All across the country May 1, people will be wearing white shirts and not buying things- That’s right, Monday is the Day Without an Immigrant Boycott. With over 2 million strong, will South Asian Americans make a difference if we all boycotted? A doctor that calls in sick, a taxi worker that stays home, a professor that cancels class? Though not as numerous as other immigrant communities, these days we can be positive that there is a South Asian American representing in almost all lines of business and a boycott by our people will make a mark in a lot of industries.
Choosing May Day for this boycott is significant in itself – it is International Workers Day, and 120 years ago was the mark of bloody riots for workers rights.
In 1884, the U.S. Federation of Organized Trade and Labor Unions had passed a law declaring that, as of May 1, 1886, an eight hour workday would be the full and legal workday for all U.S. workers – the administration had that much time to recognize this new law and put into effect. The factory, workplace and corporation owners refused.On May 1, 1886, workers took to the streets in a general strike throughout the entire country to force the administration to recognize the eight-hour working day. Over 350,000 workers across the country directly participated in the general strike, with hundreds of thousands of workers joining the marches.
In what they would later call the Haymarket riots, during the continuing strike action on May third in Chicago, the epicenter of the U.S. labor movement at that time, the Chicago police opened fire on the unarmed striking workers at the McCormick Reaper Works, killing six workers and wounding untold numbers.[link]
May 1st here in Los Angeles, there will be a group of South Asians taking part in the boycott at MacArthur Park at 3:00pm – listen for the sounds of the dhol to see where the desis at. I highly encourage you to organize (& post in SM events tab if you do!) your own posse of desis to take part in the activities all across the nation. Take pictures and send them to us. If you are able to take off work or school, please do it on behalf of the rest of the desi immigrants who can’t because a day without work would be too big of a loss. I know we’ve been discussing the debate here for the past few weeks, but it’s because when Congress goes back into session this week, this will be at the top of their agenda. Let’s make sure the South Asian voice is heard in the debate.
razib — if you could only see how red with frustration my ears are right now….
::handshake:: and we’re friends again?
handshaking spreads germs. but i guess itz the thought that counts.
Yes. There are many reasons why people might want to turn out today.
It interests me that there is some significant participation by Latinos who have immigrated legally – they do not take the viewpoint which is popular on the early part of this thread, of not supporting the issues of those who did not wait their turn in line to immigrate.
I am interested to learn more about undocumented desi immigrants before employing the “wait in line” response.
The discussion on this thread has been really helpful to me. Thanks.
just curious, but what do you people do, that you can afford this much time posting on a blog.
espressa,
i think you’ve mistaken something that i said as disagreeing with a statement you wrote. just to be clear, i was not replying to anything you wrote. i was replying just to the idea that razib brought up.
i have no beef with you or anybody else on the thread
peas and love
i wasn’t jumping on your statement and i agree that your statement’s central point didn’t have to do with indigenou”osity” . just want to clarify since blog beef can ruin a day without a dang good reason
It interests me that there is some significant participation by Latinos who have immigrated legally – they do not take the viewpoint which is popular on the early part of this thread, of not supporting the issues of those who did not wait their turn in line to immigrate.
a higher % of latinos are illegal/undocumented than non-latinos. it is highly plausible that a large fraction of legal immigrants have illegal relatives or spouses. your next sentence alluded to the importance of personal connections.
HOw about you pay thousands of dollars, cross a desert on foot, and then work for 20 years for $4/hour. Is that a route you’d rather take? In fact, why shoudl we give legal immigrants citizenship if you are not willing to risk it all?
Look, sometimes life is not fair, and the best solution will never please everyone. Giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship is not at the legal immigrants expense. It costs you almost nothing at all. As far as I am concerned, someone who risked their lives to bring their families here, have been working, being good members of the community, and all that, ARE Americans, and deserve the right to make it official.
Um, the price of food is falling? How come I didn’t notice that?
Supadupa madness props to Taz (!), and like-minded peeps expressing a sense of humanity and justice on this thread.
Fundamentally, the immigration debate is not about comprehensive legal reform – although this would surely be welcome should the outcome be humane and just. People, the immigration debate is all about the most basic of all rights – the possibility to fully express oneÂ’s potential, on this tiny planet, for a brief moment.
The reality is that much of the globe, in fact the vast majority of people, are unable to achieve this. In a perfect world, there would be no borders, and moreover, people would actualize their potential wherever they may be. Reality is not so, and we as immigrants, or children of immigrants, or grandchildren of immigrants, know this best of all.
This post from rabiz (#145) is disappointing at best and disturbing at worst. Frankly, ‘disturbing’ is putting it as kindly as I can muster.
We can debate economic or legalistic arguments around immigration, documented or not, reasonably and compassionately. Yet simmering beneath the surface of the discussion – and yÂ’all know it – is the politics of privilege, the flipside of that coin also known as the politics of hate. People is people, dammit.
