Someone Made This Random Meme About Immigration And It's Awesome

[Playinghardball]

HA!


Found on the Facebook page of GOP : Greed. Oppression. Piety/MoveOn.org

[HopeHoops]

1. Yep.

[Curtland1015]

2. Love it.

Sharing it.

[southmost]

3. I don't get it..

why is this mexican looking girl dressed as a native american?

-sarcasm thingy

[hfojvt]

4. what exactly is that supposed to prove

other than the anti-immigrants point?

[Igel]

5. Too subtle.

Even hearing that those who are "anti-immigration" are often also "pro-immigration" doesn't lead to any kind of dissonance, and that strikes me as a fairly obvious point.

I mean, if you aren't aware that your own argument is an obvious strawman, spotting possible implications from your argument that obliquely support the opposition is probably not going to spontaneously happen.

[treestar]

7. How does it prove their point?

It shows them we are all descended from immigrants. We are all immigrants. Except for our Native American blood if we have any, we are here for entirely the same reason. Immigration. This is especially the case on this continent.

[hfojvt]

9. How does it not?

The Native American allowed, or could not stop, immigration and thus became a defeated, oppressed minority in what was once their own country.

If we, whose ancestors have been here for hundreds of years, do not get a handle on immigration, our descendants might find themselves to be an oppressed, defeated minority in what was once their own country.

Comprendo?

And if I got that wrong, lociento, no habla Espanyol.

[pampango]

10. "our descendants might find themselves to be an oppressed, defeated minority..."

And who will perpetrate the 'oppression' and 'defeat' of our descendants?

Just because history shows that white immigrants oppressed and defeated (and largely exterminated) Native Americans does not mean that current day Hispanic, Asian, African and European immigrants to the US are going to do the same. I see no evidence that modern immigrants show any intention to 'oppress' and 'defeat' those of us "whose ancestors have been here for hundreds of years".

In fact, Canada has 4 times the rate of immigration that the US has and they have a much more progressive and equitable society than we do. They embrace immigration and multiculturalism (it's protected in their constitution) and seem to have little fear of 'oppression' from new Canadians.

[hfojvt]

12. oppression can come in subtle ways

in jobs and hiring, for example. The gas station down the block from me was bought by some Pakistanis, or Pakistani immigrants. Well, once that happened, only Pakistanis were working there. The gas station across the street (presumably owned by non-Pakistanis) went out of business. Now it too has been bought by the Pakistanis who have put in a liquor store.

Another example, my graduate school roommate, from around Calcutta. He has now been in this country for 24 years or so, maybe 25. Having gotten his PhD, he has been working good paying jobs as a finance professor. Say, for 20 years at $60,000 a year. He's made $1.2 million in salary. To work in a classroom. Me, what have I been doing? In those same 20 years, I have been making less than $20,000 a year - to work in a hot, dirty, noisy factory, or to clean toilets. My income has been about $300,000 for those twenty years.

Granted, I only got an MA and he got a PhD. But he was also already married with two kids. Me, I wanted to get the hell done with school and start living an actual life. I felt like a moron when I went to my ten year reunion and had been going to more fucking school for 7 of the ten years, and had nothing but an $8,000 a year part-time job to show for it.

Also granted, my roommate is a) way, way smarter than I am, and b) also seemed to have gotten a superior education in India to my own in SD. So perhaps the USA benefits from his brilliance (somehow) but it seems like he sure has benefitted too, and if the country benefits, it is pretty clear that I do not. So my question would be, did my ancestors pay taxes to support the University of Wisconsin so that it could grant advanced degrees (and scholarships) to people from India who then take good paying jobs in Wisconsin while one of their grandsons works cleaning toilets?

My roommate's daughter has probably now graduated from Princeton, and will compete with my nieces and nephews for good jobs. I know that I am just a selfish racist bastard who would like to see my own family live decent lives, and get good jobs, but there it is. I'd like to see my own family prosper ahead of the family of that immigrant (even though he is an old friend (that I have not seen or spoken to in 22 years)), but I have my doubts that a Northwest Missouri State degree is gonna compete well against Princeton.

One more example. In 2010, I ran for Congress. Raised about $300 and spent $3,000 of my own money. Got a whole $50 from my classmates, thank you very much. Raj Goyle, an Indian immigrant who has a $70,000 (or more) a year job as a professor and also was in the Kansas Legislature. He ran for Congress, and raised over $1,000,000 - mostly from other Indian-Americans (heck my college roommate might even have donated to him). Hell, even DFA, where I WAS a monthly donor, endorsed him. This in spite of the fact that he was hardly a progressive and ran his campign with the message of "cut taxes, cut waste, in the legilsature I voted with Republicans 90% of the time" (and when I found that out, I stopped my monthly donation)). They would not have endorsed me, I am pretty sure, because they did not endorse the person who beat me in the primary and she is more progressive than I am, and I, for all my faults, am more progressive (at least on budget and taxes, if not on immigration) than Raj Goyle.

But money matters more than message in our political system and DFA probably has rich Indian-American donors who are far more important than I am. Raj's million was supposed to make him more electable. He got 37% of the vote, my opponent (who did almost no work) got 32%. My own goal was 40% and I would have done more work. (Which may not have mattered. After all, I did much more work in the primary and I still lost.)

So I am stuck down in the bottom quintile while those Indian-Americans are in the top quintile and apparently looking out for each other too. But what am I thinking. It's not like poor people are oppressed in this country. It's NOT intentional, it is just in the scramble to get ahead, some people have a head start and a community of support and others just get trampled.

