When do the mature people mature?
25 06 11 - 03:19
Dunno how it was for you, but when I was a kid, adults always whacked us with the "maturity" thing:- When you're mature, you'll understand this.
- It's an acquired taste, you know, for mature people.
- You're so immature. Just grow up and (do whatever sucky thing they want).
- A mature person would see it differently.
Of course, we knew it was a con job. "Mature" was their way of saying what I want want, God Damn It, and Right Now or you're grounded.
My question is: when do all these "mature" people grow up and start dealing with, instead of blowing off, the issues of our time?
The Texas Senate early on Wednesday passed a measure pushed by Governor Rick Perry aimed at cracking down on cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants.
"Drug traffickers and transnational gangs should think twice before they step foot in Texas," Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said in a statement. "Prohibiting sanctuary city policies will make the apprehension, detention and deportation of dangerous criminals more uniform -- keeping us all safer and Texas more secure."
The measure now heads to the House, which passed a similar bill during the regular legislative session that ended May 30. That measure died because Senate Democrats blocked it. But lawmakers are now in a special legislative session, and since different rules apply, Senate Democrats were unable to stop it this time. Both chambers have Republican majorities. - Hemorreuters
Gosh golly, what could this be about?
Rick Perry's possible presidential campaign, for one.
But even more, the knowledge by white voters that they are being replaced by imported voters:
Across the USA, white voters know they're being replaced if they let it happen.
Since the 1965 Hart-Celler act, immigration from non-white countries has begun to demographically supplant the white American population:
They also know that, whether he's succeeding or failing, black support for Obama does not waver, suggesting that identity politics plays a higher role.
In fact, the worldwide pattern is that ethnic and/or cultural groups vote for and support "one of their own." Samuel Huntington portrayed this reality in his brilliant Clash of Civilizations. - Houston Conservative Examinerrhoid.
This is from an article I posted on Examiner.com, which is a "more mainstream" (and probably mature) site than this one, thus reaches a lot of people we cannot reach through ANUS.com.
The point is, dear mature adults, that immigration depletes the source countries of a population they need. It's also a tool of one political party to dominate the other here. As usual, every person is aiming at personal profit and ignoring the consequences. The truth is that people would be happier without immigration. But that's not officially matureTM so we'll never hear that.
Instead, it's more maturity with the Democrats telling us we're racist if we don't go along with their "one people, one world, one giant mall" order, and Republicans talking to us about freedom and liberty and why we need more nuclear weapons.
If this is maturity, let me out.
You can read the whole article here.
eight comments
What about the people who want to immigrate? And those who want to hire them?
Obviously, they'd be less happy. But they're not you, so you don't care. (Email ) - 25-06-’11 12:44
Fuck the happiness of those people.
As for the immigrants; well, I don't think anything in this article was really about the immigrants (ie., the actual individuals) but about laws concerning them.
If you can make it over and stay illegally, and make yourself a life here, good for you, I'm all for survival. But if you get caught and kicked out, thats the name of the game. Lemon Glow - 26-06-’11 10:55
3rd paragraph: No, they're not, but they're included in "people".
4th paragraph: I'm pretty sure the OP is against all immigration, not just illegal.
@Stacey, they're obviously in many cases happi*er*, at least, or else more of them wouldn't come. And some become quite happy indeed, and do create things, at least as much as the average native. (Others don't; there's a range of abilities in any population.)
And they do indeed generally struggle a great deal, considering that they often come with very little.
As for the difference between colonists and immigrants, that may apply to the first few ships to come over, but after that, everyone is an immigrant, which includes the ancestors of the vast majority of white people in the US.
You can expand that a bit if you wish, and include everyone who was here before the Revolutionary War as a colonist; that will still leave the vast majority of white people in the US as descended from immigrants.
And that would be an arbitrary distinction anyway, because the Colonies were quite established long before the Revolution, and indeed, Franklin was complaining about how poorly German immigrants were assimilating into American society long before the Revolution. German! (Email ) - 26-06-’11 20:32
Happier in the sense of physical comfort, yes. Their sense of culture is sacrificed or "militarized" for those comforts, however, as they either assimilate into the majority culture, or preserve their culture, thereby creating an atmosphere of us vs. them. More problems are created as a result of choosing either course of action.
