By far the most destructive invasive species to North America has been the Western European Homo Sapiens.
Introduced between 1500 and 1600 by Spanish, German, and English settlers, this large hominid almost entirely eradicated the native breed of their own specie throughout the continent, and then went on to do absolutely massive destruction to nearly every aspect of the landscape with their natural instinct to modify their surroundings, ultimately affecting literally every ecological niche extending not only across the land but even well into the oceans on both coasts.
In order to restore the damage done by their introduction, a two part strategy may be most effective: a massive catch, spay/neuter and release program coupled with relaxed or even eliminated hunting restrictions. This may take lots of time, but would surely be more cost effective and humane in the long run, compared with any attempt to directly euthanize the entire population.
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
03 March 2014
28 June 2013
Trespassing in the Commune
I'm not much of one for ideology or party lines.
A few years ago I wrote some about illegal immigration:
http://biodieselhauling.
http://biodieselhauling.
http://biodieselhauling.
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2006/12/two-
You just might get the idea from those that I have some particular opinion on the issue.
But really, I was trying to point out what one side of the debate prefers to ignore.
That doesn't mean the issue is one-sided or simple.
The other side does just as good a job ignoring what it doesn't want to see.
Just like with the abortion debate, I mostly agree with the progressive side in practice, but I recognize that they are right for the wrong reasons, while in principal the conservative side at least gets the question right, even if they are mistaken about the answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a hippy commune, out in the country side. A few hundred people live there together, they come up with house rules, they all do chores, everyone contributes to the property taxes and insurance costs of the land and building and to a communal maintenance and repair fund. Lets say this particular commune works really well, they come up with a system to manage internal conflicts, they are reasonably self-sufficient, but everyone also has real jobs so they have cash for trading with the outside world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a hippy commune, out in the country side. A few hundred people live there together, they come up with house rules, they all do chores, everyone contributes to the property taxes and insurance costs of the land and building and to a communal maintenance and repair fund. Lets say this particular commune works really well, they come up with a system to manage internal conflicts, they are reasonably self-sufficient, but everyone also has real jobs so they have cash for trading with the outside world.
Sooner or later people are going to have children, and a new generation will be raised there.
Other times new people will want to join. These people are all about peace and love, sharing and community, but that doesn't mean they won't want to screen applicants. They want to know, as anyone would, if their prospective new member shares their values and work ethic and whether they are responsible. They may want to know about any drug addictions, criminal history, or if the applicant is employed. They may decide to allow someone to join who doesn't meet a particular criteria if they have a good explanation, that could be decided on a case-by-case basis, but it would be hard to find fault in the community for wanting to at least ask the questions. It is, after all, their home, and simply opening the floodgates would mean its rapid destruction.
Now lets say this place is so successful, so popular, that there is a waiting list to even be interviewed by the residents. But its a huge estate, and its hard to keep track of all the residents, not to mention all the guests and visitors, and someone gets the idea that instead of getting on the end of the waiting list, they can just come as a guest, and then just never leave - or maybe even sneak it through an open window.
They find a spare storage room that no one is using and set up a little bedroom in it. No interview, no lease agreement. They don't help pay for the property tax, but they do more than their share of chores, they contribute to the communal maintenance fund, and they follow all of the rules.
They find a spare storage room that no one is using and set up a little bedroom in it. No interview, no lease agreement. They don't help pay for the property tax, but they do more than their share of chores, they contribute to the communal maintenance fund, and they follow all of the rules.
This trespasser has not really done anything terrible. They are contributing their fair share. But they also snuck in without permission. When the residents figure out that they did, they are fairly likely to throw the trespasser out, or at least to consider it. If it takes long enough before they are caught, there's a chance they will have friends and advocates, but the very fact of having snuck in in the first place is likely to be a strike against them. And no matter how good of a roommate they have proved themselves to be, the fact remains that they are taking up a slot that could have otherwise been filled by someone who has been waiting on the waiting list.
Ultimately, whether they stay or go would be up to the official residents.
Would it be unreasonable if their ultimate decision is that the trespasser can not stay?
