Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

Scott Seidman wrote:

Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that immigration reform is
racist--I haven't seen anyone doing that, anyway.

When Bones asked, "Of what 'race' are 'them', you replied:

"Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as 'them' is
not 'us'. It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your situation
on others."

For you to claim that you're not taking the side of "immigration reform
equals racist" is disingenuous.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

In article , JR wrote:

steve sullivan wrote:

Do you see people against Mexican's who have legally followed the law
and have a green card working here? I havent. It all about those who
break the law.

Friend, if you believe there aren't millions of people "against"
Mexicans with legal green cards, and even against legal immigrants who
are now U.S. citizens, then your grasp on reality is as shaky as your
understanding of the use of the apostrophe.

Sure I believe there are millions of people against Mexicans. I also
believe there are millions of people against blacks, againt chinese,
against jews, etc etc.

But wanting to deport illegal aliens does not make one a racist. That
is about following the rules.

--
"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor
security." T. Jefferson
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

Scott Seidman wrote:

Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of below-living-wage
jobs), in a manner more substantial than major energy policy and
destructive mining practice, and I'll consider changing my opinion that
arguing for immigration reform from a natural resource standpoint is
racist.

It's a simple exercise in logic:

current immigration rate = population growth

population growth = growth in demand for resources

Therefore,

current immigration rate = growth in demand for resources

That's not to say that there aren't other factors besides population
growth that can affect demand for resources, or that there aren't other
ways besides restricting immigration to deal with the problem. It seems
undeniable to me, however, that the current rate of immigration will
lead to a much higher population in the not-so-distant future.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

rw wrote in
:

Scott Seidman wrote:

Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that immigration reform
is racist--I haven't seen anyone doing that, anyway.

When Bones asked, "Of what 'race' are 'them', you replied:

"Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as 'them' is
not 'us'. It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your
situation on others."

For you to claim that you're not taking the side of "immigration
reform equals racist" is disingenuous.


OK, let's start again, In response to Ken, bones asked:


how is asking for immgration reform racist?


I answered:

Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists (sic).
Linking it to natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.

The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more
questionable the motivation

Scott


Bones:

Of what "race" are "them"?


me:
Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as "them" is
not "us". It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your situation
on others.

Scott


Its a thread, and every one of my replies should be read in the context
of that thread. Passing the buck, of course, refers to the blame of
"them"-- the immigrants-- for the destruction or overuse of natural
resources. I've been pretty consistant here.

I've said almost nothing about immigration reform, or my thoughts on it.
The only thing I've said about it is that it isn't right to blame the
destruction or overuse of natural resources on immigration policy. To
do so, I feel, makes no more sense than "My car breaks down often
because of the damn illegal immigrants", or "those damn illegal
immigrants are keeping the best caviar for themselves". Do those last
hypothetical statements seem a little paranoid or misguided to you?
Well, that's what linking resource depletion and immigration sounds like
to me. I'd try to simplify this further for you, but I can only type
ASCII on the usenet--crayons just aren't available.

You, however, have vouched for this link between immigration and
resources:
It's a natural and appropriate link. Natural resource use is directly
related to population growth. Immigration (legal and illegal) is the
major source of population growth in the US.

Personally, I think it takes big brass balls to say this when people of
means are driving around city streets in 15 mpg heavy SUV's they feel
compelled to replace every three years (what do you drive, by the way,
and how old is it?). Extravagance and poor energy policy eat a whole
bunch more resources than immigration, legal or otherwise. Conservation
can protect our resources oodles better than immigration policy. This
is why I don't think the link you refer to is natural or appropriate.

I've asked you to back up your statement by telling me which of our
natural resources are in jeopardy largely because of immigration. You
seem to want to duck this direct question by insisting that I believe
that immigration reform is tantamount to racism. I believe no such
thing. I can understand people who have trouble with current policy.
Immigration certainly changes the flavor, language, and culture of the
United States. In many ways, I like our culture the way it is, but to a
large extent our culture has changed constantly during the 350 or so
years since British began colonizing North America, and it will continue
to do so. The US isn't the only place in the world dramatic changes
like this are happening, either. Like it or not, the country is
globalizing. The whole world is becoming a melting pot, and countries
with histories far longer than our own handful of centuries are changing
dramatically. I'm sure those countries have their share of people
whining about it too. Times change because of globalization, no doubt
about it, but I think I can accept that change. Would I think this way
if I were living in a region more highly impacted by immigration policy?
Who knows. I like to think I would.

Frankly, though, I'd rather be accused of associating immigration reform
with racism than the belief that immigration is largely responsible for
natural resource depletion.

