News

Guest Opinion: Palo Alto: How immigrant-friendly are we?

 

Republican presidential candidates' vitriol against immigrants -- and the apparent support it has elicited -- reminds me yet again of why, after more than 30 years, I'm still grateful to be living here.

No doubt some locals agree with these candidates' comments. But for the most part, the people I know appreciate immigrants' hard work and sympathize with the challenges they face.

That said, I wonder how immigrants -- and I'm focusing here on immigrants working in low-paying jobs -- perceive the rest of us. I thought about this as a result of a conversation I had with a young woman, a house cleaner from Mexico, who was surprised by how nicely her employer treated her because, she said, "I didn't think the American people liked the Mexican people." That got me thinking, "How immigrant-friendly are we?"

When I taught English as a Second Language to adults -- mostly minimum-wage service workers from Mexico and other parts of Latin America -- I'd ask my students to make a list of what they liked and didn't like about the U.S. There were lots of likes: the opportunities, jobs, education, safety. In the negative column the most frequent entry was "racism." Further conversation revealed that what students meant was a feeling, similar to the sentiment expressed by the house cleaner, that many Americans simply don't like them.

I would argue that, in this area, this perception has a lot to do with our culture: We tend to be so focused on our quest to achieve that we rarely find time to connect with the people who enable us to lead the productive -- and pleasure-filled -- lifestyles we've crafted. To the people who make that lifestyle possible, our aloofness could easily be interpreted as dislike or even disdain.

Think of how many immigrants you encounter in a week -- the person who cares for your garden or empties the trash in your office -- and how many of those people you take the time to talk with. If you're like most of us, such conversations are few and far between.

I remember suggesting to a friend that he take a few minutes out of his day to acknowledge the employees at the company cafe where he eats lunch every day, and he looked at me as if I was suggesting he befriend the ticket-taker at the movies. It wasn't that he harbored negative feelings towards the people who refill the salad bar. He just couldn't fathom why he should interact with them.

I get that not everyone feels comfortable chatting with strangers with whom they have little in common. But the flip side is that just introducing yourself to someone you see almost every day -- and then asking their name, or where they're from -- can go a long way toward making an outsider feel acknowledged, and maybe even respected.

But what about the bigger issues, the ones that go well beyond the niceties of making immigrants feel welcome? Where the Bay Area, in particular, falls short is providing service workers -- overwhelming immigrants -- a livable wage. A recent report from Joint Venture Silicon Valley found that the income gap between the highest-earning 20 percent of households in the Bay Area and the lowest-paid 20 percent has reached $263,000 -- a new record and 50 percent higher than the gap nationwide.

To its credit, the Palo Alto City Council approved an ordinance, effective Jan. 1, 2016, to increase the city's minimum wage to $11 and is investigating steps necessary to reach a $15 minimum wage by 2018. (Just so you know, an employee earning $15 an hour working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks has an annual salary of about $31,000 -- not much if you're trying to raise a family here.)

In recent months, we've also made some progress towards giving service workers a slightly bigger sliver of the high-tech pie. Google, for example, recently gave pay raises to its shuttle drivers. In May, Facebook said its contractors with more than 25 employees must pay those employees at least $15 an hour and provide sick leave and vacation. These changes have been spearheaded by Silicon Valley Rising, a coalition of labor unions, faith leaders and community-based organizations working for livable wages, affordable housing and corporate responsibility.

Most high-tech companies don't hire service workers. Rather, they hire contractors who hire the service workers. If you work for a company that employs service workers, you can have an impact just by asking questions about the wages and benefits your company's contractors provide.

"To have high-tech workers standing with service workers is incredibly powerful," says Maria Noel Fernandez, Silicon Valley Rising campaign director.

When my students tell me about the challenges they face -- working two jobs while taking ESL classes, paying $700 a month for a room in a house (without kitchen privileges), relying on buses because they can't afford a car -- I invariably ask the obvious: Wouldn't things be easier back home? Their predominant response is that, as difficult as their lives are -- and as much as they miss their families -- living here is far better than returning to where they came from.