I maintain that if they better themselves and the conditions within their own countries, they'll have a deeper sense of accomplishment and happiness. That said, their sense of accomplishment is illusionary because they're dependent on a host culture that provides them the opportunity to rise in life. They can't proclaim to the world or themselves, "This is ours! We created a great culture despite an oppressive government and third world conditions!" They may say, however, âBecause a foreign people show mercy to us (through sheer stupidity), we can improve our shitty conditions.â Iâll also add that if they didnât have the brains/balls/motivation to make something of themselves or their environment in their own backwards countries, most of them wonât do anything productive here. Theyâre simply transferring their problems and shortcomings.
Besides, the entitlement mentality and the welfare state are antithetical to struggle.
By definition, colonists inherit colonies from colonists before them, so before July 1776, there were no immigrants in the New World. Also, immigrants immigrate to countries, not to colonies. Therefore, the U.S. wasnât founded on immigration. The fact that 99% of Americans do not know the definitions of colonist and immigrant doesnât change history. You say this is all arbitrary. I thought you may be right, but after further consideration, Iâve concluded there is nothing arbitrary about the importance of the transformation of colonies into a country. Consider the collective psyche of a people with a new identity and how theyâre seen by other countries.
Furthermore, this country was founded by white Europeans, which was a melting pot of and for various white ethnicities. Sure there have been squabbles between them, but they share common genetics through race that historically have created adequate societal cohesion. Non-white immigration on the whole has created irreconcilable differences that compromise every culture. stacey morgan - 27-06-’11 17:41
"More problems are created as a result of choosing either course of action. "
*Some problems, perhaps, but they don't necessarily outweigh the benefits.*
"That said, their sense of accomplishment is illusionary because theyâre dependent on a host culture that provides them the opportunity to rise in life."
*An opportunity, yes, but it certainly isn't just handed to them. So in successful cases, the accomplishment is far from illusory.*
"They canât proclaim to the world or themselves, âThis is ours! We created a great culture despite an oppressive government and third world conditions!â"
*Well, white people of 2011 can't say that either. And (legal) immigrants can certainly say, we went through great obstacles and acquired great skills to get here and build a life, despite coming from desperate conditions.*
"They may say, however, âBecause a foreign people show mercy to us (through sheer stupidity), we can improve our shitty conditions.â"
*In many cases it's not mercy at all. Employers actively seek immigrants to work for them.*
"Iâll also add that if they didnât have the brains/balls/motivation to make something of themselves or their environment in their own backwards countries, most of them wonât do anything productive here."
*Faulty logic. There are more resources here with which to do something productive.*
"By definition, colonists inherit colonies from colonists before them, so before July 1776, there were no immigrants in the New World. "
*I have no idea what this means; please rephrase.*
"Also, immigrants immigrate to countries, not to colonies."
*There is nothing in the definition of "immigrant" that makes this true.*
"The fact that 99% of Americans do not know the definitions of colonist and immigrant doesnât change history."
*Well, considering you're making up these definitions as you go along, I don't think you're showing any insight into history yourself.*
"Iâve concluded there is nothing arbitrary about the importance of the transformation of colonies into a country."
*The colonies that would become the US were well established and settled long before 1776. So people arriving from Europe to the colonies before that were absolutely considered to be immigrants. And as I said before, they were treated with the same amount of scorn as current immigrants are. We just got over it.
The formation of the new country was important to national identity, but it was not the beginning of the fear of new arrivals, and it was certainly not the beginning of immigration.*
"Furthermore, this country was founded by white Europeans, which was a melting pot of and for various white ethnicities. Sure there have been squabbles between them, but they share common genetics through race that historically have created adequate societal cohesion"
You're blinded by modern ideas of race. The ideas back then were vastly different. In the 1800s Anglos considered the Irish to be lower than the Africans, and they were even suspicious of Germans, not to mention Jews and Poles.
*The "squabbles between them" were nothing less than the current suspicion of immigration. The adequate social cohesion we have achieved has nothing to do with race; it is simply that mass immigration from the relevant places has slowed, and the descendents of those initial immigrants are considered fully American.
Exactly the same thing has already happened with many nonwhite groups, such as the descendents of the older waves of Chinese and Puerto-Rican people, and exactly the same thing will happen with the descendents of current immigrants.* Guy who reads (Email ) - 27-06-’11 18:34