NationStates Jolt Archive


I Am In Total Agreement

New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 20:22
I received the following e-mail earlier today and I must say...I Agree!!! How bout' you? Do you feel as though this nation is moving through the bowels of hell like tequila & Taco Bell? Are we being way to kind to those who don't deserve it while urinating in the faces of our own people? Really, I don't consider myself to be a hateful, spiteful, prejudice person, in fact, I'm very easy to get along with but, in my honest opinion, there is a limit as to how soft a heart should get!!!

Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:


Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan.

They were defending the United States of America as one people.


When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.

These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about.

I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.


(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 20:26
First off, what do you edit?

Second, they seem to have missed the fact that we rounded up the Japanese immigrants and put them in camps in WWII.
Andaluciae
19-08-2006, 20:26
As a side note, I know people who fly Italian and Irish flags, even though they've been here for years. I also know a guy who's parents moved to the US from Mexico two decades ago, and now he's fighting in Iraq.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 20:28
As a side note, I know people who fly Italian and Irish flags, even though they've been here for years. I also know a guy who's parents moved to the US from Mexico two decades ago, and now he's fighting in Iraq.

*Cough* Saint Patrick's Day *Cough*
Andaluciae
19-08-2006, 20:37
*Cough* Saint Patrick's Day *Cough*
*eyes glaze over* Guinnesssssssssssssss....ummmmmmmmmmmmmm *snaps back* huh, what were we talking about? Immigration, right.
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 20:49
First off, what do you edit?

According to the e-mail, it was an editor for some Orange County Register! I don't edit anything!!! The heading is pasted below!

This lady has a point.

=================



My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined.


(signed)
Dave LaBonte


Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Nadkor
19-08-2006, 20:50
*eyes glaze over* Guinnesssssssssssssss....ummmmmmmmmmmmmm *snaps back* huh, what were we talking about? Immigration, right.

Ach, sure Guiness tastes like crap anywhere outside of Ireland.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 20:52
Second, they seem to have missed the fact that we rounded up the Japanese immigrants and put them in camps in WWII.
and may I remind you of one of the most decorated units in the US army during WWII was the 442... a unit made up of Americans of Japanese ancestory that set out to prove where their loyalty lay.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 20:55
Ellis island was horribly dehumanizing to everyone that went through it. Families were separated, people were interrogated and judged like slabs of meat, identities and names were submerged because people didn't care about pronouncing them...and this guy's defending that?
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 20:56
and may I remind you of one of the most decorated units in the US army during WWII was the 442... a unit made up of Americans of Japanese ancestory that set out to prove where their loyalty lay.

Thus showing that being "Japanese American" still means being American. Just as "Mexican-American" still means American.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 20:56
and may I remind you of one of the most decorated units in the US army during WWII was the 442... a unit made up of Americans of Japanese ancestory that set out to prove where their loyalty lay.

Where did they fight?

Also, were the majority of the Japanese Immigrant to America in the 442?
JuNii
19-08-2006, 20:57
Thus showing that being "Japanese American" still means being American. Just as "Mexican-American" still means American.
Yep... I hate that PC crap.
Lunatic Goofballs
19-08-2006, 20:57
Where did they fight?

You seem surprised. Haven't you ever seen 'The Karate Kid'?
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 20:59
Where did they fight?

Also, were the majority of the Japanese Immigrant to America in the 442?

Europe. They wouldn't let them fight against Japan. We get it.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 20:59
Where did they fight?

Also, were the majority of the Japanese Immigrant to America in the 442?

Just Hawaiians.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 21:00
Europe. They wouldn't let them fight against Japan. We get it.

So they were Japanese Americans, not just Americans.

Just Hawaiians.

So the majority of Japanese immigrants to the US were treated as Japanese first and Americans second.
Keruvalia
19-08-2006, 21:03
Meh ... I have a big Irish flag on my wall right next to a big Texas flag.

I have no interest in the US flag. What it stands for these days sickens me.

And, ummm ... I'm not an immigrant.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:03
Seems to paint quite the rosy picture of Americans and how accepting we were of immigrants.

I point to being "Irish" being, at one time" worse than "******". When blacks couldn't even drink from the same fountain as whites, and yet, the Irish were lower.

The Japanese being placed into internment camps in WWII.

Jews and rabid antisemitism.

And what about the fact that today, it is in vogue to be proud of being Irish or Italian (among others)? These aren't even immigrants anymore. They are 2nd or 3rd or 4th generation. But are still proud of their family roots. Should we all just ignore where our families came from for the sake of conformity?
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:05
Where did they fight?
they fought in Europe.

and they were second generation. seeing that most of the First Gen didn't speak english well enough.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:05
So they were Japanese Americans, not just Americans.