The complex and divergent viewpoints expressed on SM enable a valuable exchange of North American desi views. Clearly, the generally diplomatic and open-minded (and often plain funny) sentiments are often refreshing and heartening. I hope not to have transgressed.
But I must call a spade Â… a spade.
MADURAI:
yep course I will! 🙂
CHEAP-ASS DESIS AND ESPRESSA
-keep fighting the good fight my friends. its v hard to put compassion, altruism and concern for others’ rights and dignities in an existing mindset framed by self-interest, apathy towards political activism and passive acceptance of unfair status quos in society.
-CHEAP ASS
-as expressed someone on this post, what do you people do in your time cos I need to get back and do my Politics essay and will have to love ya and leave ya, but just wanted to show some support to those mentioned above! big ups peoples…
“Um, the price of food is falling? How come I didn’t notice that?”
Shop at Walmart. Or if you’d rather not, shop at a story near a Walmart, which will be forced to lower prices due to competition. Food is still quite cheap in the U.S.
A question for all: Were you affected by the boycott?
Personally, nothing changed for me. One co-worker had to stay home since her day care was closed for the day. Other than that, life was normal. I’d be interested to hear about other experiences.
And for those who say illegals don’t pay taxes, that’s bull. They pay sales and motor vehicle taxes. If they rent a home or an apartment, they pay property taxes. There’s plenty of taxes that aren’t based on income. Plus given the crap wages that many undocmented workers collect, they wouldn’t be liable for much income tax, if any.
People is people, dammit.
again, a “we are all quarks” type of statement. in ancient china there were many alternative schools of thought, and one of them founded & led by one mo-tzu was predicated on universal and equal love. it failed. what won was confucianism, and served as the foundation (at least de jure) for chinese society for 2,000 years. its most central tenet was filial piety, and the confucian idea that family must come first above all other bonds was one reason that even the state took into account familial relationships as mitigating circumstances in aiding and abetting criminals.. ties of blood, faith, personal connection & association, and national affinity are normal for most people, denying such things flies in the face of reality around us, and the reality you yourself express. those of you who defend the rights of illegals to settle and raise families in this country acknowledge it implicitly with your constant references to these individuals bringing their families over. “people is people,” unless those people are your sisters, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, your friends and lovers. i’m sure there are many people who would love to come to america, but these saintly illegals bring over their families in preference to other people. AM said above “I am more sympathetic to the poor Americans.” why? why is he more sympathetic to poor americans? aren’t mexicans people too? aren’t congolese people too? what about solomon islanders? peoples is people, but some people are more important people. geography certainly matters, i’ve pointed out to people here (and in other forums where they blather on about israel-palestine) that there is more suffering in many places in africa than in mexico or palestine or the other places we are concerned about because of particular american political fixations. but mexicans are near, and they can afford to come to this country in a variety of ways. people is people, but people who are on the soil of this nation seem to warrant more compassion, more marches, more consideration, than those dying and suffering across the sea. do those people not bleed?
i hold that the long term project of the minimization of human suffering is best implemented by an acknowledgement of the realities on the ground in regards to human nature. it seems ridiculous to assert that “people is people” on a weblog that is predicated on an american subculture bound together by the common shared but particular experience of being brown.
verbal expressions and affirmations of universal and equal love does not reality make. so trust me, the digust goes both ways.
Well of course you don’t, u of c boy–CAD’s post has social analysis, history, and relevant current context in it, which they don’t train you for at Chicago from what I’ve heard 🙂 Despite the admitted overuse of caps lock (sorry CAD, it’s true :), he or she is basically right on target–and it’s sad that someone who has those beliefs had to feel that defensive before commenting.
Doesn’t speak very highly of the conversation. Maybe we can start purging people who redbait 🙂
Also, to the extent that undocumented workers do displace Americans — well, they’re easier to exploit.. whom do we hold reposible for that? the father of four or the corporate big-wig?
Hooray! Normal people!!!
Thank you espressa.
I would just like to thank your neighbor for saying all this, and then not posting again for the rest of the day when I asked him a very specific question. LOL! Thanks for ‘listening’, your neighbor.
Someone Else (167#)
Welfare state is so 20th century !
Regards
“A question for all: Were you affected by the boycott?”
Yes, about 25-30% of my students were not in school. We also had a shortage of custodians, and all of our classrooms were not cleaned today.
Sizzle: You misunderstood my point and thought I was preaching altruism. Not at all. Rather than working ONLY for one’s self-interest, I think it’s important to work for our collective self-interest as a society. Altruism involves being selfless, and I am definitely not about that, nor am I as naive as you think.
Here in Los Angeles a lot of the stores and shops were closed. I ended up driving to UCLA in the morning, (no traffic, buses were not running as frequently) campus was more mellow in terms of # of people (except in the B-school). Driving to the protest was a breeze until I got to near the protest and it was all mayhem as hundreds and thousands of people had showed up. Los Angeles has a huge immigrant population and business owners here felt they had to shut down for the day from pressures because of community pressure (that’s what the NPR report said today, at least). There are even AM radio stations saying to note the stores that were closed today, and to boycott the stores tomorrow in retaliation.
