their neighborhood.
Yet, when it comes to Latinos (and for some strange reason, the Polish dude really despised “unassimilated†Hawaiians and Samoans) they are the dirty scourge who refuse to embrace the American culture. With no hint of irony, they complain of the danger of the “unassimilatedâ€, which are inevitably non-European.
It is hard not to smell racism, or ethno-centrism in much of this “legal vs. illegal†immigration debate.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Ante - I’m sorry for reacting so harshly, but this implication that it’s all about racism just won’t wash. It’s a cheap debating point that I, frankly, don’t believe applies in the case of the overwhelming majority of people concerned about this issue.
I also think that the ethnocentrism can run in two directions. It’s not charming in either, so far as I’m concerned.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
reg,
I wasn’t looking for a fight reg.
Where are you different than Marc, on this issue. There is tension (nothing like the stuff jumping off at Redstate.com) what is it about?
May 16th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Thought I’d check things out tonight but I see we’re in mondo bizarro world. G’nite all.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
“If you don’t get why this argument about “everyone was illegal because there was no ‘legal’ †is bullshit and beside any possible point in 2006 I can’t help you.”
Nor can I. it’s just inside out shilling sans reason whoever does it.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
“Where are you different than Marc, on this issue”
On “guest workers”, which I contend is a dreadful program and on the question of whether or not illegal immigration substantively creates a serious problem of the poor competing for diminishing social services and whether or not some poor bastard at the bottom of the labor market who loses an estimated 8% in wages - and possibly the job itself, as in construction, meatpacking, etc - is worth worrying about. Also whether integration of a very large segment of Mexico’s poor into the U.S. labor market is a rational strategy for dealing with that country’s horrific problems. I would assert - when I’m in an aggressive mood and feeling frustrated by what I consider to be Marc’s tendency to evade some of the tougher, more complex issues - that Marc comes down on the side of both the U.S. and Mexican “bad guys” (Chamber of Commerce, Mexican ruling class, etc.) in key aspects of his argument. He also repeats the tired “they’re only doing jobs Americans refuse to do” mantra, which I consider crap because it assumes certain jobs should be done at substandard wages. Marc has a more sophisticated version of some of this, but for the life of me - and I’ve tried - I can’t seperate much of his argument from the stuff being recycled by the usual suspects. I also think that to simply celebrate McCain-Kennedy without looking at it’s biggest negative - i.e. “guest workers” - and the likelihood that it’s enforcement provisions at the workplace will be as toothless as those in the past is irresponsible and a disservice his readers. Strange as it may seem after such a stark assessment, there’s also a lot we agree on in the search for a compromise. I think a “wall” is nuts and won’t work, and I support full integration of people who’ve established roots here into the country as citizens - probably more quickly and more leniently than McCain-Kennedy.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Of course, when and how other people’s ancestors arrived in America (or, how they think they did) have nothing to do with decisions today on handling illegal immigrants.
I think it’s decided and over. Everything that the President and most of Congress does on illegal immigration is just a charade. Today, the Senate voted down a proposed amendment by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) that would require border security to be the first priority and in place before a guest-worker program starts.
I guess I better brush up on Spanish.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
“The illegals often live in gang ridden, poor neighbourhoods, earn lower wages, can’t vote, afraid to see the doctors, etc etc.”
Well I know you aren’t an American from this statement. This is false. Millions of legal citizens here live in poor neighborhoods. Friggin dangerous ones too. They can get medical care here free without being asked for papers or fear of deportation. Mexican nationals know this and have exploited the system to the point of bankruptcy around here in SoCal. Hospitals serving largely black communities of citizens have closed because of it yet Cooper et al refuses to even address it. Know, your ante has been upped and doesn’t hold water. Just because people are alive doesn’t mean they have the right to live here anymore than I can’t go to Somalia or the Congo and say “Looks good,” and build a grass hut.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
“No” obviously.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
That is just dishonest Marc. If it wasn’t prohibited by law, it was legal. Not illegal which is what happens when an action is prohibited by law.
You were doing good till this flight of fancy!
By the way, my great grandparents came to the US via Ellis Island, they were accepted except for a great uncle who was “feebleminded” or some such malady and was sent home to Hamburg, Germany. Illegal/legal indeed!
May 16th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Walls and guest workers are equally stupid ideas and I too hate the tired meme of “jobs we won’t do.” I’ve never see a job somebody won’t do even if it’s the minimum wage. I may not but some citizen will. Won’t pick lettuce? What about the UFW? They have no help that are citizens? I guess I really don’t get it. I think that’s because of the ethnographic totalitarianism that’s behind the whole protest movement led by Univison et al.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Ditto roper, who banned me, but I’m agreement with him for the third time I believe. He’s right on this one.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
“CNN has a poll just up, and the results are staggeringly in the president’s favor. 79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the speech, and those who support the president’s policies rose in number from 42 to 67 percent.”
here is the quote
don’t count me in the pro side because I wasn’t impressed. But this kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails of the left who thought for sure that the speech tanked.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
hmmm, html stripped out…
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY4Y2MxOGM1OWY2Njk1ZWM2NGNlN2ViNjhmMzU2OTQ=
May 16th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Zogby poll is much different:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1111
May 16th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
For Woody, Gm, and the rest of the anti-immigrant folk,
The drumbeat from you guys is mexican, Mexican, Mexican, yet you remain silent on the fact that a signifigant portion of illeghal workers come from EU countries. You have minutemen at the borders but disregard your airports. There are hundreds if not thousands of sites offerinf marriage with central and east europeans women, yet conservatives seem apalled by hispanics in the US.
Frydek-Mistek
May 16th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Could be I’m just a simpleton. I do deal in a simple world. Illegal vs legal? Something illegal today could, with a stroke of a pen be made legal tomorrow, or the reverse. Similarly, the penalties for something illegal can be made more harsh or more lenient.
I believe it was Krathwol and Bloom who embarked on a taxonomy of the affective domain. One can obey a law because they fear the consequences of being caught, or one can obey the law because they value the law. Eg, I drive the speed limit because I an loathe to get a speeding ticket, or I can drive the speed limit because I genuinely believe a reduced speed saves lives. I am having real trouble making the current debate about legal vs illegal immigrant fit into any rational scheme.