So the majority of Japanese immigrants to the US were treated as Japanese first and Americans second.

You're interpreting this incorrectly, tho. The OP isn't saying society shouldn't/didn't treat people as from their home country, society is still allowed to be racist according to the OP, it's just that the oppressed can't identify with their own culture.
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 21:05
OK, so is it safe to assume that I'm alone (for the most part) on this issue? I get the feeling I'm being disagreed with here (and a little hated, too)? :D
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:07
and may I remind you of one of the most decorated units in the US army during WWII was the 442... a unit made up of Americans of Japanese ancestory that set out to prove where their loyalty lay.
And may I remind you that this was an extreme minority, and that most people of Japanese decent were detained illegally.
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 21:08
Meh ... I have a big Irish flag on my wall right next to a big Texas flag.

I have no interest in the US flag. What it stands for these days sickens me.

And, ummm ... I'm not an immigrant.

I'm getting there at record speed!!!
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 21:09
OK, so is it safe to assume that I'm alone (for the most part) on this issue? I get the feeling I'm being disagreed with here (and a little hated, too)? :D

Oh, I don't hate you. I'm just riddiculing your beliefs to make you a better person. *nod*
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:09
Just Hawaiians.wrong, some came from the camps.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:11
wrong, some came from the camps.

Vadevah, I only know about this from the book Hawaii, so my knowledge is limited.
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 21:14
Oh, I don't hate you. I'm just riddiculing your beliefs to make you a better person. *nod*

Fair enough!!! :cool:
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:16
So they were Japanese Americans, not just Americans.I stand corrected. the 442 as well as some Americans with Japanses background also fought in the Pacific Theatre as well. so yes, They also fought against the Japanese.

So the majority of Japanese immigrants to the US were treated as Japanese first and Americans second.just as African americans were treated as Africans first and Americans second. but you know what... they came to America using the method and process laid down by the american government. they didn't sneak across the border.
Wallonochia
19-08-2006, 21:18
Meh ... I have a big Irish flag on my wall right next to a big Texas flag.

I have no interest in the US flag. What it stands for these days sickens me.

And, ummm ... I'm not an immigrant.

I used to have a big Hessian flag, but I lost it when I moved last. Now I've just got a big Michigan flag. My family came from Hessen in 1774, so I don't know if that can be counted as "being an immigrant" in this sense. I have an Ojibwe great grandmother, but I don't really consider myself Ojibwe.

As to no interest in the US, that's about where I am these days. I don't feel that Washington is deserving of my loyalty (not entirely because of the current Administration, but it really started my disaffection), so Lansing gets it instead.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:18
Vadevah, I only know about this from the book Hawaii, so my knowledge is limited.
no prob. infact, the 442 were getting a reverse of the AWOL problem. :D
Wallonochia
19-08-2006, 21:19
just as African americans were treated as Africans first and Americans second. but you know what... they came to America using the method and process laid down by the american government. they didn't sneak across the border.

I thought most Africans were brought over before there even was a US Government.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:21
I stand corrected. the 442 as well as some Americans with Japanses background also fought in the Pacific Theatre as well. so yes, They also fought against the Japanese.

just as African americans were treated as Africans first and Americans second. but you know what... they came to America using the method and process laid down by the american government. they didn't sneak across the border.

Following "the method and process" is hardly always a good thing. The "method and process" for African immigration involved slave ships. The fact that there are people who think they can gain an advantage from illegal immigration means that the method and process is flawed, citizenship should always be the best and easiest choice.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:21
And may I remind you that this was an extreme minority, and that most people of Japanese decent were detained illegally.
wrong again.

most of the people of Japanese ancestory were not.

only the ones on the mainland were for the amount of those in Hawaii made it logistally impossible to do.

so only those that were deemed High risks were. and for the mainland camps, since many of those interred there also volunteered and were accepted (after being cleared, that is) into the 442.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:23
Following "the method and process" is hardly always a good thing. The "method and process" for African immigration involved slave ships. The fact that there are people who think they can gain an advantage from illegal immigration means that the method and process is flawed, citizenship should always be the best and easiest choice.
or it can mean that they (those that bypass the process) don't care about loyalty to America (or what ever country they are sneaking into)

While I do admit that the process does need to be changed, it doesn't exscuse the illegals sneaking in.
Upper Botswavia
19-08-2006, 21:23
OK, so is it safe to assume that I'm alone (for the most part) on this issue? I get the feeling I'm being disagreed with here (and a little hated, too)? :D

Yep... pretty much alone.