So, as the host community, we have an out: We can pat ourselves on the back for giving immigrants the opportunity to work here. Or we can take the high road: We can make immigrants feel welcome. Equally important, we can support local initiatives -- free and low-cost medical care, tutoring programs for at-risk kids, scholarships for adult immigrants wanting to continue their education -- that demonstrate our commitment to the health and education of immigrants and their children who now call the Bay Area home.

Palo Alto resident Elizabeth Weal is executive director of Sequoia Adult School Scholars, a nonprofit that helps adult immigrants continue their education. You can reach her at ElizabethWeal@tenaya.com.

Comments

43 people like this
Posted by Better than Most
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2015 at 9:21 pm

I grew up as the child of a German-Jewish immigrant whose family, who were vintners, left Germany in 1911. Phylloxera lice had cross d the French border into Getmany, and after fighting the infestation for ten years in the Rhineland, my grandparents had to burn their vineyards and leave.

My father, who built ships for the Navy in WWII, was often accused of being a Nazi, even though he had emigrated to Wisconsin, and later Minnesota, as an infant before WWI!

Growing up, hardly a day went by that I was not accused of being a Nazi or threatened with being exposed to the government as a Nazi--even by teachers!!

To this day I have never seen racism or nationalism as minimal as it is in Palo Alto. Just go further inland and see ( esp the Central Valley: everyone there hates Jews, Asians, and Mexicans). Living here is the easiest and most stress-free I have ever had in my life!


5 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 18, 2015 at 9:52 pm

[Post removed.]


14 people like this
Posted by residnet 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 18, 2015 at 10:27 pm

I think it is unfortunate that this article was slanted with a political designation. The problem of immigrations is not a Republican or Democratic issue.

Why don't you wait for the Democratic debate to hear everyone speak.
If you get into politics now then that will not be the subject of immigration - it will just be everyone's political rants.

There is a huge population of people that came to America as a result of the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870's. The battle over who owned Strasbourg, Alsace Lorraine. My mother's father came as a teenager. He ended up at Stanford and died in the flu epidemic of the 1918 period. Much of San Francisco was built by the families that came at that time.

The railroad was built in part by the Irish immigrants who were escaping for the starvation in Ireland - the potato famine. Anyone who has done searches on their families knows that they have family members that came to America during bad times in Europe.
It is a disrespect to those relatives to sit and make this a political issue now.


32 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2015 at 10:59 pm

People need to understand the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. The whole country, democrats and republicans alike, are talking about getting illegal immigration under control. Illegal immigration is allowing criminals of all sorts into the country (just because they come through Mexico does not mean they are actually Mexican - terrorists could be coming through too because Mexico is not strict with their own immigration policies). The republicans are not anti-Mexican, they want to stop the illegal immigration THROUGH Mexico.

The republican debate was not anti-immigrant, it included controversial and meant-to-inflame questions about illegal immigration. Seriously, two of the republican candidates are sons of immigrants and a third is black.
How can anyone say with a straight face that republicans are "anti all non-white people, including non-white people who were born in the USA."

And yes, I take the time to talk with the people who serve me, clear my dishes in a restaurant, and mow my lawn. I support helping our immigrants succeed, and one way to do that is to be sure they are all legal immigrants and above being accused of anything illegal.

Finally, some of my ancestors came here in 1620, when there was nothing but a savage wilderness. No one gave them housing or food or help with education. There was no one to give them homes and jobs and almost half of the pilgrims died the first winter. Immigration to a country with hope is not a given, it is an opportunity and requires hard work and a desire to succeed. Immigrants today have it much easier than my earliest immigrant ancestors did.


35 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 18, 2015 at 10:59 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

The editorial and the responses are fundamentally dishonest because they don't differentiate legal and illegal immigration. Be honest, and write an editorial defending illegal immigration for a real conversation.

@resident - Democrats are more anti non-white people. They just use minorities to create an indentured welfare class that is politically beholden to them, but do nothing actually to help them. Obama is inviting poor central americans to die crossing the border to beg a few extra votes - that's cynical and the opposite of compassion.