Boycott story of the day- My roomies were wearing white kurta tops walking home from the rally and a couple boy and girl, mid 20s, dressed preppy white kids said, “Go home.” They almost threw down. Sigh…
Saheli, your pix are AWESOME. Does anyone else have any pix?
Sigh.
It still doesn’t cease to amaze me the level of racism, xenophobia, and condescending hatred that has been unleashed towards undocumented immigrants. Anytime anything goes wrong in this country, the collective fingerpointing is always directed towards illegal immigrants.
What’s funny is that while most of you on this post are having a go at the illegal immigrants, you fail to take into account the context surrounding migration. If you are speaking of migration, you cannot simply extract illegal immigrants from the larger picture– when we talk about diasporas, migration, and other movements of people, we have to talk about the global economy. KXB states
If the bananas and mangoes are grown and picked outside the U.S., what is the relationship to illegal immigration? Or are they crossing the border with fruit crates strapped to their backs?
Very cute, KXB… HA HA HA HA. If you would like to know the relationship, check out the US multinationals in Mexico. Immigration occurs when a channel has been opened up by the relationship of the recieving and sending country. This is not exclusive to the US, but to many other countries who whine about illegal immigration. If you want to stop illegal immigration, there is going to have to be some changes with the political-economic structure in the US. But if you don’t understand this and prefer to make cute dopey remarks, have yourself a kela and choke on it.
Re: public hospitals, I have frequented one a too many, so I know. The amount us unfortunate souls pay for services in public hospitals is on a sliding scale. But my question is: why does it bother you so much that maybe your tax dollars go to public hospitals who might be helping undocumented people? A calculation: how much of your income actually goes to public hospitals? Give me a number. A better question to you all who are claiming that you don’t mind paying more for commodities as long as your money isn’t going to illegals’ health care services: do you get this worked when your tax dollars are going to foreign countries who have consistently violated rights, fund colonial regimes, and practice genocide and ethnic cleansing? I personally don’t mind having my money go to public hosptials that pay for both documented and undocumented folks. I DO have a problem with my money going to countries like Israel,Egypt, Turkey, and other unsavory recipients whose politics I don’t agree with. Ditto for paying for wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
SIDE NOTE
(Here is my secret fantasy: if I had my way, I’d abolish private health care, private schooling [sorry, u of chicago boy]. I’d whole heartedly support public schooling, universal health care, and universal education. I’d open up the borders [I’m with you on this, Espressa]).
Someone else: thanks. I’m a she, by the way. About the CAPS, it’s ok. I know. I just wanted to emphasize my point. Saint: Thanks for pointing out that undocumented people pay taxes, as I myself had mentioned in my post. Tashie: yes, the model minority myth in this forum is alive and kicking. U of Chicago boy:
but if you’re going to accuse Desis of being selfish, I’m here to tell you that it goes both ways.
Duh, I know that. But I’m talking about Desis because most of the people on this forum are Desis and I’m addressing Desis.
What kind of changes in ‘political-economic structure in the US’ would stop illegal immigration to the US? Wouldn’t the change have to be in Mexico to have the most effective outcome?
What’s funny is that while most of you on this post are having a go at the illegal immigrants, you fail to take into account the context surrounding migration. If you are speaking of migration, you cannot simply extract illegal immigrants from the larger picture
talk about “context” and the “larger picture” is rich coming from someone who advocates totally open borders. but at least you’ve got the balls to go on record about that.
as for this: “racism, xenophobia, and condescending hatred that has been unleashed towards undocumented immigrants.” you’re a name caller. i don’t give a fuck what race illegals are, ship them out of the country, white, brown, black, faux brown, etc. xenophobia, ‘hatred,’ just buzz words. blah. i just believe laws are more important than the short term interests of the people. without respect for laws anarchy will ensue, society will collapse, and homeowners won’t be able to give the day laborers the jobs they want so much.
CADVS ,BSP (172#)
Apparenlty you have never heard of Godwin’s law
Regards
Razib, Your snarky remarks don’t faze me, and that includes all you other busters out there. I do have one sincere question to ask you:
What exactly do you do? Are you a student, an office worker, a musician, an illegal worker?
While I enjoy your commentaries, whether I agree with them or not (and I’m not being sarcastic), I see “razib the atheist” plastered everywhere in every forum! Where on earth do you find the time to write so much throughout the entire course of the day?
Actually, I’ve been looking at some of the more recurrent writers, and I’ve noticed that their posts are put up during times of the day that I’d figure people were generally busy working.
Gaurav and Godwin’s law:
Very charming 🙂
sigh…i said i wasn’t going to fight the good fight anymore, but just have a few points for the people who posted the last two posts, #174, and #175
174 – viewing an issue like illegal immigration within a wider context of migration as a whole, trade agreements and economic globalisation as a whole is NOT an anti-intellectual, “we are all quarks”/whatever some ancient chinese dude said we are argument. some people like to look at a wider context when looking at issues that surround illegal migrants because we see the connections between their situation and economic, social and cultural factors.