Prejudice is not terribly popular around here (allow me to qualify that... not popular with most of us).

I don't think we are hating you, just disagreeing with the unfortunate and unpleasant sentiments of the writer of that letter.

Consider... if you were emigrating to another country (perhaps for financial reasons, say you could not support your family here) would you be delighted to be forced to give up every bit of your culture and forget entirely where you came from? Would you be happy that someone made you stand around in a crowded immigration facility for days, refused to allow you in unless someone there could vouch for you, turned you away if you had a medical condition, insisted that you change your name because they couldn't pronounce, spell or just didn't like yours? Would you be in favor of joining the army to fight against the country you left behind just to prove that you belonged over there?

Yes, you would be happy for the opportunities there, better jobs, a better life for you and your family, sure. But would that be enough to make you forget everything you left behind? Or perhaps, would the fear that they would throw you out if you didn't forget it be the stronger reason?
Keruvalia
19-08-2006, 21:24
OK, so is it safe to assume that I'm alone (for the most part) on this issue? I get the feeling I'm being disagreed with here (and a little hated, too)? :D

I'm just upset by your analogy ... I happen to *like* tequila and Taco Bell!
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:25
OK, so is it safe to assume that I'm alone (for the most part) on this issue? I get the feeling I'm being disagreed with here (and a little hated, too)? :D
you posted your opinion. others have their opinion as well.

If you want nothing but "I agree" then start a thread saying something like...

"I like NSF (NationStates Forums), it Rocks."


and I hope there is no Hating going on here.
Upper Botswavia
19-08-2006, 21:26
wrong again.

most of the people of Japanese ancestory were not.

only the ones on the mainland were for the amount of those in Hawaii made it logistally impossible to do.

so only those that were deemed High risks were. and for the mainland camps, since many of those interred there also volunteered and were accepted (after being cleared, that is) into the 442.

The mere fact that ANYONE was put into a camp is untenable. So arguments about it being OK based on "high risk" and so on are quite ridiculous.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:27
or it can mean that they (those that bypass the process) don't care about loyalty to America (or what ever country they are sneaking into)

While I do admit that the process does need to be changed, it doesn't exscuse the illegals sneaking in.

They don't care about loyalty to the laws, but people only care about that because of enforcement. They care about the part of the country they came for, just like I care about America because of Oregon. If their loyalty is to the economy, they've got all the loyalty they need.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:28
They don't care about loyalty to the laws, but people only care about that because of enforcement. They care about the part of the country they came for, just like I care about America because of Oregon. If their loyalty is to the economy, they've got all the loyalty they need.and that's the problem the OP is saying. these people have no loyalty (different from Nationalism) to America, but to the Dollar.
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 21:28
I'm just upset by your analogy ... I happen to *like* tequila and Taco Bell!

I enjoy the ingestion process as well! It's what happens 8-12 hours later, the moving through the bowels part, that I dislike!!!
WDGann
19-08-2006, 21:29
As a new yorker, I would like to make a call for the official banning of St. Patrick's day.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:30
just as African americans were treated as Africans first and Americans second. but you know what... they came to America using the method and process laid down by the american government. they didn't sneak across the border.
If by coming to America "using the method and process laid down by the American government" you mean kidnapped, thrown onto overcrowded ships, brought to the British colonies of North America, and sold as commodities, and counted as only a fraction of a human being once being here, then yes. Many of our African American residents ancestors did that.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:31
and that's the problem the OP is saying. these people have no loyalty (different from Nationalism) to America, but to the Dollar.

Most Americans do, or to something similarly insignificant. The people in WWII had loyalty to their companies, and to "the people who were fighting the Nazis". Having loyalty to "America" means being loyal to a bunch of contradictory things.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:31
As a new yorker, I would like to make a call for the official banning of St. Patrick's day.
As a Bostonian, I'd like to make a call for the official banning of New York.;) :p
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 21:32
you posted your opinion. others have their opinion as well.

If you want nothing but "I agree" then start a thread saying something like...

"I like NSF (NationStates Forums), it Rocks."


and I hope there is no Hating going on here.

Whoa, simmer down lil' fella'!!! I started this thread because I wanted to see how others felt and what others thought! I expected to be disagreed with in all honesty!!! It's cool, no need for stress or tension!!! :cool:
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 21:33
I think most people here missed the point made in the letter and the OPs point in posting it. The letter pointed out how the immigrants who came here in the early 1900's (1) did so legally, (2) did not expect to be taken care of by the welfare system, (3) would not have accepted or abused the welfare system if it had been in place, and (4) made an attempt to assimilate into American society.