Scott

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

rw wrote in
:

Scott Seidman wrote:

Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of
below-living-wage jobs), in a manner more substantial than major
energy policy and destructive mining practice, and I'll consider
changing my opinion that arguing for immigration reform from a
natural resource standpoint is racist.

It's a simple exercise in logic:

current immigration rate = population growth

population growth = growth in demand for resources

Therefore,

current immigration rate = growth in demand for resources

That's not to say that there aren't other factors besides population
growth that can affect demand for resources, or that there aren't
other ways besides restricting immigration to deal with the problem.
It seems undeniable to me, however, that the current rate of
immigration will lead to a much higher population in the
not-so-distant future.



Your logic is a little stiff.

Of course increased population increases demand on natural resources. It
just doesn't increase the demand anywhere near as much as simple
extravagance, wasteful energy policy, poor conservation efforts, and
downright greed. Targeting immigration to combat resource depletion is
like treating leprosy with acne cream. There are those who would target
immigration to combat resource depletion, and I suggest that the deep
motives behind that action might just be racist.

Scott

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

Scott Seidman wrote:

My original argument still hasn't been countered. I don't believe that
immigration is a major input to environmental impact and natural resource
use. Water wars and range wars have been going on in the west since the
west was settled. Apparently, trees are growing out of our ears. We
have enough iron, salt, bauxite, copper, aluminum, etc., whether its
naturally present or imported. Of course, we could use more oil, coal,
natural gas, but you can hardly blame that on immigration, rather than
flawed energy policy. Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of below-living-wage
jobs), in a manner more substantial than major energy policy and
destructive mining practice, and I'll consider changing my opinion that
arguing for immigration reform from a natural resource standpoint is
racist.


I agree that in terms of environmental and natural resource usage,
overall in the US the impact is minimal today. However, all things
remaining the same, a growing population does put more demands on
environment and results in greater natural resource usage. Personally,
I'm for negative population growth and part of the reason is to reduce
the impact on the environment and our natural resources. I'm for very
limited immigration. I very well may be misguided, ignorant or wrong,
but I sincerely don't understand how that is racist.



FWIW, I frown on illegal immigration, I believe that the argument that
"citizens don't want to do that kind of work" would fall apart under
living wage legislation (and yes, we would pay more for food), and I
consider the current arrangement to be little better than indentured
servitude.


I agree with that. Why is it that it seems the "free market system" that
is proposed as THE answer by many, applies to the business world but not
to the worker. If someone can't find Americans to do a specific job, it
seems to me all that means is that the workers aren't being offered
enough money.


Legal immigration is what's made our country what it is
today. It's why you are here, it's why I am here.


Yeah, that sounds good, but the implication from that statement is that
we should have no immigration regulations or they should at least be as
generous as when our ancestors came into the Country. There are few
people that are going to say that we should totally open our borders to
whoever wishes to come.

Willi

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


That's an illogical statement. Although racists can and do make
statements linking immigration to our population growth, it's illogical
to assume the converse - that someone linking immigration to population
growth is a racist.


Don't change the argument. "Overpopulation" does not equal "population
growth".
If all those icky brown people stay on their side of an imaginary and
totally
arbitrary line, the world will be neither more nor less "overpopulated".
And
anybody who tells you different is a racist.


Who in the hell made such a statement? The person that would make such a
statement may be a racist but he sure as hell would be stupid. Obviously
the world population would stay the same, but not the populations of the
countries involved.

Willi

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"Willi" wrote

Personally,
I'm for negative population growth and part of the reason is to reduce
the impact on the environment and our natural resources. I'm for very
limited immigration. I very well may be misguided, ignorant or wrong,
but I sincerely don't understand how that is racist.

i desperately attempt to avoid posting to political/religious threads,
but i must say that your viewpoint, above, is the only rational position to
take, if one hopes to maintain any marginal resemblance to our present
environment.

yfitons
wayno

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

Scott Seidman wrote:

destruction or overuse of natural resources on immigration policy. To
do so, I feel, makes no more sense than "My car breaks down often
because of the damn illegal immigrants", or "those damn illegal
immigrants are keeping the best caviar for themselves". Do those last
hypothetical statements seem a little paranoid or misguided to you?

Absolutely.

Well, that's what linking resource depletion and immigration sounds like
to me.

Bizarre. I guess it will do no good, therefore, to try to reason with
you any more. EOT for me -- and this time I really mean it. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

Willi wrote:

Who in the hell made such a statement? The person that would make such a
statement may be a racist but he sure as hell would be stupid. Obviously
the world population would stay the same, but not the populations of the
countries involved.

gary wrote:

Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.


That answer your question ?

--
Ken Fortenberry