I see a dozen ‘law breakers’ between my front door to work, and home every day. Traffic laws, homeowner’s laws, and occupational theft. I watch the news on the Enron debacle, the NSA’s acquisition of telephone records, and congressional ‘improprieties.’ Yet for some reason, folks seem to want to get ‘pound the desk - by the Jesus- irate’ over *illegal* immigrants, as if somehow that was the real crime of the century. I’m not convinced.
Should we be concerned about the implications to the labor market for 12 (out of a near 300) million people. Nah. I think we can absorb that pretty easily. And, historically, we have. Is the minimum wage a liveable wage for most Americans? Doubtful. But it’s ‘legal.’ And, if an employer, can’t find an American citizen willing to work for a ‘legal’ minimum wage, why is it so ‘illegal’ for that employer to hire a non-citizen who will? Oh, you say, but it’s illegal. To which I respond, Yeah, so? There be lots of people doing all kinds of illegal stuff every day. Are the 12 million people who risked life and limb to get here perpetrating a greater crime on society than our sitting President authorizing the NSA to solicit phone records of everday citizens on a flimsy interpretation of ‘war powers?’ I don’t see it.
The heat the illegal immigrant issue generates seems all out of proportion to the harm being done by the 12 million (or so) that are here. Give ‘em amnesty and move on for heaven’s sake. Then deal with this minimum wage issue. But let’s be sure that there is sufficient return to the industries we’d impose the wage increase on. Or, is that the real problem? Depressed middle class incomes that can’t afford an increase in the goods and services that would result if the minimum wage were $12 - $18 ?
May 16th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Another poll that shows a split down the middle on Bush’s speech.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1111
Frydek - I’m not “anti-immigrant” - not at all. And the use of that terminology to slam people who believe that the country has a right to an immigration policy is extremely offensive and deliberately misleading. But your point about the varieties of illegal immigration is one reason I believe that the solution to the problem of unbridled illegal entry with easily obtainable jobs as the grail - which I do oppose - isn’t building a wall on the south border but enforcing labor laws at the point of employment. This is so obviously the solution - if anyone wants to find one (and it’s so obviously doable with modern data and communications technology giving us, for one banal example, access to hundreds of dollars in cash or thousands of dollars in credit when we simply insert a card in a machine and press buttons) but the fact that the Bush administration has practically nullified even the modest enforcement of labor laws of previous administrations proves that their approach to this issue will be determined the same way as most of their non-”cuitural hot-button” social policy - by their business constituency.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Reg,
I’m not arguing that your country doesn’t have a right to an immigrationa policy, nor am I arguing that YOU are anti-immigrant.
I am just trying to provide a personal observation that in the midwest, I and other central and east europeans were greeted with open arms and encourageed to find jobs(and e-mail asddreeses of slavic women who might want to immigrate) while ethnic slurs against hispanics were common.
Believe me, I claim no moral highground, rascist skinhead attacks and xenophobic attitudes are widespread in central and eastern europe.
Frydek-Mistek
May 16th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Frydek-Mistek: “For Woody, Gm, and the rest of the anti-immigrant folk…”
If you are lumping me in with the “anti-immigrant folk” you obviously haven’t been reading my comments on this issue. I do support secure borders, but that is a far cry from being “anti-immigrant” and you should know that. EVERY country has a right, nay, an obligation to maintain secure borders.
Further F-M, I choose to live in Deep South Texas because of a couple of things, not only do I love the border culture with it’s very heavy Hispanic overtones, it’s majority Hispanic population (even if it does practically guarantee democrats being elected), it was a good place to raise my child and from which to bury my first wife. You, and so many others are making a wild assed assumption that because one is conservative, one is also anti-any/race/culture that is different than ones own. I took part in the civil rights movement during the late 50’s through the late 60’s, conservative though I am and was then, and republican through and through. Stereotypes are a bitch aren’t they?
May 16th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
The Mexican and Canadian borders were not enforced until the 30’s. Immigration from Europe was only regulated through sea port entry.
Obviously the possibility of migration across the US - Mexico or US - Canadian border was also a reality. Obviously many europeans came over the boarder and settled. Regulation of immigration was historically racist…
It is also important to note that at one time immigrants could move freely across the US - Canadian border. My family immigrated to New Orleans in the 1700’s and ended up in Quebec. Then in the early 1900’s some immigrated to Boston. They did not face any harassment.
———————————-
Immigration to the US is a small part of larger patterns of migration from rural areas to cities and from many 3rd world cities in the Global South to the North. All of you must remember that we live in a world with a Global economy where capital is free to move where it wants. Naturally that will have some effect on people who have to pursue employment in the marketplace.
An understanding of capitalism in the western hemisphere is totally absent form the debate around immigration.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
reg, I didn’t say the debate is racism. But that in terms of characterisitcs it shares similarities. Big crowds reject, and diminish the smaller less defensible, based upon pre-defined criteria. Just because it’s illegals and not blacks, the hostility still exists, and the ruthless judgemental bashings abound. Just because it’s based on a paper, allegedly and not race, doesn’t mean it can’t be bigotry.
Of course there’s much talk about how to rationally fix the illegal immigration issue. But as it pertains to legal immigrants who imply some moral superiority just for being just legal: that’s what I was getting at.
I think it’s childish to brag about being “legal”. Becaues it implies they came to the U.S to feel supreior in some way, and not out of real nessecity. Many of the illegals who risked their lives just to get a job, peobably did so out of pressing needs.
Anyway.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
sidi_gramllaw@juno.com
May 16th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
GM,
I apologise,
I t was wrong for me to stereotype you, or anyone else.
I have little little to no experience with the southern part of the USA other than driving through it.
I am simply trying to point out the fact that thousands of, “white” eastern and central europeans come through American airports and customs daily without a word in the news, while hispanics are attacked daily by the likes of Lou Dobbs etc. I simly find this hypocritical.
Once again, let me state that europeans could learn a lot from Americans, and rascism and xenophobia is a terrible problem here.
Frydek-Mistek
May 16th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
It’s good to see some new bloggers participating in the last couple of posts, helps to dilute the psychodramas that the hardcore had become mired in (and I agree with GM that we should ratchet down the personal insults, in fact I think this pleas on this score have already had an effect.)
