This was true of the immigrants I talked to in WPB as well just a few months ago - I think you and I discussed this before - coming here and getting everything in just a matter of months. New house, new truck, all the gizmos and gadgets and such. It must be great coming from a third world existence to first world in just a few months. What bothered me was the cuban people I talked too really seemed to hate the other groups that were coming in - can't we all just get along?
My poor farmer grandpa said you are too damned spoiled shades - you think a hard days work is clicking some buttons and watching barnaby jones at the end of the day (grandpa liked barnaby jones) - that was almost 20 years ago.
I have a friend that came from mexico - studied here in the states for a time - then went to australia to study nanotech - he couldn't find work after graduating so is back in small town south ga working as a manager of a small electronics business - great guy but this was his best chance at a nice life I suppose.
lasvegassun.com
Today: December 05, 2005 at 9:2:43 PST
Crossing the line?
Concerns arise as anti-immigration groups become more prevalent in valley
By Timothy Pratt <timothy@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun
Hundreds of local residents sit in cushioned chairs at monthly meetings at convention centers, downtown casinos and Elks' lodges, listening to guest speakers recite scary statistics about millions of people, mostly Mexicans, crossing the border.
At some of the meetings, people in the audience cry out for a civil war if nothing is done to stop illegal immigration soon.
The same theme inspired a downtown Las Vegas billboard that was the subject of controversy earlier this year. With arrows pointing from Mexico to the United States, it drew dozens to protest in the street below and even anonymous arson threats leveled at a business located below the sign....
....Dean Ishman, president of the NAACP's Las Vegas chapter, said he does not trust most anti-immigration groups, even though he may agree with part of their message. He does not support illegal immigration, for example, and thinks the immigration system should be reformed.
Uh! Can't we all just get along?
miami.com
Last year, Samuel Huntington, a world-renowned Harvard University political scientist, made headlines with a book called Who We Are, in which he warned with alarm that America's territorial integrity is being threatened by the country's growing Hispanic population.
HISPANIC INFLUX
Huntington's book argued that, unlike previous immigrants, Hispanics come from a poverty-ridden neighboring country, are entering the United States massively, concentrate in a few U.S. states, and are maintaining their native language.
Worst, he says, they come from a country that is still sore at having lost half its territory to the United States, and they ''could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory.'' (If you wonder why I think all of this is Hispanic-phobic rubbish, I invite you to read my Feb. 26, 2004, column posted on Herald.com; click on Today's Extras).
Now, a soon-to-be-published book by Juan Enriquez, a former Harvard professor turned genomics entrepreneur, makes a far more insightful case for the likelihood of new states -- or countries -- in the Americas.
A CHANGING WORLD
His book, The Untied States of America , reminds us that, in 1950, the United Nations had 50 member countries. Today, the number has grown to 191.
And the trend seems to be toward more new countries. From 1900 to 1950 the world saw an average of 1.2 new countries a year; from 1950 to 1990 the rate grew to 2.2 new countries a year; and between 1990 and now, to 3.1 new nations a year.
''We have paid little attention to how many countries split and disappear because our own hemisphere has been remarkably stable,'' Enriquez says. ``We have generated no true new borders on the American continent since 1910. But this stability may be coming to an end.''
DIVIDING LINES
Countries, like marriages or corporations, often reach a breaking point, and split up or die. Most often, it is the richest regions -- not the poorest ones -- that seek to ''untie'' first. They feel they are giving more than they are getting from their current partnerships, and they want out, he says.
In the United States, rich states such as New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Minnesota are increasingly angry about giving more in taxes than they are getting back. Noting that most of these are ''blue'' [Democratic] states and are not part of the southern U.S. Bible Belt, he says their residents ``have a lot more in common with Canadians than they do with those living in red [pro-Bush] states.''
Rather than a Mexican takeover of southern U.S. states, we may see Hispanic populations in southern U.S. states and northern Mexico seeking ''in-between states'' a la Puerto Rico, perhaps -- if they feel alienated from their respective central governments, he says. Watch ongoing regional autonomy drives in Britain and Spain, he says.
In Mexico, Enriquez sees a possible breakup in four nations: the north (``NAFTA country''), Central Mexico (Mexico City and its surroundings), indigenous Mexico (Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca) and the new Maya (Yucatán, Campeche and Quintana Roo).
AN UNLIKELY EVENT
My opinion? I doubt we'll see a flurry of new countries in the Americas. (However, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bolivia's wealthy Santa Cruz region following that route in the event that radical Indian candidate Evo Morales takes power through a ''street coup'' in the event of losing next month's presidential elections).
But, as any Old World map reminds us, things change. Most likely, as Enriquez himself admits, barring a significant improvement in good governance, we may see a growing trend toward unhappy regions seeking greater autonomy within an umbrella of free association, or common markets.
The elements are there: unhappy regions, governments that are progressively unable to satisfy their people's expectations and supranational projects. |
