Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (61836)	12/16/2002 4:56:29 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Is immigration policy determined in New York or Los Angeles? No, it is determined in Washington DC. I wonder what you would think of anti- Korean or Chicano rioting in either of those cities? I especially wonder what you would think if the anti- immigrant factions started firebombing Korean grocers or engaging in sniper attacks in the barrio. Would you consider such behavior "perfectly natural"? Now, you can object that there is no sovereignty question, but there is no question that in some towns and cities, immigrants threaten to take over local politics, at least. Is this reason enough to riot, or to kill them? The sovereignty question is critical. If the immigrants in the hypothetical cases you cite were openly declaring their intention to not only become a significant influence in local politics, but to secede from the union and establish a state unique to them, there would certainly be violence. If the immigrants had enlisted a powerful foreign sponsor that had declared its intention to ensure the establishment of such a state, the reaction would be overwhelming. Mexico is hardly a powerful sponsor, but can you imagine the result if Mexico released a “Balfour declaration” supporting the establishment of a Chicano state in southern California? Of course the local population wouldn’t resort to riots. They wouldn’t have to; they’d scream to Washington. What do you think they’d do, though, if there was no Washington around to scream to? Wouldn't you consider it likely that an element of racism was involved? That is natural too. Very likely. I have no doubt that racist feelings existed on both sides of that fence. I also have no doubt that the element that turned racist feelings into actual violence was the declared intention of the immigrant populace and its foreign sponsor to grant sovereignty over the area to the immigrant population.