America - every nation - is essentially a commune: a community of people living together, sharing common interests, property (private property may exist as well, but so does public space) and resources. This land is home to all the people who were born here. As I pointed out in my earlier essays, no one "deserves" to be born any particular place, its nothing but luck - going back to the analogy, suppose none of the residents personally built the commune, say the estate was originally inherited long ago, and an entire generation has turned over since then. It is still their home, and they still have a right to demand that no one sneak into their windows and move in without permission.
When you look at it this way, arguments such as "I work hard", "I have family here", or "I have been here for 20 years" all seem a bit less reasonable or even relevant. If you feel you have a good reason, put it on your application, but its still ultimately up to the residents to admit you or not.
Why should any of that change just because the scale changes?
What does it really imply when someone wants to redefine illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers", because "no person is illegal"?
The logical conclusion is that there should be no boarders, that everyone should be able to live anywhere. New Zealand has low crime, high quality medical care, schools and transportation, and excellent weather. If I want to go there, the country is going to make me apply for a visa - and if I don't already have family there, a high level degree, a special skill and a job offer in the country, or a lot of money and a promise to invest there, chances are the application will be turned down. Just like in America, and every other country. If an American is in Taiwan on a work visa, and gets fired, the country will deport them.
If we open the flood gates, and half of Guatemala, 1/2 of Haiti, a quarter of Mexico and Jamaica, everyone in Somalia and most from Ethiopia, everyone who can scrape together any means of travel and lives somewhere poor, they all come to the US which no longer has any boarder patrol, no longer has any immigration service, no longer has any program for deportation, what happens then? Is life better for the new immigrants, in now ridiculously-crowded-with-
Some people are supportive of "undocumented" immigrants.
They say things like "no human being is illegal" (I just saw that on one of those petition / donation emails). They are focused on not punishing people for trying to find a better life, not breaking up families. They are focused on people, on individuals. They are looking at individual people, they see that people are unhappy, they don't like people being unhappy, so they don't like the situation or the rules, or whatever. But it seems like few, if any, want to take a step back and look at the big picture.
28 April 2010
Awareness of white privilege VS actually working to change it
- Apr 28, 2010
Awareness of white privilege VS actually working to change it
A couple friends of mine are taking a class on being a "white ally" - race awareness and relations, power and privileged, and counteracting racism.
One of them mentioned to me some critical feedback she had offered and it got me to thinking in more detail what has always bothered me about those sort of discussions, but up until now never quite pinned down.
The following is not a commentary on that class in particular, as I know essentially nothing about it, but rather a critique of a few general ideas I have heard and read on the topic in the past:
One of them mentioned to me some critical feedback she had offered and it got me to thinking in more detail what has always bothered me about those sort of discussions, but up until now never quite pinned down.
The following is not a commentary on that class in particular, as I know essentially nothing about it, but rather a critique of a few general ideas I have heard and read on the topic in the past:
1 There is no such thing as "people of color"
-The impact of past racism (including slavery) and present racism does not effect all races equally, nor all in the same way.
- A black american and a white american likely have more in common with each other than with a fresh-off-the-boat Vietnamese person. A white american whose family has been in the US for generations likely has more culture in common with a black american than with a first generation eastern european immigrant with whom they share skin color.
-The very term "people of color" encourages white people to think in terms of a false dichotomy of 'us' (all white people) and 'them' (everyone else). It not only homogenizes all other races, it also makes everyone not white into an "other".
-Lumping all non-white cultures into one category, while giving white an entire separate category in itself suggests a type of superiority.
-This dichotomy also discounts the existence of mixed race individuals (officially 2% of US society, but really much higher - most surveys, as well as society, force people to choose one identity, even if they are in fact mixed)
2 Historical racism is the single largest cause for modern black poverty, and poverty does generally correlate with crime. However no historical or sociological factors can excuse individual behavior. No matter what circumstances a person is born into, they have a choice about their own behavior. Apologizing for, ignoring, discounting, or explaining away black crime rates, drug rates, or general anti-social behavior (e.g. boombox on a crowded train) does nothing to increase equality, and does not bring less conscious white people about as allies.