-viewing peoples as peoples is just the way some of us would rather be. the following situations have resulted when peoples have not been viewed as peoples – slavery, colonisation, genocide of indigenous peoples, world wars one and two, the cold war, the balkans conflict, the rwandan genocide…
people don’t believe in equality and empathy because they’re crazy idealists, they just want to work to prevent bad shit like that from happening. yes it will continue to happen, but some people just want to work to minimise it.
viewing people as having a basic equality and intrinsic human rights is a starting point for this.
-while you claim to be against universal standards, you also say that the only thing that can basically prevent us from slipping into a crazy anarchic state is following the ‘law’.
this in itself presumes that there is one uniform supreme legal system that all people should follow, presumably a western one based in a judeo-christian culture and rooted in a very specific, non-universal context of 19th century liberalism and its subsequent evolution in britain, western europe and revolutionary america.
the western legal system has in its history allowed the following conditions as written, positive, enforceable law:
-slavery -apartheid -colonisation -racial segregation -inferior status for LGBTs -inferior status for women
Many people today would disagree with the idea that homosexuals should be put in prison, that women have the legal brains and status of children and can be physically abused and raped by their husbands, or that people of different races should ride on different buses.
but consider these approximate dates for when the above situations became illegal:
-homosexuality stopped being a crime in western countries around the mid 80’s and 90s (90s in NZ where I live)
-marital rape was recognised as a crime in the 90’s after second-wave feminism in the 80’s
-apartheid was overthrown in the early 1990’s in south africa
all i am saying is that placing our ultimate faith and trust in a highly culture specific, socially conditioned western legal system may not give us the universal set of standards we are seeking to create a healthy, vibrant, economically and culturally active society.
sometimes starting with the cheesy idea that people have a right to a life of basic dignity and freedoms may just be a bit better than sticking to a law which is not an unbiased woman with a blindfold holding a set of scales for justice, but a strongly culture-specific system that reinforces the beliefs and values of the dominant culture in the world today.
175 – Regards, but in defence of CHEAP ASS DESI, she is a lovely chica with some awesome things to say. and a brave one to say them to people who may see the use of emotive, historical arguments as anti-intellectual. some of us see them as the truth.
Taz:
-RE: preppy white couple who told lovely brown kurta wearing activists ‘Go home.’
-You should have pointed to a map of the UK and said ‘After you.’
-the only people with the right to say that to anyone are Native Americans. Ooh but wait they’ve either been killed or dumped in reservations and given free alcohol and gambling contracts…oopsies! Wonder how Mr and Mrs Abercrombie and Fitch would feel being told to piss off back to England by one of them.
Where on earth do you find the time to write so much throughout the entire course of the day?
i’m sporadic. you won’t see me when the culture posts start taking over the front page again (it seems SM has had low volume and been a bit political skewed recently, so i’m more prominent than i normally probably am). also, a) don’t trust time stamps to reflect my local time or anyone else’s b) i’m on the computer a lot c) i type really fast [i’m sure you’ve noted the typos] d) i’m a quick thinker e) i’ve made many of the arguments before so i don’t need to think.
viewing an issue like illegal immigration within a wider context of migration as a whole, trade agreements and economic globalisation as a whole is NOT an anti-intellectual, “we are all quarks”/whatever some ancient chinese dude said we are argument. some people like to look at a wider context when looking at issues that surround illegal migrants because we see the connections between their situation and economic, social and cultural factors.
you misunderstand me. i think you aren’t looking at the wider context, rather, i find your viewpoint short-sightend and lacking in nuance and implications of allowing tens of millions of newcomers into these united states in a few years (as would happen if open borders was enacted).
viewing peoples as peoples is just the way some of us would rather be
everyone views people as people. i’m saying that it is not “xenophobic” or “racist” or “hateful” to put love of kin, kin and fellow citizen above universal man. in short, if ensuring that working class americans have artificially elevated wages because of labor constraints which result in the marginalization of people in other nations, i’d go for it. i am not looking at the “great good for the greatest number,” my utility function is weighted toward cocitizens first. other humans come later.
-while you claim to be against universal standards, you also say that the only thing that can basically prevent us from slipping into a crazy anarchic state is following the ‘law’.
i never made that claim. the law should be blind, and sure there are universal standards (or should be). i’m saying that assertions like “people are people” are totally irrelevant dead ends because they ignore the reality that we naturally tend to exhibit a chain of priorities and preferences in regards to other human beings. and very few people are nazis that think people should be exterminated.
this in itself presumes that there is one uniform supreme legal system that all people should follow, presumably a western one based in a judeo-christian culture and rooted in a very specific, non-universal context of 19th century liberalism and its subsequent evolution in britain, western europe and revolutionary america.