Yes, in most cases they were treated shabbily. NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN ALLOWED. However, they didn’t whine, cry, and demonstrate. They worked hard and overcame their trials and tribulations and they were proud to call themselves Americans and take advantage of all this country had to offer them that their native countries did not.

So, the point of the post is in the attitude of the legal immigrants of the 1900’s vs. the attitude of the illegal immigrants of the 2000’s.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 21:34
I stand corrected. the 442 as well as some Americans with Japanses background also fought in the Pacific Theatre as well. so yes, They also fought against the Japanese.

just as African americans were treated as Africans first and Americans second. but you know what... they came to America using the method and process laid down by the american government. they didn't sneak across the border.

Which is not what I'm arguing about. The original post was talking about how they were Americans first, and whatever else second, if ever. I'm pointing out that we shouldn't expect them to act that way if we treat them as whatever else first and Americans second, if ever. I imagine he'd feel the same way about legal immigrants who wave Mexican flags.

And if we're talking about African Americans, yeah, a lot came via the legally sanctioned slave trade, but that's a completely different topic, so let's stay away from it for now.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:34
The mere fact that ANYONE was put into a camp is untenable. So arguments about it being OK based on "high risk" and so on are quite ridiculous.
at that time, America was attacked by the Japanese. They were at War. The reaction is rational and it had to be done to insure the safety of the nation.

Wrong or Right, it had to be done. Now what the Americans of Japanese Ancestry did in response was the path they choose, and it was a better path then say... rioting, forming undergrounds or bitching about it. they saw the problem (The Government needed to know who can be trusted, and who can't) and they set out to solve that problem (they signed up and fought to prove themselve to their Government.) the 442 were treated like shit, but they took that and they proved their loyalty to their officers, fellow soldiers and to the government that interred their parents.
WDGann
19-08-2006, 21:34
As a Bostonian, I'd like to make a call for the official banning of New York.;) :p

Yes, but we are bigger and stronger. Also our baseball teams are much, much, much better.

so pooh on you sir!
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:36
wrong again.

most of the people of Japanese ancestory were not.

only the ones on the mainland were for the amount of those in Hawaii made it logistally impossible to do.

so only those that were deemed High risks were. and for the mainland camps, since many of those interred there also volunteered and were accepted (after being cleared, that is) into the 442.
Hawaii was also not a state during wwII. Many Japanese living on the west coast were detained.

Additionally, I must agree that detaining even one, despite their arbitrarily determined risk level, illegally, was too many.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:37
Yes, but we are bigger and stronger. Also our baseball teams are much, much, much better.

so pooh on you sir!
Psht. As if.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:38
I think most people here missed the point made in the letter and the OPs point in posting it. The letter pointed out how the immigrants who came here in the early 1900's (1) did so legally, (2) did not expect to be taken care of by the welfare system, (3) would not have accepted or abused the welfare system if it had been in place, and (4) made an attempt to assimilate into American society.

Yes, in most cases they were treated shabbily. NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN ALLOWED. However, they didn’t whine, cry, and demonstrate. They worked hard and overcame their trials and tribulations and they were proud to call themselves Americans and take advantage of all this country had to offer them that their native countries did not.

So, the point of the post is in the attitude of the legal immigrants of the 1900’s vs. the attitude of the illegal immigrants of the 2000’s.

And (1) This means today's laws are nonfunctional, as the amount of people we give citizenship to no longer matches the number who enter the country.
(2) There wasn't a system.
(3) Of course they would've, had they really wanted to be "Americans"
(4) Except the groups that stayed in ghettos for generations. Ever been to Chinatown? Little Italy?

And yes, the oppressed didn't speak up in the Gilded Age, they were crushed under the wheels of ramapant capitalism. I fail to see that as positive.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:39
at that time, America was attacked by the Japanese. They were at War. The reaction is rational and it had to be done to insure the safety of the nation.

Wrong or Right, it had to be done. Now what the Americans of Japanese Ancestry did in response was the path they choose, and it was a better path then say... rioting, forming undergrounds or bitching about it. they saw the problem (The Government needed to know who can be trusted, and who can't) and they set out to solve that problem (they signed up and fought to prove themselve to their Government.) the 442 were treated like shit, but they took that and they proved their loyalty to their officers, fellow soldiers and to the government that interred their parents.
Right. So, based on ancestry alone, we can determine who is a high risk to America, and they deserve to be imprisoned during times of war?