19 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2015 at 11:05 pm

@Slow Down:

Dead on.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 7:59 am

As far as I know, there are very few native Americans living in Palo Alto. The rest of us are all immigrants.

Now if you want to talk about migrants, have a look at what is going on in Europe. This is not a European crisis, it is a global crisis. The people exiting Syria are running for their lives, quite literally. I don't think those leaving Mexico are in the same situation as those leaving Syria.


61 people like this
Posted by What about????
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 9:13 am

What about immigrants from China? They are getting their kids educated here, biding their time until the Communist government is overthrown. [Portion removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 9:57 am

Right now I am reading 'The Fall of the Ottomans" - this is the Ottoman Empire that was shredded as a result of WWI - and many times before that. You have the same caste of characters as today each trying to assert their ownership of a piece of land they can call their own - but unfortunately if that piece of land has no food or water then trouble is always brewing. Someone else always wants what you have - or you want what other people have. Religion plays a big part in this - who is in charge and influences the government and daily life. Also oil - they are all dependent on oil.

Then you can look at the Protestant reformation in Europe to see some real brutality and blood shed.

I am a great fan of James Michner - now dead - all of his books are about the socio-economic changes in any area that drive invasion by other countries. The Chinese were brought to Hawaii to work the fields but soon escaped that situation to set up markets and restaurants. Same story in California when they were high jacked on ships to come work on the Railroad - they escaped that situation and set up markets and restaurants.

Slavery is not new or American - it has happened all over the world.

In his book "Caravans" about Afghanistan that country has always been in play based on the minerals and strategic location. That country did not pop up for the Busch Administration - it was always a major goal to get cooperation from that country that was boiling with tribal confrontations..

None of those countries and situations are new - they have always been simmering based on global political turmoil.

And you can come back today to check out the Democratic Party leader on her position on immigration - check out Ruben Navarrette's article in the SJM, SFC - "Both Parties failing on Immigration Issues". The poster's favorite candidate - she stated in 2003 she was adamantly against Illegal Immigration and in 2006 voted for the Secure Fence Bill. And last summer she told CNN that unaccompanied children who fled in the US should be sent back. Hopefully she will be asked those questions during the debate for her party - or will the press give her a free pass.


13 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 10:13 am

@Slow Down - agreed. This game plan by liberals are all the same. Just like Joe Simitian using the BV issue to pander for votes despite against all common sense. No wonder why an entertainer like Mr. Trump resonates so well for the rest of America unfortunately!


13 people like this
Posted by maditalian_1492
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 19, 2015 at 10:37 am

Thank you @Slow Down. From politicians, news sites, activists, etc. the word "legal" is usually left out of the description. I've interrupted a few people who were talking about the issue and told them that one important word was missing from the conversation. My mother and her family came from Italy in the early 1900s legally, and every one of them took the time to learn English and every one of them took the oath of citizenship. I have no problem with legal immigration.


22 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 11:16 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ resident:

[Portion removed.] I hope that you don't really believe that Republicans are "anti all non-white people, including non-white people who were born in the USA."

As a young Conservative Hispanic woman (and a legal immigrant), there are no words to describe just how incredibly ludicrous such a comment is. Yes, there are some people who believe such silly generalizations and stereotypes of others, but I have never known any Conservatives or Republicans who did not hate racism.

There is a difference between believing in immigration enforcement and being a "racist." This is a nation of immigrants from all over the world -- but we live in a time (and economy) in which we can't pretend that "open borders" is a legitimate or rational immigration policy.


25 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 11:36 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

BTW, I know many people in our Hispanic community who reject Jorge Ramos and his criticism of enforced immigration policy. While Mr. Ramos criticizes any plan to deport anyone from this nation or actually enforce immigration policy, he never articulates (on television or in print) any favored alternative. He simply criticizes any plan that enforces immigration policy or deports anyone who entered this nation illegally.

You know why that is?