and
the western legal system has in its history allowed the following conditions as written, positive, enforceable law:
-slavery -apartheid -colonisation -racial segregation -inferior status for LGBTs -inferior status for women
? what tradition waged a world-wide campaign against slavery, generated post-colonial theorists and counter-narratives, began to promote racial equality as a universal norm, gave rise to first and later wave feminism and has been on the forefront for pushing for gay rights? i believe that certain rights should be universal, but i do not think that a world-wide jihad to impose these rights would be productive. my point is simply that most people in the world, and a large minority (and perhaps majority) of people in the western world aren’t into the “progressive values.” opening the borders would result in an increase of unreconstructed homophoboes, sexists, etc. you see the savagery erupt on these very boards on occasion.
all i am saying is that placing our ultimate faith and trust in a highly culture specific, socially conditioned western legal system may not give us the universal set of standards we are seeking to create a healthy, vibrant, economically and culturally active society.
economically vibrant and healthy societies tend to be ones who have inculcated western values of the open society (those “western” societies that have been non-open, e.g., franco’s spain, were not vibrant or dynamic). you can have good economic growth like china, but i don’t think you can call it healthy and vibrant. some cultures, like s. korea and japan, have preserved their native traditions in concert with western ones, but that doesn’t negate that fact that german legal traditions are important in japan (as is christmas), or that christianity is a powerful force in south korea.
sometimes starting with the cheesy idea that people have a right to a life of basic dignity and freedoms may just be a bit better than sticking to a law which is not an unbiased woman with a blindfold holding a set of scales for justice, but a strongly culture-specific system that reinforces the beliefs and values of the dominant culture in the world today.
i have no idea what you are getting at at this point. a priori conceptions of “basic rights” have been argued by some in the non-west to be western legalistic artifice. the former PM of singapore quipped that to westerners every individual had an immortal soul but the chinese humans were just ants. myself, i don’t think that the enlightenment conception of inviolate individual rights at the core of the polity is that fundamentally culturally biased (or, that christianity is a necessary precondition for it), i think that that tendency has simply become more developed in the west. to some extent i would argue it is a ressurection of hunter-gatherer (i.e., human evolutionarily ancestral) tendencies toward autonomy and choice bursting through post-neolithic cultural complexes which arose to deal with high density civilization.
perhaps you consider that i’m not such a racist xenophobe that my “cultural context” or whatever you would call it is just different. i’ll pretend like i don’t wonder if you have no inclination or no aptitude for doing the sums.
What exactly do you do? Are you a student, an office worker, a musician, an illegal worker?
oh. see my blogs. as for “what i do,” computer + office = boring. thatz all you need to know.
CADL(177#)
I guess you are making a point, it is just that I don’t get it. Guess I will have to watch latest in Scary movies series for that. Anway if you suffer from pimples, better see a dermatologist.
Tashie (178#)
First you are drawing the false analogy. To be precise slavery != illegal immigration I have said it earlier and will say it again, so far very few people supporting illegal immigrants have made any argument for policies, instead what I see is wishy washy rhetoric.
Second There is nothing brave about non sequiturs and ad hominem arguments.
Regards
Tashie– Rock on with your analysis.
If the day ever comes, Tashie, that misfortune ruthlessly and mightily strikes these guys down from the top rung of the socio-economic ladder, you and I must petition the government personally so that they may never, ever see a single welfare and/or social security check in their lifetime. We will hold grassroot rallies and mobilize massive numbers of people to protest against giving away our hard earned tax dollars so easily to people, who after all, deserve to be in the position that they are in.
To anticipate u of chicago boy’s accusation
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your logic. (see #114)
of why I am equating anti-illegal immigrant bashing with welfare bashing: one of the main problems the anti-illegal immigrants have with illegal immigrants being here is because supposedly they freeload, right? This kind of logic can quickly veer into welfare bashing as well: “Those women are freeloading off of the state. Why the hell should my money go to these women who are lazy, don’t want to work, and are having too many babies?!”. Quick fact: despite the stereotype that a welfare recipient is a lazy Black, single mother living in the ghetto with 6 kids, think again– the majority of welfare recipients are married white women living in the suburbs.
Quick fact: despite the stereotype that a welfare recipient is a lazy Black, single mother living in the ghetto with 6 kids, think again– the majority of welfare recipients are married white women living in the suburbs.
you know, when i supported welfare reform in 1996 a progressive friend of mine responded, “but that’s racist!” 🙂 i had to point out that the majority of black americans were middle class. that the majority of recipients of welfare were white. but his ignorance is OK, he’s not a ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe.’
CADL(177#)
I guess you are making a point, it is just that I don’t get it.
You had posted
Apparenlty you have never heard of Godwin’s law
in response to my
It still doesn’t cease to amaze me the level of racism, xenophobia, and condescending hatred that has been unleashed towards undocumented immigrants. Anytime anything goes wrong in this country, the collective fingerpointing is always directed towards illegal immigrants.
I hadn’t, so I clicked on the link. I read it and thought it was funny. When I said it was “charming”, I wasn’t being sarcastic.
