As ml1 notes, many of the immigratns mtierney rails against todayare following the legal process.
Further, when mtierney's ancestors came, the laws were different and immigration easier. Today the law is harsher and immigration more difficult. Were the laws wrong when mtierney's ancestors came over? And why does mtierney consistently argue for making today's restrictive immigration policies even more restrictive? What makes her ancestors so special, or today's immigrants so terrible, that accounts for her different attitudes toward them?
So, if we passed a law to open the border to Latin Americans, the way we did for the Irish (or the Austrians) in the 19th century, you would be fine with that? Your only qualms are about the legal niceties?
The struggles of Irish immigrants were compounded by the poor treatment they received from the white, primarily Anglo-Saxon and Protestant establishment. America's existing unskilled workers worried they would be replaced by immigrants willing to work for less than the going rate. And business owners worried that Irish immigrants and African-Americans would band together to demand increased wages.
As a result, locals didn't take kindly to an influx of Irish immigrants competing for resources perceived as limited. In Boston alone, 37,000 Irish immigrants arrived in 1847 — growing the city's population by more than 30 percent, straining employment, rations, housing and relations between populations.
"replaced" sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?
but as Lyndon Johnson said a century later, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Although Irish immigrants faced oppression in the United States, they also participated in it. African-Americans and Irish were considered by many Northern whites to be on equal footing, but many Irish immigrants quickly embraced "white" identities and became part of the social construct that oppressed African-Americans as an avenue to better employment, interweaving issues of classism and racism.
"Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out," writes historian Art McDonald. "They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation ... And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed 'race,' Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another 'race,' Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic."
So, if we passed a law to open the border to Latin Americans, the way we did for the Irish (or the Austrians) in the 19th century, you would be fine with that? Your only qualms are about the legal niceties?
Those earlier immigration laws were far more open in many ways -- no visas, no green cards -- but they were explicitly racist, favoring "white" and seeking to exclude "non-white".
Here's the law that would have been in effect in 1911:
My son, the magazine editor, mentioned to me that AI will make copy editors obsolete soon. Will a machine be able to recognize the nuance of from and since?
My son, the magazine editor, mentioned to me that AI will make copy editors obsolete soon. Will a machine be able to recognize the nuance of from and since?
Thankfully MOL has Ridski on the scene!
Cost-cutting was already making strides toward copy editor obsolescence. Since good ones also check facts, AI could just as likely be their salvation.
Despite most people's opinions of me, my politics can be swayed by good reasoning, and I do my best to look at all possible good faith arguments. It's just that so many arguments from positions other than mine aren't made in good faith these days, so when I find one that is, I'm happy to defend it.
In this case, the need for pain-numbing drugs is so complex, I really don't feel qualified to comment on it at all. I certainly don't think I'm a better person than those who end up on these drugs - I feel I'm one bad injury away from someone who may need them. However, many others have mentioned before, the supply follows the market. Who else has a fentanyl problem right now? How bad are the deaths in Mexico? Canada? Singapore? Argentina?
The US tried to address its issue with substance addiction and violence once before by voting for a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. It didn't work and you needed another amendment to allow it back in. And both those things happened before the time we're told that America was great (I think the reboot date for MAGA is 1953, right?)
Maybe the drugs aren't the problem. Maybe it's Americans. Maybe us immigrants need to try to be all Ted Lasso and fix you all first, so you can all be the best version of yourselves. This, at the end, is the most important thing.
{some days like today I wish I could take paracetamol, and ibuprofen, and fentanyl … instead of relying on heat patches and crying. Other days I wish I could sleep the pain & breathlessness & exhaustion away. And that’s just the Crohn’s and polymyalgia… I’m worse when the frequent migraines kick in. }
{some days like today I wish I could take paracetamol, and ibuprofen, and fentanyl … instead of relying on heat patches and crying. Other days I wish I could sleep the pain & breathlessness & exhaustion away. And that’s just the Crohn’s and polymyalgia… I’m worse when the frequent migraines kick in. }
Speaking of gratitude: Even through your pain, joanne, you’re a balm for the rest of us on MOL.
I bought my first hybrid in 2003. People have had 20 years to buy fuel efficient vehicles. I realize there may be exceptions but, for the VAST majority of Americans, if you are still driving a gas guzzler in 2023, that’s on you.
I bought my first hybrid in 2003. People have had 20 years to buy fuel efficient vehicles. I realize there may be exceptions but, for the VAST majority of Americans, if you are still driving a gas guzzler in 2023, that’s on you.
Make better choices.
You and I have something in common. We have both been driving hybrids for many years.
not to mention the exaggerations in Mr. Bathroom Guy's other statements. Gas prices have come way down since last year's peak, so the estimate of $6 gas in the near term is idiotic. And crime is also down from the pandemic peak.
as if the POTUS has anything to do with those anyway.
But hey, Mr. Bathroom might represent the majority of U.S. voters, who knows?
How do you know it's a Mr. and a Guy? That's quite presumptuous and sexist of you.
I am surprised the person wrote "Trump might not be the answer in 2024" in the context of the other stuff. Perhaps they're advocating for a third-party vote.
How do you know it's a Mr. and a Guy? That's quite presumptuous and sexist of you.
I am surprised the person wrote "Trump might not be the answer in 2024" in the context of the other stuff. Perhaps they're advocating for a third-party vote.
you're right. It's presumptuous and sexist of me to think the typical woman is a lot smarter than that.
and also presumptuous of me to assume you saw that writing above the urinal.
}
As ml1 notes, many of the immigratns mtierney rails against today are following the legal process.
Further, when mtierney's ancestors came, the laws were different and immigration easier. Today the law is harsher and immigration more difficult. Were the laws wrong when mtierney's ancestors came over? And why does mtierney consistently argue for making today's restrictive immigration policies even more restrictive? What makes her ancestors so special, or today's immigrants so terrible, that accounts for her different attitudes toward them?