I think the importance of Marc’s post is that it helps to put the issue of legality vs illegality into some sort of perspective. Moralistic stuff about “they broke our laws” mainly serves the purpose, in my humble opinion, of avoiding a compassionate approach towards the 12 million immigrants here illegally and caring about what happens to them–ie the legalistic approach makes it easier to convince oneself and others that this is no concern of Americans. Once we get past this, then questions of policy and how to deal with the current situation can be discussed more rationally and fairly. I may not agree with many here about what the policies should be, but I would hope we could agree that they should mix good social policy with compassion.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
btw, I am not a population expert (and neither is anyone else here that I am aware) but I have to question statements by Lynn, Jake and others that the 12 million illegals have much to do with population overcrowding. The current estimated population according to the US Census Bureau is 298,757,720. This is an increase of nearly 50 million people since 1990. The US population is growing, but how much do the illegals have to do with it? I’m not asking for anyone’s opinion on this, nor statements about Latino birth rates without actual figures, but some real documented facts. I would be interested to see them. Reference for my statements:
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt
May 16th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Here is a quick example of what I am getting at. California is obviously overcrowded and has a lot of illegal immigrants. The pop in 2000 was 33.8 million and estimated illegals that year was 2.2 million. Estimated pop in 2004 increased by a whopping 6% to 35.8 million, or about 2 million more. Did the number of illegals double in those 4 years? If not, how much did illegal immigration into California contribute to that increase, compared to birth rates vs death rates and legal immigration into California from other states and other countries? The answer would tell us how much illegals are responsible for traffic jams, overcrowded schools, etc.
Sources (US gov figures):
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Ill_Report_1211.pdf
May 16th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Woody says,
“Of course, when and how other people’s ancestors arrived in America (or, how they think they did) have nothing to do with decisions today on handling illegal immigrants.
”
Well then why do you guys insist that your ancestors were such stellar examples of ‘following the law’ and not benefitting from violations of laws, except for broken treaties, Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion Acts and other assorted misdemeanors…
May 17th, 2006 at 12:11 am
slowly but surely, as predicted in the middle of march, there will be a fence first and everybody here will be legalized with a 10 year green card. no questions asked, no back taxes and no citizenship fee. if, and it’s a big if, there is a “biometric card” everyone will be required to carry one–the dreaded national ID card. any attempt to make primarily hispanics carry one will never make it out of court. there will be no, and i repeat no, job place law enforcement. oh they will throw a few on the fire but the workplace will be left alone. the unemployment it would cause and the strain on social services will sober up the tough talkers after the first layoffs and bankruptcies. they will probably give folks a year to sign up while they carry on with their lives. after the cut off date they risk being sent home. no card no work, except in the underground economy. this senate jib jab is to feed the left and right. the only parts of the senate proposals that will see the light of day will be the ones that engender new departments, committees etc with no practical influence on the ground.. how do i know this? i’m just using the last forty years as my template.
bush’s speech did what it was designed to do–get folks to accept legalizing everyone here. all we are doing now is discussing the length of the fence.
if you are thinking of a career change–think immigration law. the fees will run in the 100’s of millions, maybe even billions.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Frydek-Mistek; Accepted with thanks~
May 17th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Frydek-Mistek, I support our laws and oppose giving special treatment to illegal immigrants who break them, and when I start seeing a bunch of Swedes taking housing and agricultural jobs away from Americans, then I’ll express my opinions on them, too.
It’s been tried to say that those who oppose law breakers are racists, which says something about those making those claims or the race of people that they are trying to protect.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:56 am
lorie, get off of your slanted history and deal with the problem today in realistic terms. Just because you think that someone in the past got away with something is no reason to excuse or allow others to break our laws today. (Did you hear anything good about the U.S. in history class?)
May 17th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Michael B. “Moralistic stuff about “they broke our laws†mainly serves the purpose, in my humble opinion, of avoiding a compassionate approach towards the 12 million immigrants here illegally and caring about what happens to them…”
Michael, that is a good point, but it can also be counterbalanced with an argument about what happens to our own folk who are impacted by the illegal immigration issue.
Michael B. “…and I agree with GM that we should ratchet down the personal insults…”
Is that because I liked your book?
In truth, from my conservative perspective, there is a wealth of money going into Mexico from the folk who crossed our borders in a “non-traditional” manner. Mexico doubtless has a lot of incentive to keep this source of funds coming in, because it keeps the populace quiet and noticing less the extent of the endemic corruption in that country. In Matamoros a number of years ago while parked on the street near a very popular restraunt (and the frogs legs were delicious) I came out of the restraunt only to see a youth throw a rock at my car and break the headlight. I gave chase but lost the fellow quickly (too old, too slow) the “policeman” standing only 25 feet away didn’t even move, but when I started up my car, came over and in halting English (which was still better than my poor Spanish) and let me know that he wouldn’t write a ticket for a broken headlight if I would push a little mordida in his direction.
That was small potatos corruption, but it is part of the overall picture. Only when Mexican’s decide to clean up their own government will the immigration of folk looking for decent jobs cease.
May 17th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Reg,
I think your priorities are misplaced.
If business were forced to allow unions and/or higher wages in the service and farm industries Americans would indeed take those jobs. Instead, we have laws that do not punish but reward business to use cheap labor which discourages native/American born (whatever) labor. A whole generation of workers voted for politicians who rewarded their natural enemies.
Again, please visit this site, why haven’t the wages/salaries of these people dropped?:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
(Credit card companies don’t help either, because many folks in poor or lower classes can live off them, giving a false appearance of living in a higher class.)
May 17th, 2006 at 8:42 am
OK, gang, serious reality check time.
Barbara Boxer is critical of the guest worker program, worrying about its effect on US workers.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/17/MNGIIIT7VA1.DTL
Antonio Villaraigosa has backed away from his earlier uncritical embrace of the movement, as I reported in real time during the last wave of demonstrations.
Phil Angelides didn’t mention immigration in his liberal litany speech to the California Democratic Convention.
These are not right-wingers — doh! — or racists.
This is a complicated issue that does not lend itself to cheerleading.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:38 am
A guest worker program would legitimize cheap labor, even more.