Anway if you suffer from pimples, better see a dermatologist.>
What the hell?
that misfortune ruthlessly and mightily strikes these guys down from the top rung of the socio-economic ladder
you’re indugling in stereotyping btw. do you have mysterious powers to intuit what tax bracket everyone here is in? in any case, can i just say that’s weird logic since middle-to-upper-middle class americans tend to benefit from depressed wages for lower skilled workers? it isn’t like poor americans are clamoring to welcome millions who work harder for lower pay. just trying to look at the context and big picture of moving beyon aspersions and focusing on the constraints that reality imposes.
Razib:
a progressive friend of mine responded, “but that’s racist!” 🙂 i had to point out that the majority of black americans were middle class. that the majority of recipients of welfare were white. but his ignorance is OK, he’s not a ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe.’
Bring that racist and xenophobe here! Where is he? We can give him a collective pimp slapping.
Dude, I saw your blogs, and it made me even more incredulous– Jesus Christ, there are EVEN MORE posts by you!!!
one of them is a group blog. crank down the incredulity.
crank down the incredulity.
Oh, excuse me, Saheb.
razib:
firstly even though i fully disagree with your viewpoint (and your insults at my sum-doing abilities! 🙁 …well i am crap at maths but don’t know why you had to bring that into a politics debate)…your rhetoric kicks ass, whatever you have to say about neolithics and hunter gatherers sounds v impressive and flash. if only you didn’t have to descend into being personal, but i guess that’s your ‘autonomous choice.’
secondly looking at things from a science-based darwinian model is fine if you want to view politics, culture and society in that way…but please don’t knock, either implicitly or explicitly, people who choose to make arguments coming from other stances e.g. historical, culturally relativistic, emotive, postmodernist or a combination of some/all of those worldviews, ( not ‘don’t knock’ in a disagreeing kind of way, in a disrespectful kind of way).
my argument was just a general plea for those who look at things through a more objectivist, scientific point of view to give the same respect to people who use other concepts such as cultural relativism when looking at issues like illegal immigration.
i am sick of people with more conservative views looking down on other arguments as coming from an inferior rather than a different framework to theirs, viewing some stances as dumbed-down and sneering about ‘progressive’ bleeding heart liberals. i totally respect a science-based approach, why can’t people respect other ways of looking at the world? even though we clearly don’t agree it would be nice to start from an equal basis of mutual respect for different worldviews.
yes western societies campaigned to change their discriminatory laws through things like second wave feminism and post-colonial identity movements…but only after activists and people concerned about social justice in those countries had been educated about the unfairpower structure in their society which created these situations and which was controlled and reinforced by those in power, namely white heterosexual males.
sorry to state the obvious, but they are still the group in power. and unfair laws, which contravene even the supreme constitutional law if not basic human rights, such as the patriot act, are still in place and are alive and kicking. i do not think the existence of such laws or of other laws where the prison rates for people on crack are higher (mainly black people) vs lower prison times for people on harder drugs (more white people) points to a healthy legal system. yes i live in a western country and culture, but i would like it to change!
i am not saying that we should wage a jihad or go and live in non-western societies and adopt their cultures. there are lots of positive things about western society and its legal system which i am in fact supposed to be studying for to prepare for a criminal law test and a public law essay right about now! i’m just saying that your argument overall keeps mentioning how much better western societies have done things than others. i say let’s look at cultures in a balanced way with their benefits and faults.
and let’s not fail to realise that the context in which people’s status denotes them as legal or illegal immigrants comes from a legal system which is still strongly coloured by class and race discrimination. i’m not saying those pesky mexicanos aren’t illegal on paper, i’m just sayin who wrote the paper and where did the justification for their judgment come from?
Gaurav:
I used to say Regards to you, but not anymore, oh no not anymore, what’s with the dermatological insults?! and where the hell did they come from…
i see the stereoype that indian girls are catty and bitchy should be replaced with the stereotype of seemingly harmless indian guys sitting behind their computer screens dishing out uncalled-for personal attacks because they run out of things to say other than give us wikipedia links for non-sequiturs and ad hominem arguments.
for the record, i do know what those terms mean, and re: pimple insults, ever heard of ‘red herrings?’ go google the definition then!
tell me, esteemed fellow blogger, how exactly is that personal insult relevant in the current context of the socio-political implications of illegal immigration and its implications for a western capitalist economy in a globalised age?
see i can use big words and formal english too, but it doesn’t mean that my arguments are less valid if i choose not to when i post comments on blogs. pretentious arguments that look for literary flaws when they cannot find something to critique in the point of someone else’s arguments don’t actually make everyone think that you’re a genius, they just make you look less credible and more immature.
leave cheap ass desi alone unless you can actually talk about something other than skin conditions, wikipedia definitions and rhetorical devices, all of which are totally unrelated to what she’s saying
1) i don’t use a one paradigm model. historical and cultural factors lay on top of, and are constrained by, biological parameters.