Keruvalia, I'm sorry, but you'll have to board the train now.
Upper Botswavia
19-08-2006, 21:39
at that time, America was attacked by the Japanese. They were at War. The reaction is rational and it had to be done to insure the safety of the nation.

Wrong or Right, it had to be done. Now what the Americans of Japanese Ancestry did in response was the path they choose, and it was a better path then say... rioting, forming undergrounds or bitching about it. they saw the problem (The Government needed to know who can be trusted, and who can't) and they set out to solve that problem (they signed up and fought to prove themselve to their Government.) the 442 were treated like shit, but they took that and they proved their loyalty to their officers, fellow soldiers and to the government that interred their parents.

The highlight (which I added) is the proof that what you say is incorrect. Wrong should NOT BE DONE. Our ongoing struggle is to spot such wrongs and make sure they DO NOT HAPPEN AGAIN, as they should never have happened in the first place.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:40
at that time, America was attacked by the Japanese. They were at War. The reaction is rational and it had to be done to insure the safety of the nation.

Wrong or Right, it had to be done. Now what the Americans of Japanese Ancestry did in response was the path they choose, and it was a better path then say... rioting, forming undergrounds or bitching about it. they saw the problem (The Government needed to know who can be trusted, and who can't) and they set out to solve that problem (they signed up and fought to prove themselve to their Government.) the 442 were treated like shit, but they took that and they proved their loyalty to their officers, fellow soldiers and to the government that interred their parents.

None of the people jailed were spies! I think that could've been anticipated.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:40
Which is not what I'm arguing about. The original post was talking about how they were Americans first, and whatever else second, if ever. I'm pointing out that we shouldn't expect them to act that way if we treat them as whatever else first and Americans second, if ever. I imagine he'd feel the same way about legal immigrants who wave Mexican flags.

And if we're talking about African Americans, yeah, a lot came via the legally sanctioned slave trade, but that's a completely different topic, so let's stay away from it for now.
uhmm you brought up the interment of Americans of Japanese decent (as many do) without considering what those and their sons did in response to it.

as for the other one, yeah.. agreed.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:41
Right. So, based on ancestry alone, we can determine who is a high risk to America, and they deserve to be imprisoned during times of war?

Keruvalia, I'm sorry, but you'll have to board the train now.
oversimplized.

and remember, we're talking about an event done during WWII.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 21:42
uhmm you brought up the interment of Americans of Japanese decent (as many do) without considering what those and their sons did in response to it.

as for the other one, yeah.. agreed.

I brought up the interment of Americans of Japanese descent, in order to demonstrate they were treated as Japanese first and Americans second. What they and their sons did in response to that isn't really relevant.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:42
None of the people jailed were spies! I think that could've been anticipated.
anticipated... but not a certainty... especially back then.
New Age Astrology
19-08-2006, 21:42
I think most people here missed the point made in the letter and the OPs point in posting it. The letter pointed out how the immigrants who came here in the early 1900's (1) did so legally, (2) did not expect to be taken care of by the welfare system, (3) would not have accepted or abused the welfare system if it had been in place, and (4) made an attempt to assimilate into American society.

Yes, in most cases they were treated shabbily. NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN ALLOWED. However, they didn’t whine, cry, and demonstrate. They worked hard and overcame their trials and tribulations and they were proud to call themselves Americans and take advantage of all this country had to offer them that their native countries did not.

So, the point of the post is in the attitude of the legal immigrants of the 1900’s vs. the attitude of the illegal immigrants of the 2000’s.

*claps & bows*

Only thing is, and I think this is being missed, we have no idea what this letter was actually in reference to! It says in the heading that this was written in response to numerous articles in OC but we haven't read any of them! Oh, and the OC didn't post this letter, according to the 'husband', that was the point of sending it around the world via e-mail...because the OC wouldn't post her rebuttal!
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:44
anticipated... but not a certainty... especially back then.

It certainly could've been anticipated to a degree of certainty. At the very least they could've almost automatically ruled out about half the people they interned.
WDGann
19-08-2006, 21:44
Psht. As if.

LOL @ 1986.