But that does make me think. I should call my old roommate and my former graduate school classmates and see if they will contribute to my campaign for treasurer.

[treestar]

14. Your ancestors came and competed with previous Americans

Pakistanis are not taking over and oppressing us with gas stations. They are like previous immigrants, including your ancestors, who take the bottom level jobs.

The educated immigrant is a newer phenomenon, but they achieve and their actions help create jobs for the rest of us. Hell, it's better than jobs going to India directly.

Smart people coming here is a good thing. Einstein and others like him came here. Why here? Because it's a great place. And they add their talents, rather than keeping them for their home country.

[hfojvt]

17. Well how is a teaching job at the University of Northern Michigan gonna goto India?

And my ancestors competed so that their children could have good lives.

I'd like to see a study showing that all of these immigrants taking good jobs, or even taking bottom level jobs (which I am sure is a big consolation for the natives who have lost their bottom level jobs when a Pakistani bought the frigging business. (Yeah, there's a guy at the bottom, the owner of a gas station).

You just assume that we are all better off, as if by the actions of an invisible hand (or some sort of trickle down - my roommate's $1.2 million in earnings trickles down to me where it becomes $300,000, or maybe he just trickles into a urinal which keeps me employed cleaning it.)

Sure, Einstein came here, but what did he bring, exactly? It was the native Edison who gave us the light bulb, the phonograph, etc.

Smart people come here because there is no way they could make $1.2 million for teaching twenty years in India.

[treestar]

20. If someone came from abroad to teach at the U. of Michigan

Then we can be certain that person was someone who will add to the University and whose contribution will lead to more jobs here.

[treestar]

13. That is hardly likely is it?

We have built up a huge civilization. But we should stay mindful that we did so on someone else's continent. And we should not oppress those individuals and most of all, have some sympathy for those who are coming now (when we were lucky enough that our ancestors did it for us).

[hfojvt]

18. you think 40 million people

and their descendants and their anchor babies are not gonna have a big impact on 270 million people (or less). In 2010, according to wik, there were 40,500,000 foreign born people in the United States. Again, that does not include the people whose parents are foreign born (which would include my cousin's kids since his wife was born in Brazil).

How many on DU are always gloating that it won't be long before white people are not the majority in this country?

Sure, no impact at all. It's not like my nieces and nephews need to learn Spanish to increase their chance of getting a good job.

Silly me, back when I was in school in 1976, I had a choice between Spanish and German, and I chose to go with my German heritage instead of bowing to our new Hispanic overlords. Muy stupido. Muy stupido. Dummkopf.

[treestar]

19. Spanish is pretty much the second language of the US

I'm OK with that. In other countries there are hundreds of languages.

People are going to be somewhere on Earth, and it doesn't have to be an even distribution. People are always going to move around. In fact there has been some information that Americans are leaving. All the more reason not to be so straight laced about it.

[jwirr]

6. Oh, yes.

[DCKit]

8. Sent to the S.O. who came to the U.S. illegally and went through hell in doing so.

I've always assumed he had more right to the benefits of this country than I do.


Fucking Pilgrims.

[pampango]

11. Here's another graphic on immigration - History Marches On: Nativism Marches in Place

The immigrant "enemy" changes but the fear of them never does.

[treestar]

15. Yes. Know-Nothing propaganda from the 19th century

is shockingly and amazingly the same shit as is said by the right wingers now.

[hfojvt]

16. the first one is kinda ironic

considering that a majority of the Superme Court is now Catholic.

And as for Jews, if I dare say it. They are 2.5% of the population, but 13% of the US Senate and 5.5% of the US House, including some top positions like House Majority Leader, chairman of the DCCC and chairwoman of the DNC.

I also remember from the Oxford Companion to SCOTUS "Beginning in the 1840s, Catholic immigrants protested the reading of the Protestant King James Bible in the nominally nonsectarian schools ..."

("but their concerns were rebuffed, sometimes violently, as in the Philadelphia Bible riots of 1843."

How about the fear that they will take a disproportionate share of power, or make changes in the society that they are immigrating to?

As for the 1850 quote about the Japanese. Well, I believe there were strict restrictions like the Chinese exclision act and the emergency quota act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act What would the US look like without them?

What would we look like today if the Immigration act had not passed in 1965?

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

— Ted Kennedy, chief Senate sponsor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.[28]

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Cellar Act, abolished the system of national-origin quotas. By equalizing immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations, which changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[29] While European immigrants accounted for nearly 60% of the total foreign population in 1970, they accounted for only 15% in 2000.[30] Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and again between 1970 and 1990.[31] In 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990,[32] which increased legal immigration to the United States by 40%.[33] Appointed by Bill Clinton,[34] the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended reducing legal immigration from about 800,000 people per year to approximately 550,000.[35] While an influx of new residents from different cultures presents some challenges, "the United States has always been energized by its immigrant populations," said President Bill Clinton in 1998. "America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants [...] They have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people."[36]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

Of course, wiki is being edited by some anti-immigration people, but are they wrong? Did immigration double between 1965 and 1970 and then double again by 1990 and then increase again by 40% after 1990?

Has this improved our country? Have all the new immigrants made this country better for the people who were already here (and their kids)? I'd like to see a study which attempts to answer those questions. Heck, maybe I should write a grant proposal so I could myself get paid to study that issue.

But consider this. Don't we complain (some of us) that the wages for working people have been stagnant since the 1970s? Well, basic economic theory would say that wages are set by the equilibrium of the demand for labor and the supply of labor. What happens in this model when you increase the supply?