2) you claim to use ‘cultural relativism,’ but how can this be so? you seem to express strong opinions about ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia,’ are these not just ‘different’ choices? i don’t really think they are, i have a model for what a Good Society is. i believe you have a model for what a Good Society is. i don’t believe in God, and i don’t understand what the ground of this universe is, but i agree on basic common values which i share with others, and i would like those values to spread. i think that freedom, equality between the sexes in law, a respect to different religious viewpoints and denigration of religion itself and a transparent legal system are Good Things. i wish they would spread, but i’m not certain they will.
3) i don’t think they are looking at illegal immigration from a cultural relativist viewpoint, i think you are pretty objective and concrete when you point to things like ‘basic human dignity.’ this is why i’m needling you: i don’t think you are coherent and i’m trying to figure which argument to address system you seem to flip between the relativist and universalist mode constantly. myself, i’d say i’m a pragmatic localist but idealistic universalist, i hope at some point in the future that all people will embrace particular values i cherish and that i believe give people happiness, but for the present i want to maintain those values in the geographic space in which i reside.
4) and, “even though we clearly don’t agree it would be nice to start from an equal basis of mutual respect for different worldviews.” i don’t really grand that different worldviews are that different. i think historical and cultural arguments are open to reduction and analysis, even if it is more difficult. culture and history are emergent properties of the natural world.
5) “yes i live in a western country and culture, but i would like it to change!” the common law tradition has within the flexibility to change. i’m sure you know that.
6) “i’m just saying that your argument overall keeps mentioning how much better western societies have done things than others. i say let’s look at cultures in a balanced way with their benefits and faults.” i do not think western societies are better because they fit god’s plan, i don’t believe in god. but, i do think western societies are better than african autocracies. i do think that western societies are better than saudia arabia. i do think western societies are better than north korea. i don’t believe in relativistic balance that ignores the reality that western societies are economically productive and serve as magnets for people from other countries. people vote with their feet. now, whether western societies are better than a nation like india, which is less oppressive than the ones mentioned before, is up for debate. my own values suggest that the institutions of india are robust, but there are structural and cultural issues it has to move past (i think 1 billion people is probably too large for a healthy republic which balances faction and unity, and i think caste and ethnic discord are a weight on the system).
7) and getting back to the origin issue, i believe that large numbers of mexican immigrants bring their culture to these united states, and i believe that though the institutions may remain the same a different culture will arise in much of this nation if the flow is not reduced so that cultural assimilation can take place. i believe this is a problem because the rise of an equal counter-culture will herald the emergence of a corporate identity between the state and the individual rooted in ethnicity, and i am opposed to this sort of crystallization which i suspect might happen if we become “bicultural” like the belgians are.
8) i believe man is more than a utility maximizing machine, and that economic productivity is a means toward an ends. as someone who had servants as a small child i believe that we should be cautious about retaining “help” and disposing of other humans as tools to ease our own welfare in such a direct fashion. a lawn mower is a lawn mower, dehumanization is it is lot, but a man who mows your lawn is a man. i believe that the capitalist exchange between consenting adults that takes place during day labor and other “economic efficiences” does result in a short term gain, but as they say, for what does a man profit, if he should gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? the soul is the ideal, never perfectly realized, of a republic of equals. i do not want american plutocracy transformed into latin american plutocracy.
9) as for my name calling, i’ll be immmature and suggest that you & your kind certainly haven’t held back as the “racist” and “xenophobe” epithets seem to fly freely.
feel free to not respond, i’ve got to go to sleep.
Tashie (191#)
That is certainly your prerogative !
Words have meaning. Especially, I consider words like Nazi, fascist , xenophobic or racist to be pretty serious and of grave implication for a person. I think these charges should be used only after thorough deliberations When someone bandies these words like pellets in a debate it means
1) He/she is not mature (a kinder explaination) 2) He/she is not sincere
CA (in various avatars) is far from a fragile or oppressed creature that you are making him/her to be. He/She has wilfully slandered person who disagree with his/her stand, and therefore I can not take CA~ seriously. I gave him/her allowance and blamed it on immaturity.
Regards
razib:
-i also said that people shouldn’t judge those who choose to blend more than one worldview. i believe in universal fundamental human rights which have a basis in western society (AND also a foundation within non-western societies and cultures too -asian, african, south american). however i also believe that cultural relativism is useful in looking at issues like illegal immigration so that we can be aware of where definitions of ‘illegal’ come from and why they are there.
-i stand by my decision to use more than one way of looking at illegal immigration, if you wanna keep needling me about it feel free to when you wake up. however due to time differences, i will be in my jim jams fast asleep and dreaming about my crazy world-peacey ideas by then. using more than one mode of thinking may be inconsistent to you, to me it allows me to best express my views on what i see as a very complex and diverse subject.
-re: common law being able to change, yep you’re right i do know that. i’m just saying that statute law needs to be changed too, and small incremental changes in the common law and statutory law could turn into big changes that work for positive ends. the difference in the size and speed of change is social and political activism by ordinary citizens.