Only business would benefit from a guest worker program.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Blanket amnesty! Who would come to replace the new American citizen worker?
The new Americans would be vicious, about some foreigner coming and taking his job. And he would not hand over his and his child’s future over to some right-wing politician and cheap-labor lovin’ business man
May 17th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Michael Balter,
Let me just state for the record, on this post regarding who got here legally and who got here illegally, and the morality therein, I don’t give a hoot. Diversity is a beautiful thing, and it is part of the reason I chose to live here in SoCal. As you have noticed I base my concerns on the over all explosion and drain on the state infrastructure. There is an observable increase in population here. If you live here, and you drive, have children in public schools (LAUSD), or are familiar with the healthcare system (I worked in women’s health, as an administrator of a clinic for over 15 years), and the closure of Emergency Rooms in greater Los Angeles, you have little choice but to see the devastating effect on the populace.
Solutions are difficult to see, as they have effects into the future that are hard to see. What makes sense to me is that the flow must be stanched dramatically and quickly. Once that is done, we (at least here in the Southwest) can best decide what to do with the undocumented amongst us. I definitely see some sort of amnesty for those completely immersed in the community, with children, and heavy fines for the corporations who propagate the problems. An ID card (non-tamper proof) seems like a reasonable solution for that. I, like reg, do not think a guest worker program is feasible — certainly not now, nor until it can be done in a humane, and documented way. And I have no problem with increasing legal immigration numbers, at some point.
My concern is NOT just for keeping America as it was, but for future generations, and immigrants coming here for a better life. I’m concerned that the middle class in California is disappearing, and we will end up with a third world state with a ruling class and a huge slave underclass, having no hope of moving up the ladder of success.
Here are some comments, and sources (quickly found) for data that you requested. (I’m having trouble with live links, but the URLS are here:
Los Angeles Times Magazine
January 25, 2004
Infinite Ingress
by Lee Green
Excerpt:
…Feinstein says, growth is California’s no. 1 problem, the root of that problem is immigration. It would be better if this were not so, because it sets up an us-versus-them tension that debases everyone within its reach, but the raw numbers leave little room for debate. Demographic studies after the 2000 census revealed that from 1990 to 2000, immigrants and their children accounted not for just some, or even most, of California’s growth. They accounted for virtually all of it. Of the increase of 4.2 million people during those 10 years, the net gain generated by the native population was just 90,000, fewer than attend each year’s Rose Bowl game.
Immigrants—specifically Latinos, who constitute the majority of the state’s more than 9 million immigrants—inflate the population not just by coming to California but by having children once they’re here. While the combined birthrate for California’s U.S. citizens and immigrants who are not Latino has dropped to replacement level, the birthrate for Latino immigrants from Mexico and Central America averages more than three children per mother…
Here are some sources for data:
Stanford’s Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity — CCSRE
Southern California Association of Governments
May 17th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Sorry! here are the URLs, I hope!
For the Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-growth04jan25,1,6957509,full.story?coll=la-home-magazine
data sources:
Stanford’s Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity — CCSRE
http://ccsre.stanford.edu/PUBL_demRep.htm
Southern California Association of Governments
http://www.scag.ca.gov/
(search “immigration”)
May 17th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Amen!
May 17th, 2006 at 11:55 am
And pass the ammo.
“Of the foreign born in California 39 percent are naturalized.”
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/csre/reports/execsum_15.pdf
May 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
I appreciate the efforts, folks, but these stats refer to immigrants–not to illegal immigrants. My question remains unanswered.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
To be clear, I mean they refer to all immigrants, most of whom are legal.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Look, Marc is two posts ahead of us and I won’t be coming back here, so just to say that I am not trying to be tricky here. Maybe you are right and illegal immigration is responsible for at least some population pressure, but you don’t know that and these stats don’t demonstrate it. All these weeks we have been debating illegal immigration, not all immigration including legal. If someone wants to argue that we should drastically cut legal immigration they are free to do so, but let’s not confuse the issues. We can pick this up again the next time this topic comes up if you want.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Well, Michael won’t be back, so that ends that discussion. Still, just to post for the record: Those here illegally do not register with the census as “undocumented” or “illegal”. There was a huge campaign as I remember to make sure that Latinos would not be asked this question, so they would not be afraid to cooperate with the census takers. The answers to his question as to legal and illegal is obvious.
Further Michael states: “To be clear, I mean they refer to all immigrants, most of whom are legal.”
I would ask for his proof on “most of whom are legal.” But I may never know, I guess.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Okay Lynn, I did come back. If you look at page 5 of this DHS report covering 2003, you will see that there are just over 3 million legal noncitizen residents of California. If the illegal immigration population is still around 2 million as it was in the stats for 2000 I cited above, then at least a majority of immigrants are legal. If the illegal number is now higher–as demonstrated by estimates from qualified researchers, and I concede that it might be–then it could be that a minority of California immigrants are legal and I would stand corrected. But at least we would be relying on facts and not conjecture. Remember too that once an immigrant is naturalized he or she is no longer included in any of these figures.
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/EstimateLPR2003.pdf
May 17th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Ah Michael?
“39 percent are naturalized.”
May 17th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
The Stanford page I referenced was a by ethnicity and citixenship study among other things.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Good points, Jake.
Look, Michael, your compassion, and care for those migrating in great numbers to Southern California is noted. Believe me, I truly appreciate that. In Southern California the Hispanic (especially Mexican) culture has been celebrated, and mostly cherished, I believe. This not a place a true bigot would be comfortable, unless they can afford to live in the very tops of the economic ladder, and can isolate. You must know that, as you once lived here. Most race wars are carried out between gangs, and prison inmates. The average citizen brown, black or white is interwoven, and accepting of each other. We elect Hispanics, we idolize Hispanic celebrities, we work side by side in offices, and live on the same streets. You don’t have to believe we are in jeopardy because of population if you don’t chose to, but understand that many of us (and I mean of all ethnic backgrounds) are seeing it, and we not seeing it because we’re bigots or insensitive, or because it’s documented by the U.S. Census Bureau, we’re seeing it because it’s right in in front of us.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
I mean unless I’m missing the point of that statistic? If it’s only 39% naturalized in Calif. the rest are illegal by my reckoning otherwise what does it show? Who are the rest?
