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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (146681)	11/11/2005 3:33:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794277

The sub-categories, legal, illegal, and refugee, most certainly do matter. Of course they matter. The just don't matter in the context of that piece, which was about whether countries embrace the melting pot like the US or demand Frenchness. If a country isolates immigrants like the French do, then they're going to get pretty cranky regardless of how they came to be there. If a country has illegal immigrants, as does the US, and if we deal with them in a way that makes the legal immigrants from their group think we're isolating that group, they will get cranky. You an I may be able to distinguish clearly between illegal and legal immigrants but related group members don't necessarily perceive it that way. When people feel estranged or insulted and react emotionally, they don't do nuance well. It's no different from, for example, when I comment on flat-earthers and Christians come out of the woodwork complaining that I'm dissing Christians, in general, when I'm not. Mexican Americans, for example, can't always differentiate between those who oppose illegal immigrants and people who oppose Mexican immigration. Fostering that polarization is not smart if we're to maintain a healthy melting pot.