-re: working for the greater good and economic gain, i never even mentioned these words and never said that i was a fan of either concepts.i am not a utilitarian and do not believe that economic gain is society’s primary concern. in fact i am totally opposed to that stance. please don’t put words in my mouth, its already full of disappointment at the decline in the quality of your arguments
-also if you look through my posts i have never called you a racist or a xenophobe and ‘people like me’ never would. that’s because unlike you i haven’t resorted to putting people into camps of ‘people like you’ and ‘people like me’ and have looked at individual people’s arguments and viewpoints. also if you clearly mean people who are left-wing, which you automatically seem to assume i am, vs people who are right-wing, just say it. because you don’t sound cryptic and intelligent when talking about ‘people’ you just sound really obvious…
-if you choose to outline in detail your viewpoints on darwinian arguments, universal rights, welfare, god and your paranoid fear of people calling you a racist, then i’ve just looked at them as your own views. i never talked about ‘people like you’ because that is just beside the point.
-please do me the same respect and look at me as an individual, not part of some group of people that is seeking to bring ‘people like you’ down. and please explain who exactly these ‘people like me’ are, and what ‘my type’ is so i know how exactly you’re choosing to insult me… or just give up on that redundant concept and start respecting people as individuals.
-i said before that your posts were always interesting and well thought out and that your rhetoric was intelligent, even though i disagreed with your views. i wish i had been right, but now all that a person like me can say is that i guess i was wrong
For all the lefties who are for open borders:
Please let us have open houses/apartments – Why should a poor guy not have the privilege of coopting your abode
and open bank accounts (why can’t poor people access your bank accounts , hey – myself would like to pay off some of my bills with your money)
And open universities and colleges (why should Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, Berkeley prevent some dumb schmuck from Peoria attend and graduate in Theoretical Physics)
And open jobs – (i would like to share your job and paycheck)
Let us have open borders when you agree that you will agree to the above and we who don’t approve of open borders still get to keep our bank accounts, places of residence, our jobs to ourselves.
for all the righties who prefer closed borders:
please go back home.
your lack of empathy and pathetic attempt to reduce a complex political viewpoint and wrongly portray it as a crazy, unworkable and extremist solution means that at the end of the day all we are left with is your ultimate solution of watching rich people get even richer while the poor get poorer
well it’s happening in the world right now and the 80% of them who don’t have access to things like this blog would probably really like to kick your butts right now, but they’re too weak to be able to do so.
we also get to watch you ridiculously cling on to the idea that nation-states and their actions are unrelated to economic globalisation (which is intrinsically tied to legal and illegal migration).
and this written by many post-colonial migrants and their children (ha!) on this thread. wow, i mean now we would know how nation-states should just come first and immigrants should be kept out.
people who view ‘compassion’ and ’empathy’ as ridiculous should reconsider the fact that ‘self-interest’ has sadly become another way of saying ‘selfish’ and ‘conservative’ has from that last comment become even more sadly become another way of saying ‘hypocritical’
Here is one outcome of the march:
I have been in the US for 13 years. All of them legal. For 7 of them in a variety of non-immigrant legal status.In fact the BCIS documentation mentions some of them as “non-immigrant”. So why is an illegal alien now an “illegal immigrant” on the TV/radio/internet ? From what I have read and heard supporters of illegal aliens in the US want to empathise with them for one or all of the following reasons 1. They were not lucky to be born in the USA 2. They crossed the desert in thirst 3. They had to hide while crossing the desert 4. Their children are born here 5. They bleed red 6. They pay taxes 7. They are simple folk who are not terrorists 8. They work for $4/hr 9. They are worthy of more sympathy since they are here 10. Not empathising/supporting them is inhuman 11. He is Gandhi-like fighting the white man 12. They are economic refugees 13. Their country produces the banana and mango that you eat 14. … and it goes on and on. Illegal aliens come for the economic opportunity. Simple. The solution is to provide the economic opportunity, legally. Out of the above premise there is many a humane solution to the illegal alien issue. Why is amnesty/citizenship the only solution discussed ad nauseam?
i’m sorry but this convo is lame, if only because there’s a lot of assumptions going on. I never thought I’d agree with Razib, but some of those pushing the “progressive” point of view are getting really out of line in impunging people’s morality. Here’s a BIG HINT. If you have to make the peerson you are argueing with into an amoral “racist” every time you disagree with him or her in order for your points to have validity, you’re probably not trying hard enough. How about trying to see the humanity of people rather than talking about doing it.
I don’t usually agree with Razib, but the name-calling is over the top here. Maybe there’s people on the “other side” of the issue who really are unthinking and just “bad people” but to get into an arguement in which you just assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is “immoral” is whack.
I say this as someone with a pretty strong commitment to social justice, whose own shoes over the years have seen pavement too
either you are for helping people or you’re not. Who is to say that the man living on the street right now at one time was not a “conservative”. this might be rhetoric on your part, but you don’t have the ability to call down divine justice on another person. Simply because you think you’re expressing the “progressive” point of view, all of a sudden Moses is your main man and you and all your peeps get to decide who deserves what?