3 Discrimination is explicitly illegal. Talking about "institutionalized" or "systemic" racism does not address the issues which are most relevant today. While there are still white supremacists in the US, their view has become as unacceptable in mainstream society as it once was only among civil-rights activists. The president of the US is 1/2 African. This does not mean that the conversation about race is over. However, it does mean it is time to change that conversation.
For example, talking about power hierarchies is mostly nonsensical today. If racism = racism + power (as is often claimed by race activists), this does not imply that only whites can be racist, because whites do not have any particular power over other races. There are minorities in the role of police officer, judge, congress person, boss, professor, etc. as well as whites in poverty, in jail, or otherwise powerless. If you ignore all individual circumstances and look only at the whole society, then no one can be racist, because society is no one person.
4 Rarely is it explicitly acknowledged how much - and in what way - individuals (primarily, but not exclusively, white) continue to benefit from past racism. This nation was taken by force from the American Indian, built largely by African slaves (as well as Asian indentured servants) and thanks largely to not only racism, but also inheritance and locally funded education, past disparities directly result in present disparities. Even if one's own ancestors never killed Indians or owned slaves, the mere fact of living in this country means you personally benefit from those who did.
-The impact of past racism (including slavery) and present racism does not effect all races equally, nor all in the same way.
- A black american and a white american likely have more in common with each other than with a fresh-off-the-boat Vietnamese person. A white american whose family has been in the US for generations likely has more culture in common with a black american than with a first generation eastern european immigrant with whom they share skin color.
-The very term "people of color" encourages white people to think in terms of a false dichotomy of 'us' (all white people) and 'them' (everyone else). It not only homogenizes all other races, it also makes everyone not white into an "other".
-Lumping all non-white cultures into one category, while giving white an entire separate category in itself suggests a type of superiority.
-This dichotomy also discounts the existence of mixed race individuals (officially 2% of US society, but really much higher - most surveys, as well as society, force people to choose one identity, even if they are in fact mixed)
2 Historical racism is the single largest cause for modern black poverty, and poverty does generally correlate with crime. However no historical or sociological factors can excuse individual behavior. No matter what circumstances a person is born into, they have a choice about their own behavior. Apologizing for, ignoring, discounting, or explaining away black crime rates, drug rates, or general anti-social behavior (e.g. boombox on a crowded train) does nothing to increase equality, and does not bring less conscious white people about as allies.
3 Discrimination is explicitly illegal. Talking about "institutionalized" or "systemic" racism does not address the issues which are most relevant today. While there are still white supremacists in the US, their view has become as unacceptable in mainstream society as it once was only among civil-rights activists. The president of the US is 1/2 African. This does not mean that the conversation about race is over. However, it does mean it is time to change that conversation.
For example, talking about power hierarchies is mostly nonsensical today. If racism = racism + power (as is often claimed by race activists), this does not imply that only whites can be racist, because whites do not have any particular power over other races. There are minorities in the role of police officer, judge, congress person, boss, professor, etc. as well as whites in poverty, in jail, or otherwise powerless. If you ignore all individual circumstances and look only at the whole society, then no one can be racist, because society is no one person.
4 Rarely is it explicitly acknowledged how much - and in what way - individuals (primarily, but not exclusively, white) continue to benefit from past racism. This nation was taken by force from the American Indian, built largely by African slaves (as well as Asian indentured servants) and thanks largely to not only racism, but also inheritance and locally funded education, past disparities directly result in present disparities. Even if one's own ancestors never killed Indians or owned slaves, the mere fact of living in this country means you personally benefit from those who did.
5 Not all non-white people are poor. Not all white people are middle class or wealthy. Class and race are not interchangeable. To speak about them as if they were interchangeable represents a stereotype - it implies a universal truth based on a statistic. The implication itself is racist.
Replacing discussions of poverty, economics, and class with discussions of race is a tool those with power (white, yes, but a special subset of white people - wealthy conservatives) use to polarize the working class. They emphasize criminals and welfare recipients (read: blacks) or immigrants (read: hispanics) and leave unspoken as a given the unity between white Americans of different classes. This helps prevent what should be a natural alliance of the lower class against those who exploit them.
6 What keeps the racial status quo in our society is not a social issue, but rather an economic one.
What too few people talk about is the way in which the condition of one generation affects the next.
