This thread was created in anticipation of AG's demise.

I never considered that aspect before, but its an interesting point. The Spanish settlers of New Mexico and southern Colorado (many of whom can trace their ancestry back to the time when Mexico was still a colony of Spain), were deprived of important land and water rights which had been given them by law from the Spanish Crown.

Naturally, when the US won the Mexican American War, it had little interest in any legal documents between inhabitants who had been there for almost 200 years and any treaties they might have had with a foreign nation. The US usurped any water rights (VERY important in the arid American West) and rights to common grazing lands that the people who were living there once had. This was done (as always) to benefit a few backers of the administration currently in power. Whatever lands these sycophants didn't want were later turned over to the Forest Service and the BLM. Without water to irrigate their fields and land on which to allow their stock to graze, the small farmers who had at least been making a living were turned ultimately into welfare recipients and deemed "lazy Mexicans."

If you ever drive through Magdalena, New Mexico and get a rock thrown through you're windshield, you'll now know why. :eyebrow:

While history is important, immigration today is a different matter. It's hard to disassociate the two statements these days - control vs don't like foreigners.
For as long as I can remember the population here hovered around 55 million. Suddenly in the last few years its catapulted to 60 million (and these are government 'official' figures which we know are incorect - lower than the reality).

This has all come about because of uncontrolled immigration. What has it meant? People being exploited, hopes of the arrivals dashed, anger at such an outcome, country's resources stretched to breaking point (health service, housing, state aid), and more negative results. It is this outcome that breeds/feeds distrust and intolerance from the existing population. Result: growth in racial tensions and violence, crime etc.

Much as I hate to see controls, it equally does no one any good to allow a free-for-all. IMO that will create more problems. Controls, however distasteful on the surface give the proscess of immigrant integration a chance to work, and so prevent discrimination - but only if the control is undertaken in the context of a country's ability to sustain the increase in its population vis-a-vis its services and opportunities, and not for reasons of colour, race or creed.

Note the US looks like it's going to "pop". How can we possibly let this go on unchecked?

Who the hell is immigrating to the Middle East? Unless they're counting refugees who go back and forth.

Quite a few people, actually. The Middle East is not all about war torn Iraq or Palestine. Its also about countries and sheikdoms which have become VERY wealthy off of oil money. People from the poorer countries of Africa and S.E. Asia have been immigrating their in droves to face often miserable working conditions and a hostile native population (sound familiar?) There was recently a huge strike by migrant workers in Dubai over draconian treatment and low wages. (Dubai Ports, anyone?)

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous UN agency engaging in multidisciplinary research on the social dimensions of contemporary problems affecting development.

From a recent UNRISD report:

The major influx of foreign workers into the Middle East began following the oil price boom in 1973, which resulted in an enormous surge of wealth for the Arab Gulf states (United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC). The Gulf countries were faced with grand development plans and the funds to pay for them, but with a totally inadequate workforce: the GCC countries had a combined workforce of only 1.36 million. Initially, both skilled and unskilled workers from other Arab countries (principally Egyptians, Yemenis, Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Sudanese) and from Asia (mainly Pakistanis and Indians) almost doubled the populations of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait within the decade between 1975 and 1985. By the early 1980s, an increasing number of migrants were recruited from Southeast Asia. Until the end of the 1980s, these comprised over half of the Asian migration to the Middle East.

In 1985, oil prices fell rapidly, prompting a cutback in infrastructure development in the Gulf states, and migration from Asia dropped by almost one-third. This fall was less severe because of the growth in employment in the service sector, which absorbed large numbers of workers, especially women from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines. At the same time, the numbers of expatriate migrants from other Arab states were being reduced, as often for political reasons as for economic.

Unlike the Arab sending countries, Asian governments pursued active policies
for overseas employment, partly to alleviate unemployment and partly to generate foreign income. Their labour force became a major export item that generated considerable earnings. For example, in 1999 total remittances to Sri Lanka from workers abroad totalled $1 billion, which constituted around 20 per cent of foreign goods imports for the previous year and more than the trade deficit of $0.7 billion.

As increasing numbers of “cheap” foreign workers from Asian and African countries have fulfilled the demand for unskilled workers, so the particular kinds of jobs found in the secondary labour markets have become racialized. That is, the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs become associated with foreign (Asian and African) workers to such a degree that nationals in these countries refuse to undertake them, despite high levels of poverty and unemployment.

If the above weren't bad enough, there have been reports of children as young as two years old being kidnapped to function as camel jockies in the highly popular Arab sport of camel racing. These children are captured by local gangs in their home countries and sold as slaves to the Middle East Camel Racing crowd. Once the children become too old (and too heavy) to make good jockies anymore, they face an existance as low paid stable hands at best, being dumped back into the nearest poor country whether that's where they originated from or not, or even being imprisoned as illegal immigrants.

I've got this one sussed, Wolf. Its real simple. If you are an oppressed minority, you cannot possibly be racist. If you are, say, Caucasian, American, and...gods forbid...*male*, it is impossible for you to be anything *but* racist. And sexist as well. Oppressed peoples who blame the Jews or the Americans or any other group that isn't them are simply giving voice to their oppression and identifying the responsible parties...or so the societal dogma would seem to indicate.

We've touched upon this here on The Cellar before, but I'll say it again. It is illegal to discriminate against anyone except for Caucasian Americans. I'm not saying I am personally oppressed, because I am not. I'm just noting how things have worked out. Political Correctness has more than done its part to push this bizarre state of affairs along, BTW, because Political Correctness is only required of the oppressors, and not the oppressed.

Having said all of this, I note an article in USA Today that stated that there is an investigation beginning into voting practices in one Southern county whereby the accusation is that non-black voters were being deprived of some voting rights. I didn't read it thoroughly, because I know it isn't going to go anywhere, but still...

From the NY Times of 9 Apr 2006:

My friend's mother was one of their attorneys, got at least one of her clients reidency status.