That never gets old. And it never will.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:46
I think most people here missed the point made in the letter and the OPs point in posting it. The letter pointed out how the immigrants who came here in the early 1900's (1) did so legally, (2) did not expect to be taken care of by the welfare system, (3) would not have accepted or abused the welfare system if it had been in place, and (4) made an attempt to assimilate into American society.1) not always. Many, yes. But hardly all. Additionally, it is difficult to boarder jump when there is an ocean between your boarders. 2) there was none. 3)prove it. 4)no, they didn't. They lived in small enclaves in our major cities. I point to the Lower East Side of Manhattan. This area was once a Jewish community, then Italian, and now, Chinatown is rapidly taking over both areas. The immigrants rarely assimilate within their first generation, and often, up to 2nd or 3rd.

Yes, in most cases they were treated shabbily. NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN ALLOWED. However, they didn’t whine, cry, and demonstrate. They worked hard and overcame their trials and tribulations and they were proud to call themselves Americans and take advantage of all this country had to offer them that their native countries did not.I'd call that a bit stronger word that "shabby". Something about the phrase "Irish confetti" springs to mind. And it is difficult to demonstrate when you don't speak the language. Additionally, when it was a choice between death in your home country, or possibly making ends meat in America, it changes your attitude a bit.

So, the point of the post is in the attitude of the legal immigrants of the 1900’s vs. the attitude of the illegal immigrants of the 2000’s.
It's a romanticised view of the immigrants of the 1900's. Immigrants have always been hated. America has been notoriously isolationist and has instituted quotas on the largest immigrant groups for generations. We were and are hardly the welcoming melting pot the article would wish us to be.
Upper Botswavia
19-08-2006, 21:48
*snip*
Yes, in most cases they were treated shabbily. NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN ALLOWED. However, they didn’t whine, cry, and demonstrate. They worked hard and overcame their trials and tribulations and they were proud to call themselves Americans and take advantage of all this country had to offer them that their native countries did not.

So, the point of the post is in the attitude of the legal immigrants of the 1900’s vs. the attitude of the illegal immigrants of the 2000’s.

Basically, the immigrants of the 1900's were cowed and fearful that they might be treated worse, thrown out, put into camps... and they had reasons to be. They were content to be treated like dogs, because they didn't know any better.

The immigrants of the 2000's are insisting that they be treated like human beings. They are asking for equality (something that America pays great lip service to). Instead, they are met with attitudes similar to those of the folks who lived here when the 1900's immigrants came... "OURS! NOT YOURS! Yes, we SAY we are free and open, but GO AWAY! Never mind the fact that we were ALL immigrants... we got here first so we win, you lose!!!"
Harlesburg
19-08-2006, 21:52
Quite.
Is Cybersex funny?
JuNii
19-08-2006, 21:53
It certainly could've been anticipated to a degree of certainty. At the very least they could've almost automatically ruled out about half the people they interned.
again, "Anticipated to a degree of certainty" is not certainty. remember, it was assured back then that the USA and their territories were untoucable because of the ocean. people in Californa feared an attack after Pearl Harbor. that is most assuridly a fable yet, people believed it back then.

so to keep peace, the Government had to show that they were doing something.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 21:56
oversimplized.

and remember, we're talking about an event done during WWII.
yes, oversimplified. But it makes my point. These people were treated as Japanese first, then as Americans. You say that only those who were considered high risk were interred, but that many went into the army and proved themselves loyal to America. They were imprisoned illegally where no other Americans were. Not the Germans, not the Italians. And they had to prove themselves on the battlefield to be considered American first, then Japanese. And even then, it was only by some of their brothers-in-arms.

My point is that they never should have been imprisoned. Did many fight and demonstrate their loyalty? Yes. Should they have ever have been placed in a situation where their only choices were illegal imprisonment or war? no. Were they treated unfairly based on the fact that they had a lineage that traced back to Japan? Unquestionably yes.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 21:58
again, "Anticipated to a degree of certainty" is not certainty. remember, it was assured back then that the USA and their territories were untoucable because of the ocean. people in Californa feared an attack after Pearl Harbor. that is most assuridly a fable yet, people believed it back then.

so to keep peace, the Government had to show that they were doing something.

But it was a show!! Paranoia is not a reasonable reason to lock people up, evidence is! The only person who turned out to be a spy was German, but we didn't look for them because we thought spyship would be racial,and the race would be Japanese. There were vastly better possible policies to undertake. I think we could have ruled out people with families, for example.
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 22:01
Basically, the immigrants of the 1900's were cowed and fearful that they might be treated worse, thrown out, put into camps... and they had reasons to be. They were content to be treated like dogs, because they didn't know any better.

The immigrants of the 2000's are insisting that they be treated like human beings. They are asking for equality (something that America pays great lip service to). Instead, they are met with attitudes similar to those of the folks who lived here when the 1900's immigrants came... "OURS! NOT YOURS! Yes, we SAY we are free and open, but GO AWAY! Never mind the fact that we were ALL immigrants... we got here first so we win, you lose!!!"

Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals. Most Americans today don't have a problem with legal immigrants. :rolleyes:
WDGann
19-08-2006, 22:04
Quite.
Is Cybersex funny?

Usually.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 22:06
Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals. Most Americans today don't have a problem with legal immigrants. :rolleyes:

This is an interesting claim...

So there are people, who followed all of the laws of our nation, came here legally, were approved, but should still be rejected?
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 22:06
Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals. Most Americans today don't have a problem with legal immigrants. :rolleyes:
Or the illegals that are white.

WBZ in Boston did a huge show about illegal Irish, Scotch, and British immigrants in Boston on St. Patricks Day. They all observed that, althought they broke the same laws, they were treated better than their hispanic counterparts.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 22:07
Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals. Most Americans today don't have a problem with legal immigrants. :rolleyes:

The Pilgrims didn't follow the established laws of the locals for immigration to America.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 22:09
The Pilgrims were illegal immigrants.

That's open to debate. I don't think the natives banned immigration per se. They probably didn't even conceive of the possibility.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 22:09
That's open to debate. I don't think the natives banned immigration per se. They probably didn't even conceive of the possibility.

Good point. But they didn't follow the established rules for immigration, in any case.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 22:12
yes, oversimplified. But it makes my point. These people were treated as Japanese first, then as Americans. You say that only those who were considered high risk were interred, but that many went into the army and proved themselves loyal to America. They were imprisoned illegally where no other Americans were. Not the Germans, not the Italians. And they had to prove themselves on the battlefield to be considered American first, then Japanese. And even then, it was only by some of their brothers-in-arms.

My point is that they never should have been imprisoned. Did many fight and demonstrate their loyalty? Yes. Should they have ever have been placed in a situation where their only choices were illegal imprisonment or war? no. Were they treated unfairly based on the fact that they had a lineage that traced back to Japan? Unquestionably yes.
no, I did not say ONLY those of high risk, that was for Hawaii's situation. because of our high number of people from Japan.

as for the 'Should haves', and 'what nots' of That Particular interrnment... Hindsight is always 20/20.

and the reason why those of German ancestory wasn't bothered with? perhaps because Germany didn't attack the US.. Japan did.

Now let me ask you this question.

other than the fact that they were put in camps. can anyone show evidence of Torture that went on in the majority of these interment Camps of WWII?
Sane Outcasts
19-08-2006, 22:13
Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals. Most Americans today don't have a problem with legal immigrants. :rolleyes:
Most Americans can't tell the difference without asking them, and most don't care enough to ask.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 22:17
But it was a show!! Paranoia is not a reasonable reason to lock people up, evidence is! The only person who turned out to be a spy was German, but we didn't look for them because we thought spyship would be racial,and the race would be Japanese. There were vastly better possible policies to undertake. I think we could have ruled out people with families, for example.
why? People with families are incapable of being spies?

Could've sworn the last couple of people who spied/sold information to other countries had families... infact some families worked as a team in passing info along.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 22:19
Good point. But they didn't follow the established rules for immigration, in any case.
and what were the rules of Immigration in the 1600's
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 22:20
no, I did not say ONLY those of high risk, that was for Hawaii's situation. because of our high number of people from Japan.ahh...okay. gotcha

as for the 'Should haves', and 'what nots' of That Particular interrnment... Hindsight is always 20/20.Doesn't make it okay, and the point remains. People are not always treated as American first. That is a bastardization of history, and that is the ultimate point of mentioning Japanese internment in the first place. We have not always treated our new immigrants as wonderfully as the article would have us believe.

and the reason why those of German ancestory wasn't bothered with? perhaps because Germany didn't attack the US.. Japan did.Yet we were still at war with the Germans. Sure, they didn't attack our mainland, but they were still killing our troops over in Europe.

Now let me ask you this question.

other than the fact that they were put in camps. can anyone show evidence of Torture that went on in the majority of these interment Camps of WWII?The discussion has nothing to do with torture. No, I can't right now because I can't be arsed to do any research right now. However, they were still illegally interred, and were not treated as American first and foremost. THAT is the issue at hand. The example is somewhat secondary to the point.
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 22:20
why? People with families are incapable of being spies?

Could've sworn the last couple of people who spied/sold information to other countries had families... infact some families worked as a team in passing info along.