After slavery blacks were supposed to get land. This was not a hand-out, but merely a way to compensate, to allow them to begin to catch up. This never happened.
Since poverty is inherited just as surely as wealth, the only way to level the playing field short of paying reparations (with 145 years interest) today would be a strict inheritance tax on not only the wealthy, but the middle class. This would include not only cash, but things such as houses and family businesses.
The single largest factor in predicting an individuals success in life is their education. Pre-school is the best indicator of how well a child does in school. It will be impossible to ever have a equal society without universal, mandatory, publicly financed pre-school. Schools in America are funded 50% or more by local taxes. This system guarantees that schools in poor areas are underfunded and schools in wealthy areas have better resources and an easier time keeping good teachers. Locally funded public schools is an amazingly effective method of retaining the status quo, while appearing on the surface to be neutral and fair. To counteract generations of inherited poverty, ignorance, and a cultural mindset of being separate from society, America should be offering fully funded college for all low-income high-school graduates. And because poverty and ignorance are inherited no matter one's color, this should be extended to anyone who can't afford it.
Racism, in the sense of individual people with power holding stereotypes about a race and acting on that prejudice against individual members of said race, is a relatively small factor in modern America. Formally institutionalized racism is a thing of the past.
Were all of society, at all levels, to suddenly become "color blind", the trends set in motion hundreds of years ago would continue none-the-less. For this reason educating individuals about the existence of "white privilege" can not do much to change anything. If energy is going to be invested into change, it should be invested where it will do the most good.
Its one thing to be aware of culturally insensitive language. It is another all together to recognize that the economic system we take for granted perpetuates the impact of slavery, and that no matter how aware one is in their personal relationships, you directly benefit from the current system - and then work to change that system, even if it means undermining your own economic advantages.
This would mean advocating significant increases in middle class taxes, to fund more social programs. This would mean taking the time to counter the "tea-party" people, pointing out that true justice demands a redistribution of wealth. It would mean protesting to get colleges fees raised, in order to pay for scholarships. This would mean, instead of donating money / time / materials to your own children's school, donating that same time and money to the poorer district a few miles away.
Me personally, I have been called ni**er on more than one occasion. But (not counting by other black people who use it casually - that is whole different topic) it has been in each case by a meth addict (one disowned by her family, and the other evicted from a trailer park). These are people with no power, no influence. These are people so low on the social strata, all they have left to feel even mildly good about themselves is to find someone to hate, for any reason they can. As much as it roils the blood to hear it, they are harmless. The people and ideas that maintain the status quo - including associations of particular races with poverty, drug use, crime, etc - are not overtly racist; in fact, in most cases not even necessarily sub-consciously racist. Racism set up the status quo, but economics is what maintains it.
Capitalism, the free market, individualism, and the republic system of government (as opposed to true democracy) all play a part in maintaining the present as it was in the past. If we want a just society, those are the things that we need to look at first.
Me personally, I have been called ni**er on more than one occasion. But (not counting by other black people who use it casually - that is whole different topic) it has been in each case by a meth addict (one disowned by her family, and the other evicted from a trailer park). These are people with no power, no influence. These are people so low on the social strata, all they have left to feel even mildly good about themselves is to find someone to hate, for any reason they can. As much as it roils the blood to hear it, they are harmless. The people and ideas that maintain the status quo - including associations of particular races with poverty, drug use, crime, etc - are not overtly racist; in fact, in most cases not even necessarily sub-consciously racist. Racism set up the status quo, but economics is what maintains it.
Capitalism, the free market, individualism, and the republic system of government (as opposed to true democracy) all play a part in maintaining the present as it was in the past. If we want a just society, those are the things that we need to look at first.
16 December 2006
Two immigration articles in a week
· Dec 16, 2006
Two immigration articles in a week
The first was The Nation, which is strongly liberal, entirely political.
The article was pro-immigration. Presumably the readership would be largely if not entirely liberal, yet the responses to the article, more than half of what was published, were negative.
That came as quite a surprise.
The second was Playboy, which is also consistently liberal, but which - for obvious reasons - has a more diverse readership.
It is too soon for anyone to have written in yet, but I know they will.
