Why do conservatives think that...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What project are you talking about?

The Manhattan Project.


Kidding...you'll have to read the previous posts.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


Well, speaking as an American of Mexican heritage, I'm pretty much against the idea of "low-level" terrorism happening in either country! [/url]

Low level in Quebec is ~3 deaths 40 years ago. That plus some grafitti now and then. I'm not sure Belgium has even had that much excitement.

(Of course, there are plenty of other examples in the rest of the world involving similar disputes that were quite bloody (the Basques leap to mind. As does Northern Ireland.))

Then why did you bring up Quebec and Belgium? Not to mention that NI has a hell of a different history than anybody should expect from a Hispanic population in the US...

Quebec is much more appropriate here than NI is.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Low level in Quebec is ~3 deaths 40 years ago. That plus some grafitti now and then. I'm not sure Belgium has even had that much excitement.

I'm sure the families of the people killed are most impressed with that.

As I recall, at least one major political leader in Belgium recently called for the dissolution of the country. And, for a while, Quebec was on the verge of secession itself. Not exactly signs of a healthy nation. Granted, Canada has more or less gotten its house in order since then. As far as I can tell, Belgium has not.

And don't underestimate Mexican chauvanism. Politicians there have made careers based on American-bashing. Revival of revanchist attitudes is always a possibility.

(Of course, there are plenty of other examples in the rest of the world involving similar disputes that were quite bloody (the Basques leap to mind. As does Northern Ireland.))

Then why did you bring up Quebec and Belgium? Not to mention that NI has a hell of a different history than anybody should expect from a Hispanic population in the US...

Quebec is much more appropriate here than NI is. [/QUOTE]

Maybe. Maybe not.

But why push it? To ask the question again:

And the fact that, as you correctly point out, such violence has happened in the past in the United States perhaps makes the argument stronger to create a firewall against the possibility of this occurring in the future, no?

(Of course, there are plenty of other examples in the rest of the world involving similar disputes that were quite bloody (the Basques leap to mind. As does Northern Ireland.))

It also doesn't take much imagination to see the potential for conflict, particularly when the country from which so many of these immigrants come from still nurses grievances against the U.S. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lap...o-reconque.html

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by jkp1187
As I recall, at least one major political leader in Belgium recently called for the dissolution of the country.

You recall wrongly.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


I'm sure the families of the people killed are most impressed with that.

Given who at least one of them was I'd be surprised if his family thinks that the distinct cultural identity of Quebecers would have been worth sacrificing to save his life. As a matter of fact, I know one of his nephews, so I know for a fact that not all of them do.

As I recall, at least one major political leader in Belgium recently called for the dissolution of the country. And, for a while, Quebec was on the verge of secession itself. Not exactly signs of a healthy polity.

Why not?

[KrazyHorse]

And the fact that, as you correctly point out, such violence has happened in the past in the United States perhaps makes the argument stronger to create a firewall against the possibility of this occurring in the future, no?

No, it argues against violent repression of minority rights. The worse the oppression the worse the resulting terror. Less oppression (QC, Belgium) = less terror...

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


You recall wrongly.

You're right. This is what I was thinking of:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/20/news/belgium.php

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

And the fact that, as you correctly point out, such violence has happened in the past in the United States perhaps makes the argument stronger to create a firewall against the possibility of this occurring in the future, no?

No, it argues against violent repression of minority rights. The worse the oppression the worse the resulting terror. Less oppression (QC, Belgium) = less terror...

Restricting immigration isn't any kind of repression of minority rights.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Given who at least one of them was I'd be surprised if his family thinks that the distinct cultural identity of Quebecers would have been worth sacrificing to save his life. As a matter of fact, I know one of his nephews, so I know for a fact that not all of them do.

I will take your word that you do, and that your representations are accurate, but I can only say that I do not approve of those moral sentiments.

Why not?

Because...a house divided against itself cannot long stand.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by jkp1187
Would you agree or disagree that having a minority culture group that consciously keeps itself separated from the mainstream might set up the country for future problems? Examples in other countries (Quebec or Belgium, for instance,) are not necessarily encouraging.

I'm not sure which minority group you're speaking of. Probably not the Frenchspeakers, since it's the Dutchspeakers that are usually supposed to be the baddies, but then those aren't a minority. And then I also fail to see how a group that consistently delivered the PM for decades is separating from the mainstream (of which they are the majority).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Restricting immigration isn't any kind of repression of minority rights.

I never said it was, young Kuci. Please read more closely.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187

Because...a house divided against itself cannot long stand.

So they'll move into another house next door. And?

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by jkp1187


You're right. This is what I was thinking of:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/20/news/belgium.php

Where is that major political leader you speak of?

Moreover, that article was written when the excitement over the end of Belgium was at its greatest, stirred up by the extremists (on both sides) and eagerly parroted by foreign media.

[Ecthy]

Sigh.. we were so close...

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

And the fact that, as you correctly point out, such violence has happened in the past in the United States perhaps makes the argument stronger to create a firewall against the possibility of this occurring in the future, no?

No, it argues against violent repression of minority rights. The worse the oppression the worse the resulting terror. Less oppression (QC, Belgium) = less terror...

I am not quite sure what "minority rights" are. There are individual rights that everyone is entitled to, but I cannot conceive of a "right" that one man would have that another one would not simply by dint of his ethnicity. (Certainly, legal privileges can always be granted by legislative fiat, but I would hardly call those "rights".)

You are quite right that repression of anyone, for any reason, is a common cause of violence. But repressive policies tend to gain support when people feel threatened. Right now, rightly or wrongly, some Americans are feeling threatened both by the cultural effects of large-scale immigration from Latin America, and by the possible security risk that America's porous borders may present. Is it inappropriate to concede to them a more restrictive policy vis-a-vis immigration now, to reduce those concerns, and thus make it less likely that support for repression (either official or unofficial) will occur in the future?

After all, there is no right under the U.S. Constitution for foreign nationals to immigrate to the United States. That is a matter for Americans alone to determine.

The reason I keep pressing the discussion is because there is a tendency in supporters of immigration to dismiss the anti-immigration folk as nativist know-nothings. I think that if an effective compromise is to be made on immigration policy for now, the real concerns of the other side need to be recognized and addressed.