Families with children seem rather unlikely. I don't know of any cases involving such people, though I'm not too well informed on this topic.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 22:26
and what were the rules of Immigration in the 1600's

Well, if we're going for the Native's rules, I'm pretty sure they didn't involve forcing them onto reservations and stealing their land.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 22:26
ahh...okay. gotcha

Doesn't make it okay, and the point remains. People are not always treated as American first. That is a bastardization of history, and that is the ultimate point of mentioning Japanese internment in the first place. We have not always treated our new immigrants as wonderfully as the article would have us believe.that I agree with, but to point out an event that was triggered by an unwarrented/sneak attack is rather unfair.

Yet we were still at war with the Germans. Sure, they didn't attack our mainland, but they were still killing our troops over in Europe.untill the time of Pear Harbor, the US was Neutral. so any of "our troops" in Europe was there outside of Government ok. inother words, officially, the Government had no knowledge of it. and again, we were not attacked by the Germans, but by Japan.

The discussion has nothing to do with torture. No, I can't right now because I can't be arsed to do any research right now. However, they were still illegally interred, and were not treated as American first and foremost. THAT is the issue at hand. The example is somewhat secondary to the point.I know, I was just curious. since some here seem to equate that event with Gitmo.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 22:28
Well, if we're going for the Native's rules, I'm pretty sure they didn't involve forcing them onto reservations and stealing their land.nah, that's pretty much everywhere.
JuNii
19-08-2006, 22:29
Families with children seem rather unlikely. I don't know of any cases involving such people, though I'm not too well informed on this topic.
there were some... I can't remember their names, but there were some. a family is an excellet cover for a spy.
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 22:29
nah, that's pretty much everywhere.

Besides, if there's no law that allows you to immigrate legally, stay where you are.
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 22:31
that I agree with, but to point out an event that was triggered by an unwarrented/sneak attack is rather unfair.I think the way we act under our most extreme pressure is quite telling of our true nature.

untill the time of Pear Harbor, the US was Neutral. so any of "our troops" in Europe was there outside of Government ok. inother words, officially, the Government had no knowledge of it. and again, we were not attacked by the Germans, but by Japan.that works

I know, I was just curious. since some here seem to equate that event with Gitmo.I could definatly draw some paralleles...but they are hardly even close to being the same thing (not to mention, I don't know tons about either)
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 22:36
This is an interesting claim...

So there are people, who followed all of the laws of our nation, came here legally, were approved, but should still be rejected?

Originally Posted by Celtlund
Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals.

Try reading it again. :rolleyes:
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 22:37
Or the illegals that are white.

WBZ in Boston did a huge show about illegal Irish, Scotch, and British immigrants in Boston on St. Patricks Day. They all observed that, althought they broke the same laws, they were treated better than their hispanic counterparts.

They shouldn't be.
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 22:40
The Pilgrims didn't follow the established laws of the locals for immigration to America.

Get real. You know very well the United States of America did not exist in 1620, or do you?
Vegas-Rex
19-08-2006, 22:41
Originally Posted by Celtlund
Most immigrants in the 2000's are illegals, and those who are should be treated as illegals.

Try reading it again. :rolleyes:

I didn't see the are. Sry
Sarkhaan
19-08-2006, 22:49
They shouldn't be.
You know as well as anyone...Should and shouldn't rarely matter in practice.
Evil little girls
19-08-2006, 22:57
There are some conservative people who allways need to nag when things change, the writer of that letter would probably have talked about the 'original immigrants' immigrants in the same way as she does in her letter now.

"Today's youth is terrible, they have no respect for authority whatsoever, thy are rude to teachers and parents and seem to think that they know all best."

Something along those lines was written on an archeological found in Egypt, it dates back 4000 to 6000 years. You'll allways have conservatives
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 23:03
You know as well as anyone...Should and shouldn't rarely matter in practice.

How true. :(
Celtlund
19-08-2006, 23:05
You'll allways have conservatives

Glad to hear that...we need someone to keep the left wing liberals in line. :D
The Aeson
19-08-2006, 23:07
Get real. You know very well the United States of America did not exist in 1620, or do you?

And? Because the United States of America didn't exist means what in this argument?
JuNii
19-08-2006, 23:08
I think the way we act under our most extreme pressure is quite telling of our true nature.
it's only part of the picture, and the situations do sometimes dictate action.
Harlesburg
23-08-2006, 08:06
Quite.
Is Cybersex funny?Usually.
I can't even remember why i asked that.
Yesmusic
23-08-2006, 08:15
Glad to hear that...we need someone to keep the left wing liberals in line. :D

We could easily say the same of ourselves for you right-wingers. :headbang: :p