So, I wrote in to both. I have had several short letters to the editors published in the past couple of months (PopSci about energy efficiency, PopMec about the efficiency of living in an RV, and possibly Sierra Club on BioDiesel - they said they would, but I never found it).
Kind of like this blog, except much shorter - and read by thousands of people!
So, anyway, here is, more or less, what I wrote:
The article was pro-immigration. Presumably the readership would be largely if not entirely liberal, yet the responses to the article, more than half of what was published, were negative.
That came as quite a surprise.
The second was Playboy, which is also consistently liberal, but which - for obvious reasons - has a more diverse readership.
It is too soon for anyone to have written in yet, but I know they will.
So, I wrote in to both. I have had several short letters to the editors published in the past couple of months (PopSci about energy efficiency, PopMec about the efficiency of living in an RV, and possibly Sierra Club on BioDiesel - they said they would, but I never found it).
Kind of like this blog, except much shorter - and read by thousands of people!
So, anyway, here is, more or less, what I wrote:
I would like to write in support of "The Immigration Mess" in advance, because I know plenty of your readers will write in with the usual objections.
I'd be willing to wager that all of the people who object so strongly to illegal immigration personally use more than their share of world resources and energy.
The majority own things made in non union factories, or out of the country.
They don't realize that they personally benefit everyday from our exploitation of Mexico, as well as many other countries, not only here, but also from the low prices they get when our factories move to Mexico.
They did not object so strongly to NAFTA. They are OK with money passing over the border. Just not the people who that money might otherwise belong to.
More importantly, none of us earned being an American, and therefor they can't claim to deserve any of the privileges of living here.
They got lucky being born here.
They also draw distinction between legal and illegal. Whether something is legal is independent of whether it is moral.
Slavery was once legal, and alcohol was illegal. At one time forcing sex on ones wife was legal, but sodomy between consenting adults was illegal.
If those people who wrote in happened to have been born in poverty in another country, chances are they might feel a little different.
Lastly, we should all keep in mind that we took most of the South West from Mexico (4 1/2 states in exchange for only $15 million) after winning a war which we started.
o
16 September 2006
27; Join The California Resistance
· Sep 16, 2006
27; Join The California Resistance
I want to stop the rest of the country from moving in.
They all know this is the best place to live, that's why they keep coming in and driving our housing prices up. But those fuckers weren't born here, I was, why the hell should my tax dollars let them drive on my roads? They need to stay the fuck in Kansas or Ohio or New York or where ever the hell they keep coming from, cause we have enough people here already.
And as if that's not bad enough, they come bringing their republican and christian bull with them.
Look, if you come from Mexico, learn the fucking language. And if you come from Florida, learn the God damn political rhetoric! This is San Fransisco! We LIKE gay people here, so shut the fuck up, or go back to Idaho! This is OUR state. If you weren't born here, get out.
If you weren't born here, you don't deserve the chance to live here and get all it's benefits.
Who's with me!
Secede from the Union!!!
They all know this is the best place to live, that's why they keep coming in and driving our housing prices up. But those fuckers weren't born here, I was, why the hell should my tax dollars let them drive on my roads? They need to stay the fuck in Kansas or Ohio or New York or where ever the hell they keep coming from, cause we have enough people here already.
And as if that's not bad enough, they come bringing their republican and christian bull with them.
Look, if you come from Mexico, learn the fucking language. And if you come from Florida, learn the God damn political rhetoric! This is San Fransisco! We LIKE gay people here, so shut the fuck up, or go back to Idaho! This is OUR state. If you weren't born here, get out.
If you weren't born here, you don't deserve the chance to live here and get all it's benefits.
Who's with me!
Secede from the Union!!!
12 September 2006
23; On immigration
· Sep 12, 2006
23; On immigration
Imagine this:A man wins the lottery. He hits the big jackpot, 23 million dollars.
Then, he gets taxed 1/3 of it, 7.6Million dollars.
This means he just got 15.4 Million, which he didn't earn, which he doesn't especially deserve, but which he gets to use on whatever he wants.