May 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
It’s just plain crowded here and I can’t get a job with a 1.5 college degrees so, pardon my lack of concern. To work I have to leave the state. How does more people help that equation?
May 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“39 percent are naturalized.â€
“I mean unless I’m missing the point of that statistic?”
You are, Jake. Naturalized means they are citizens now. Just because one is not a citizen does not mean one is illegal, that’s my whole point. There are 3.3 unnaturalized LEGAL resident noncitizens in Calif as of 2003 per figure I gave above. I have the same status here in France, noncitizen resident.
This is why I have insisted that making this distinction is critical. We can argue policy but facts must be right.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized
I’ve criticized Woody for relying on Wikipedia so feel free to verify this elsewhere or in a dictionary, but it should make the point. Frankly I am concerned that there would be this confusion, and wonder if the politics of immigration in California has led even honest commenters like Lynn and Jake to partly misunderstand what is going on around them.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
While I am still here, to anticipate comments about noncitizen residents like “why don’t they become citizens?” (not from Lynn and Jake but maybe others) here are figures from AARO on Americans living abroad. They are not authoritative but gleaned from US govt sources so probably a rough guide. Note especially how many Americans are living in Mexico.
http://www.aaro.org/map.html
May 18th, 2006 at 2:16 am
I agree with Lynn that there’s the issue of large amounts of people, that if allowed to come unchecked may overwhelm what America has set up or is prepared to absorb. How much can be absord is a moral question. But considering that American citizens, indeed even those who risked life in Vietnam, are allowed to sleep on the streets, it serves as a barometer of what the general society is capbable of, not just to let happen to others, but doing for others. For others. Apathy v.s compassion.
One can argue that many of the illegals have lives already much worse than those of many angry American citizens do, considering what they had to do for a minimum-wage. Yet it’s probably not wise to ignore the other’s feelings. It’s not realistic to force somebody to accept something. You have to educate them first, and the time seems not to be there at this moment.
The issue here though, is an issue comprised of several separate issues. There are those who support restrictions in illegal immigration, but see that as a separate problem from what to do with the ones already here.
The fiercest divisions are established when it comes to how to treat the illegals in America, who some dismiss solely as “law-breakers”. That, not just in my opinion, but as a matter of fact, is a shallow view that’s prevalent enough to make a comprehensive approach difficult.
Then there are those who argue that by legalizing millions of illegals already in the US, the tide of illegals will only increase as a legalization would give hope to future undocumented immigrants that the same thing would happen later. Seriously, by any rational count, how can such an argument be dismissed? It’s an argument in fact based on logic.
But that’s not where it ends. The more immediate, and humane aspect of the issue is the question of how illegals here deserve to be treated. That’s where you have people one one side who’re able to extend compassion to people even if they’re not citizens. On the other side there is everyone from those with lesser hearts, to those who have rather good hearts, just not big enough.
That makes it harder. There are not just two groups where one is one extreme, and the other’s another extreme. In that case it’d be easy to convince just one group, or at least many among them.
I believe it’s a lazy convenience to reduce illegals to mere “law-breakers”. It shows a narrow concept of the human condition. It ignores everything else about them, which include their life histories, their feelings, their values, their fates, and more, and is ignored so that the problem becomes simplistic to deal with.
Some basically speak of choking the illegals out of companies and jobs, and force them to return where they came from, by themselves. Instead of actively forcing them out, they’d be passively forced out. And what does this mean more closely? In what way do those making such statements view others? The way they speak of illegals, and how to essentially get rid of them, is the way some talk about pest eradication. They lay out in a mechanical, systematic manner, what steps need to be taken in order for people (read: human beings) to be forced to leave, by making it so that if they still decide to stay, they won’t survive, or will have a miserable time. Basically, what you do, is what’s physically nessecary to get certain “creatures” out of a designated area, based on what’s efficient, and cost effective. When you buy cockroach poison at the grocery market, all you have in mind , is how to get rid of the roaches in the fastest, cheapest way. And some poisons sell really well. Because they work.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:46 am
“Just because one is not a citizen does not mean one is illegal”
I don’t know that to be the case and France is not California. We’ve gotten into this before with some other report. I don’t buy your facts as to what that number means.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Read the definition again and my view still stands. The report identifies people living in Calif. The rest are not legal and unaturalized. They’re illegal workers living in identifiable dwellings.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Jake, this is just nuts. The report I cited clearly states that there are over 3 million noncitizen permanent residents in California as of 2003. This is a recognized and legal immigration category in the United States. Are you telling me that everyone who lives in the United States who is not a citizen is here illegally? You’ve always seemed like a reasonable guy to me, so please go over all again and see if you still come up with this same conclusion.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:01 am
btw, are you sure you even looked at the report I cited? The headline refers in huge letters to the legal permanent resident population of the United States, also known as LPR. This is really my last post in this thread, so we can discuss this in a future thread.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Actually this is my last post: Anyone who does not know that there is an immigration category of legal permanent residents who are not citizens has no business discussing immigration issues, period, until they get better informed.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:01 am
I understand your contention. Michael is saying there are over 5 million legal non-citizen residents in California. That would be the approx. number if 61% of the foreign born population is not naturalized. I believe his summation is that Jake and Lynn are misinformed SoCal residents, who have no idea what’s really happening around them, and there is not a real problem with illegal immigration in Southern California.
Then, I would think Michael would have no problem with closing the borders down to migrants, then, since they aren’t coming across by the hundreds of thousands. Further if the problem of overcrowding in Calif is true, which he admits is possible, and it’s not due to illegal immigration (which has not increased much by his implication in 6 years), then it must be due to legal non-citizens. So we need to severely limit legal non-residents in California.
Shift it around, move the numbers, use the words you want, the problem doesn’t go away, and you present no solution.
May 18th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I still don’t know that’s what those numbers say. I know indeed it’s what you say they say and I don’t care how many Americans apply to live overseas legally, thus being legal and not naturalized. Are the definitions here the same? I don’t know, but estmations of the increase in population based on recent immigration and the numbers from the INS and census indicate the bulk of the increase in the last 10 years has been illegal. The more recent the immigration the higher the chances are they are illegal. That’s also in the Stanford report if you read it.
That’s my contention. Prove me wrong?
Balter’s a free borders guy. He doesn’t have to live here.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Hasn’t there been ample time for people to realize what illegal immigration is about? Has not everyone seen those law-breakers, e.g. the bus-boys, leaf blowers, nannies, and others around where they live and work? What kind of a person would reduce these people to nothing but law-breakers? It’s morally outrageous, and an exaggeration at best. America won’t be better off by dehumanizing people. There’s so much blood being spilled around the world, and domestically, that directing all the rage and moralizing sermons to people who obviously just want to work and live better lives, is ugly, frankly. It’s ugly to rough up the innocents.
The same judical preachers often don’t care about other human issues anyway. Tom Tancredo for example; what’s he done in his life except whining about illegal migrants for speaking Spanish? His current house is probably financed by the income derived from such activities.
These beasts get to have the spot-light right now. But what’s the implications for America in the future by having these short-sighted bashers dictate an important turn in history? This is a test of tolerance for America. Tolerance, and not just laws, is what sets America apart from the vast majority of others.
Certain people’s pre-occupation with the law is going to undermine that tolerance.
Nor do the same people and their supporters take any sort of responsibility for the situation. All the currently bitter voters could have voted for someone other than Bush-Clinton-Bush if they really wanted illegal immigration to cease. But they didn’t. Yet they’re actually crude about punishing the illegals who’ve established their lives here in the meanwhile. And This goes beyond the issue of what to do with the borders.
As for the particular legally immigrated people whom apparently can’t gain their anticipated happiness unless all illegals are either kicked out, or somehow deprived, what the h… are they doing here; basically, bragging and wanting to be petted, or whatever.
Obviously they don’t value their citizenships much since it’s such a volatile thing to them. A true value isn’t dependant upon the condition of an unrelated circumstance. A true value would stand its ground against other relatives. Otherwise, it isn’t a value, it’s an illusion (the same type of thing you get from drugs). And it’s wrong to punish “others” based on the premise that someone wants to uphold their illusion. Because if you’re in America, and you’ve got your citizenship, and you truly value your citizenship, you’d be out dancing in the streets regardless of what others do. Otherwise it wasn’t the freedom you valued.
It really seems as though the value of citizenship, to these people, is based upon how difficult it is to obtain. It means that citizenship to them has no real intrinsic value. But a futile value that fluctuates highly depending upon the generosity, or the lack thereof, given to illegals. That’s like stop valuing your spouse because someone else got his spouse through an ad overnight, whereas you had to go through the dating process. Or to stop valuing your car becuse others drive the same car model stolen.
Talk about having cheap conceptions. This is a pillar issue, it’s about upholding fundamental human standards. It’s a sham that too many don’t get that. Even on the official level.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
You don’t live here practice it at home.
“His current house is probably financed by the income derived from such activities.”
Makes a nice implied ad hominem, but I would such a vocal critic would succumb to that achilles heel.
As usually just cheap ad populum appeal to emotion. It’s the world over seas and land that isn’t “upholding fundamental human standards.” Talk to the hand.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:27 am
Re-read, and reconsider cheap emotions. I was mentioning the opposite. Don’t see why you have to devalue a discussion by not rather saying nothing than saying stupid things that are based on ultra selective dissections. If you’re going to rebutt 3 paragraphs, don’t pretend there were only two sentences.
Emotions are not cheap. It’s just that you’re undecucated. Emotions prompted you to respond to my post.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Right, now I know my two degrees really are meaningless. I’m uneducated courtesy of the State of California.
Tells us more about the human standards in foreign source countries? Where is your ire for them and why are these foreign cultures so screwed up?
May 20th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Since I’ve been dismissive of the racism charges against those of us who think illegal immigration is a serious problem rather than a great gift to the country, I feel a responsibility to post this bit of counter-evidence that, yes, there is a decidedly racist wing of the “anti-illegal” side (as if Woody’s comments weren’t evidence enough). But this bit is from one of the Big Boy’s who purports to be “fair and balanced”…skewered by Keith Olberman (again)…and it’s rather remarkable.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown_5_18_0.mov
May 20th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
I’ve done genealogical research for more than forty years. Determining, if possible, an ancestor’s date of arrival, and place of origin, is very much a part of the research.
My ancestors who arrived in Jamestown in 1619 were Englishmen, going to an English colony, chartered by the King, and under contract to the company. They were not “illegals”, and neither were the Frenchmen and Germans who went. I’m not certain about the Frenchmen, but the Germans were recruited by John Smith.
My Scots ancestors who arrived in Pennsylvania, starting in 1715, were not “illegals” either. The colony’s governors had invited both the Scots and Germans to settle in the colony.
My German ancestors, arriving in Missouri in the 1850’s weren’t “illegals”. They carried exit permits from their countries of origin, and had to be granted permission to enter the United States at their port of entry.
While few records survive, there was really no time when authorities didn’t consider it important to know who was arriving, why, and where they were going.
Whether or not, one’s ancestors were “legal” or “illegal” is irrelevant. In most cases, it can’t be proven one way or another, but where it can be, it means nothing. It’s incorrect though to say all our ancestors were “illegal”.
Respectfully,
Lynn
May 21st, 2006 at 8:43 am
It is indeed. So there’s two of us here that can link back that far in America. 1619 beats my 1630, but no mind, it wasn’t a legal matter at the time as has been claimed here by relativists.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Jake,
Just to set the record straight. I (as in the person who left all the other “Lynn says” posts on this page) did not post the comment above yours (5-20-06 7:09AM). I don’t find my genealogy relevant here. I haven’t been studying genealogy for 40 years! I have looked into it starting about 10 years ago, and find it interesting, though. I was somewhat blown away to see the post.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:56 am
That’s good to know Lynn, I haven’t either, but for the past several years I’ve done a lot of it. I did think it was you as you suspected.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:02 am
prevailing wind…
Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. Dubai Prevailing Wind Website Team…..
October 31st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Save/print/search
The Holocaust imparted the importance of defiance.
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person’s thoughts simultaneously. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.
Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal’s behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or “god” asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made blood lines disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of “heaven” ultimately. Too many people would fall for temptation and do anything they thought pleased the gods, improving their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by “made guys”, puppets in the public eye who strategically ply evil for the throne, temporary progress designed to mislead them or empty favors to disceive them. Some may experience what I deem “perceived pressure”, where the gods think through the victim that a certain behavior is expected/desirable and compell the individual into the deed. Some people think they’re partners.
The people have been corrupted. The peopel have lost their way. Being evil hurts 99.999% of those who do it. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
There are many examples throughout 20th century life of how they instilled distractions into society so people wouldn’t find the path and ascend, a way to exclude those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet, shopping. Today high pay creates contentment/ability to distract self so people don’t seek more and instead depend on what they are told, subject to deception in a captive environment.
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex, single-parent households and latchkey kids. The earth’s elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side.
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
There is another geographic clue in the perfect fit between grossly disfavored Africa and South America, two peas in a pod. I realize the Mayans were further north, but Latin America may be taken as one. (Also, cultures who embrace hard liquor as their drink of choice are grossly disfavored, tequilla being uniquely Mexican. (Anything “hard” is wicked:::Hard alcohol, hard drugs, hard porn.) Incidentally, another sign of gross disfavor are societies that consume spicy foods (Latin America, Thai, etc.), those who eat too much meat, ones who tattoo or pierce their bodies or those who celebrate evil (Celtic).)
Do I think it will end in 2012? No, and it is because Latin America is grossly disfavored like Africa:::: Latinos are too disfavored to be allowed to be right.
The gods wrote prophecy in Revelation, had subsequent prophets foresee Earth’s demise for good reason:::they are going to end on Planet Earth.
What else are they lying to you about?
Whereas Christopher Columbus marked the beginning of the end, the Holocaust marked the beginning of the final act, and it is a tragedy.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going.
They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent’s time as well. There is a stigma associated with circumcision::We are 2nd class citizens because of it.
Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision.
They suggest abortion is fatal. These women must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil.
There are female equivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. For thousands of years young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for sexual relations. They were matched by elders or matchmakers who knew personalities better than 20 or 30-year olds who in today’s age end up in divorce court. CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does the hip hop subculture), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend.
Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the “bad boy”, and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life.
Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential depth of love that makes them the favored gender, and enaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks.
Muslims teach people the correct way to live in regard to women (among other things)::their women cover up their bodies and refuse the use of cosmetics, and it pays wonderful dividends:::faithful husbands and uncorrupted sons.
Men ARE the inferior (disfavored) half and when women wear promiscuous dress the gods will push men into impure (promiscuous) thoughts.
The “stereotype” society ridiculed is true::women CAN corrupt men by how they dress. Because men are easily corruptable. This is a technique they used to eliminate many of the institutions the gods blessed us with, matchmaking being one of them.
The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::.
The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA deceives peoeple into thinking they have control, and the perception of “freedom” misleads them into the wrong way of thinking. The redeeming element in this environment is the corporate heirarchy which closely replicates the god’s. Unions and government jobs are dumping grounds for the disfavored, for they don’t prepare people and instead further this misconception of empowerment.
The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don’t go. You are sick/injured because you have disfavor.).
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
People came to the Unites States for many different reasons, and each has its own effect:::political strife, religious unrest, crop failure (Ireland’s potato famine, which the gods caused) and some left their beloved motherland because they were pushed into desiring a better life::::Greed. And these people were punished by becoming corrupted and preditory. (They share money may not be an issue up there, that money here is merely a tool for corruption. How the gods used greed in the 1980s to create an evil environment supports this.)
If you are a recent immigrant I recommend you return. If that’s not possible you need to retain your culture and insulate your children and community from this cancerous environment. They send this clue with Chinatowns across the country, how many Chinese have been here for a century or more yet still retain the old ways, a sign of favor.
If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model. The peopel used to honor the gods and were rewarded with a high-quality of life for them, their children and their society.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. The Holocaust taught people the importance of defiance::our grandparents should have defied when asked to ignore the Holocaust and instead reacted with outrage. I suspect some did::many were silenced and others they hustled off earth so as to not set an example.
Now the gods have punished that generation’s decendants for this evil by ruining society.
People will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray.
Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON’T get your sons circumcized (Jews scapegoatted as they were in WWII.)
-DON’T have their children baptized in the Catholic Church or indoctrinated into Christianity (Jesus is NOT a god. “god” is not forgiving or begnign::::the gods are vindictive and will punish you if you do something wrong.).
-DON’T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances.
-DO teach your children love, respect for others, humility and to honor the gods.
And when you refuse a request defy the right way, withdrawn and frightened, for you don’t want to incite them by reacting inappropriately.
You need to pray, honor and respect them multiple times every day to improve your relationship with the gods. If they tell you not to pray it is a bad sign. It means they’ve made their decision, they don’t want you to go and they don’t want to be bothered. You may have achieved a threshold of evil. This is the Age of the Disfavored and you need to pray::try to appease the gods by doing good deeds and improve the world around you. If that doesn’t work you must defy if you want to go.
When your peasant forefather was granted the rare opportunity to go before his royal family he went on his knees, bowing his head. You need to do this when you address the gods::bow down and submit to good. Never cast your eyes skyward. When you bow down you need to look within. Never look to the gods for the key to your salvation lies within. Nobody is going to do it for you.
Lack of humility hurts people. Understand your insignificance and make sure it is reflected in the way you think when addressing the gods. Know your place and understand your inferiority. You are not cool. Too many young men strive for cool and it hurts them.
They granted you life and they can take it just as easily. (Immaculte conception IS true AND common. Many people have children they don’t know of:::gays, childless adults, etc. They can beem it right out of your body and use a host.)
Don’t get frustrated or discouraged::these are techniques they will attempt to try to get you off the path. You all have much to be thankful for and you need to give thanks to the gods who granted you the good things in life::family, friends, love. Your family may be grossly disfavored and progress may require patience. Make praying an intregal part of your life which you perform without fail, one that comes as naturally as eating or voiding. Accept this into your life and be devoted because if you have doubt or reservation they will exploit this weakness and progress will take longer to achieve.