And he bitches and moans about having to pay that 7mil in taxes
"Its so unfair, why should everyone else get to profit off of MY money? Why should MY money pay for roads and health care and schools and firemen and police? I can afford those things on my own, I don't need the government!"
Who here thinks this man is not a selfish ass?
But, realize, that this man is every American bitching about illegal immigrants.
You didn't "earn" being an American
YOU GOT LUCKY BY BEING BORN HERE
You don't deserve to be an American anymore than anyone else in the world.
You still have it better than 99% of the illegals who do make it in. You have a better job. You have a better house. You have more money. You have a better future.
You say you work hard - but if you give them a SS#, they can get a real job and work hard too.
You say they don't speak English, but then you turn around and complain that they enroll in public schools
THAT'S HOW THEY FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH
You want them to learn the language, let them go to school.
How obvious is that?
You want them to work and pay taxes, let them get papers so they can.
You think the population is too big, don't have children,
and set up protest rallies for all the people from NY and OH and the rest who keep moving here.
Why does someone born in Kansas have any more MORAL right to move here than someone born in Baja Norte?
Not to mention that Europeans got this land largely by deliberately spreading disease to the people who were already here. By whose standard is that "legal"?
If you want to distinguish between "legal" and "illegal", in all fairness we should require all American born individuals to take the standard citizenship exam, with deportation as the consequence for failure.
06 August 2006
VIII; in which National Origin is comparable to the lotto
VIII; in which National Origin is comparable to the lotto
Imagine this:
A man wins the lottery. He hits the big jackpot, 23 million dollars.
Then, he gets taxed 1/3 of it, 7.6Million dollars.
This means he just got 15.4 Million, which he didn't earn, which he doesn't especially deserve, but which he gets to use on whatever he wants.
And he bitches and moans about having to pay that 7mil in taxes
"Its so unfair, why should everyone else get to profit off of MY money? Why should MY money pay for roads and health care and schools and firemen and police? I can afford those things on my own, I don't need the government!"
Who here thinks this man is not a selfish ass?
But, realize, that this man is every American bitching about illegal immigrants.
You didn't "earn" being an American
YOU GOT LUCKY BY BEING BORN HERE
You don't deserve to be an American anymore than anyone else in the world.
You still have it better than 99% of the illegals who do make it in. You have a better job. You have a better house. You have more money. You have a better future.
You say you work hard - but if you give them a SS#, they can get a real job and work hard too.
You say they don't speak English, but then you turn around and complain that they enroll in public schools
THAT'S HOW THEY FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH
You want them to learn the language, let them go to school.
How obvious is that?
You want them to work and pay taxes, let them get papers so they can.
You think the population is too big, don't have children,
and set up protest rallies for all the people from NY and OH and the rest who keep moving here to CA
Why does someone born in Kansas have any more MORAL (as distinct from legal) right to move here than someone born in Baja Norte?
A man wins the lottery. He hits the big jackpot, 23 million dollars.
Then, he gets taxed 1/3 of it, 7.6Million dollars.
This means he just got 15.4 Million, which he didn't earn, which he doesn't especially deserve, but which he gets to use on whatever he wants.
And he bitches and moans about having to pay that 7mil in taxes
"Its so unfair, why should everyone else get to profit off of MY money? Why should MY money pay for roads and health care and schools and firemen and police? I can afford those things on my own, I don't need the government!"
Who here thinks this man is not a selfish ass?
But, realize, that this man is every American bitching about illegal immigrants.
You didn't "earn" being an American
YOU GOT LUCKY BY BEING BORN HERE
You don't deserve to be an American anymore than anyone else in the world.
You still have it better than 99% of the illegals who do make it in. You have a better job. You have a better house. You have more money. You have a better future.
You say you work hard - but if you give them a SS#, they can get a real job and work hard too.
You say they don't speak English, but then you turn around and complain that they enroll in public schools
THAT'S HOW THEY FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH
You want them to learn the language, let them go to school.
How obvious is that?
You want them to work and pay taxes, let them get papers so they can.
You think the population is too big, don't have children,
and set up protest rallies for all the people from NY and OH and the rest who keep moving here to CA
Why does someone born in Kansas have any more MORAL (as distinct from legal) right to move here than someone born in Baja Norte?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)