The gods will employ many tactics to keep people off the path, such as distractions. They will employ many more to get them off, such as thinking through the disfavored and making them frustrated, perhaps engaing in retailiation. They may try to force you back into old patterns/routines, an addiction like smoking or when you felt weekly church attendance was sufficient. Be resigned, be devoted and this testing period will be as brief as your disfavor will allow.
There are many interesting experiences up on the planetary systems, from Planet Miracle, where miracles happen every day, to never having to use the restroom again (beem it out of you), to other body experiences, such as experiencing life as the opposite sex (revolutionizes marriage counseling), an Olympic gold medal athelete or even a different species (animal, alien, etc.).
Pray that you can differentiate between your own thoughts and when Artificial Intelligence creates problems by thinking through you. If you bow down mentally and physically, know your place, your inferiority and allow your insignificance to be reflected in prayer and in your life through humility they may allow progress and the dysfunctions they create with the computer will be lessened or removed. The first step is to be aware it is ocurring.
Create a goal::to be a good, god-fearing child of the gods, pure of heart and mind, body and soul.
Everybody has the key to their own salvation, but nobody can do it for you. Every journey begins with a single step:::bow down and submit to good. There are many different levels and peasants will not get past Level 2 (Planet Temptation, Earth=Level 1) if they are evil (they share some go up, are offered free cocaine and sex (a sign they don’t want you to stay) and stay less then one year. They share many others would have had longer lives had they stayed on Earth.).
Pray for guidance and never obey when they tell you to be evil, for saving yourself will become more and more difficult with each act of evil you committ until ultimatly the day arrives when they make their decision about you final.
They have tried to sell people on all kinds of theories to deceive them into temptation, compelling people to think they are clones and that it is the role of clones to obey absolutely.
I believe people who go sometimes are replaced with clones. Clones who are replaced are simply new candidates who have a chance if they do the right thing. They sent people warnings in the 20th century life would change, and they subsequently began to alter people’s DNA, make them gargantuan, alter their appearance, do extreme behavioral issues, etc.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the corruption, evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and in some cases replace them with clones, occassionally fake a death, real death with a clone instead, etc. It’s important that people fix their problems and ascend with the body given to them, for they say if your brain is beemed out at death and put into a clone host you are on the clock.
We may all be “clones” for they have suggested they colonized our planet with genetically engineered individuals. They may have gotten Earth’s TRUE residents out prior to civilization developing. If so we all have a chance, no matter how many hundreds of clone generations deep the most favored families are.
They have been utilizing clones throughout the history of mankind.
Men are the disfavored gender, yet centuries ago used to die first, die young, by age 30. Why didn’t the women go first?
THEY DID!!! Many were taken when very young and replaced with clones. The men were left here to mate with clones. This doesn’t happen for the females today because of the disfavor arising from the Holocaust (they share they re-upped this disfavor in the 80s with the Ethiopian famine and continue to with AIDS in Africa, global warming at the expense of the United States, etc).
They share females have a very special experience, sometime when they are young, where the gods imparted wisdom and showed them the path. Today they do not heed this call because of the distractions, the disfavor arising from the Holocaust but in centuries past they may have en masse and it may have been the reason so many were saved from childbirth here on earth (lost virginity today).
I recommend you reflect on this experience, and pray for guidance, for the recall may be stronger.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family’s problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. The goal is to fix your problems and get out BEFORE you have children. This is why they have created so many distractions for young people:::sports, video games, popular music, the internet, shopping, parties, too much homework, anything that consumes their time::to ensure that doesn’t ocurr.
Not heeding the clues and warnings, getting wrapped up in your life and ultimatly having children is a bad thing. Just as your parents and your grandparents, you too have failed. Having children is a sign you lost your chance.
Parents need to sacrifice for their children. Your children are more important than you. They are the ones who have the opportunity now, and parents must sacrifice to ensure they give their children the very best chance they can. Asking people to neglect their children emotionally is a sign they don’t want you to go, and complying may finish the parents off for good.
Having gay children is a clue parents complied with whatever was asked of them. There are many who have had gay expereinces today.
Improve your relationship with the gods and they may not ask in the first place or they may permit you the courage to say “No.” to their requests.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, for royalty has great favor, and your appeals will be heard. Obtain a sufficient list for some may not want to assist you; perhaps some of your family’s problems are internal. Keep an open mind to every possibility for they suggest matriarchal lineage is the norm.
Ask them for help, request guidance, for somewhere in your family history one of your forefathers created an offense that cast your family into this pattern of disfavor, which perhaps is manifested in the evil you commit.
I suspect they will offer you clues, and when you decipher these clues go to those whom consider you an enemy and beg for foregiveness:::Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Again through discovery obtain a respectable list in case some among them refuse to help.
Don’t forget to ask for forgiveness from the throne, the Counsel and the Management Team, for the source of all disfavor began with them:::they pushed or requested/complied your forefather into his offense and made his decendants evil. Perhaps they didn’t like him or maybe your family was among those who had to pay for the entire village. We see this type of behavior today as they single out a family member to pay for the whole family and how they singled out Africa to pay for the human race. (Never have a negative thought about the gods. Try to purify your mind of these thoughts and recognize the urgency of imporving your relationship with the gods.)
Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them, the ability to forgive and respect in light of the disturbing truth revealed being the final test of the disfavored before they ascend.
The gods use the grossly disfavored Irish as scapegoats, initiating the annual practice of wickedness on Halloween by creating this Celtic event a thousand years ago. They use it to justify making the celebration of evil acceptable behavior among the disfavored of the 20th century.
The celebration of Halloween has intensified as the Age of the Disfavored has become more pronounced and it is not by accident:::Holloween has changed in the last 50 years, its practice more widespread as time wore on, and Hollywood was used to justify making the practice of evil socially acceptable.
Halloween is a terrible corruptor of children, as is Santa Claus (the similarity between the names “Santa” and “Satan” is no coincidence). The Irish are used to justify corrupting the children through the Celtic event of Halloween and this helps explain their disfavor.
I wonder if the recent influence of the paganistic historical roots of the event is a way to legitimize the event among the disfavored, perhaps make it more inclusive (adults)?
March 8th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I think that getting his medical records and harassing him for a drug problem is wrong. Actually I think drugs should be legalized and treated like a medical problem. WBR LeoP