Ramos is simply catering to his television audience and constituency. The narrative has been controlled on Latin American television to the point that it presents only a silly generalization of the issue -- as though any enforcement of immigration policy is xenophobic or racist in motive. They never explain the difference between race, ethnicity and NATIONALITY. They never explain the economic hit to the American economy from illegal immigration.

Why?

The goal of many foreign Latin Americans is for this nation to NOT enforce immigration policy at all. Jorge Ramos & Co. cannot state this because they would lose favor with even some that are sympathetic with the individual plights of immigrants. However, there is a growing movement that pretends that the United States should NOT have any immigration policy on the southern border. They claim that the U.S. doesn't have any immigration policy on the northern border (a silly and dishonest claim) or that American policy toward the southern border -- invaded by millions -- should be the same as border policy on the northern border or east and west coasts.

Sadly, the defense that is often invoked on Latin American television (especially in Mexico) is to point the finger at European "immigrants" during colonial times as a justification that Latin American immigrants be unrestricted in their ability to move into the United States and stake residency here (and an ability to be a part of the social welfare and employment system).

Meanwhile, the politicians, drug trade and upper class of Mexico encourages the continued non-enforcement of U.S. immigration policy. They see this as little more than a way to offset any type of reforms that are vitally needed that would stave off the flight of the poor from Mexico to the U.S. Why should Mexico care for such people if they can simply encourage them to move to the U.S?

This nation must enforce immigration policy. Illegal immigration has to be cut off -- including the reasons why they ignore the law and the reasons why they come in the first place. Failing to do so cheapens what so many legal residents -- like my family -- worked so hard for.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 11:58 am

Nayeli

You miss my point entirely.

Of course I don't believe that there should be no immigrants here. The comment was meant to remind us that we all have a common immigrant background. This country is entirely made up of immigrants and anyone who thinks that legal immigration should end or that immigrants haven't proven their worth need to dig deeper into history.

No I do agree with others who have commented that the word legal and illegal are not being used in the OP. There is a huge difference. Likewise, many people born American are now happily living in other parts of the world, once again legally. In the modern world legal migration is a strength not a problem.

However, my point still stands about the migrants in Europe. They are fleeing a death sentence if they stay in their homeland. That can't be said for most of the illegal migrants entering the USA from points south. I would most definitely be in favor of the US accepting some of these people from Europe. Hopefully they may be able to return to their homeland at some time in the future and they immigration status could reflect that. But ignoring them thinking it is a European issue is just plain wrong as far as I can see.


2 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2015 at 12:07 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

@Quit it, this nation was founded by caucasian illegal immigrant from the British isles who repaid the indigenous natives who helped them survive in an unfamiliar land by forcibly taking away their land and committing genocidal acts against them. Although in my situation, my parents arrived in the US from Europe after ww2, I never felt that i had any right to call people with Indian blood who arrive here, legally or otherwise, illegal immigrants, since they still have more rights to this land than i do. I would be very careful about aping the Faux "News""illegal immigrats" nonsense.


11 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 12:21 pm

Why is it so hard to comprehend the concept of "legal" vs "illegal" immigration? Take a look at all the Latin countries especially in Mexico. Mexican government systematically round up all the illegals from Guatamala, Honduras and other neighboring countries and booted them out like it or not. The ones that remained, are living in real crappy condition akin to POW camps. Why can't we enforce our own borders without bleeding hearts cry foul? Double standard?

Even Mr. Trump -an entertainer- knows that a country needs real border and immigrants need to enter thus country legally through an established process. Ever wonder why Mr. Trump is leading by a wide margin despite gaffes coming out from his mouth?


21 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 12:22 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Resident - I think that you misunderstand. I wasn't replying to you (at least I don't think that I was). I was replying to the first "resident" who wrote the following: "The Republican base is not really anti-immigrant. They anti all non-white people, including non-white people who were born in the USA. Anti-immigration is really just a codeword for white supremacy."


13 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 12:29 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Resident - I apologize if you thought that I was directing my comment to you. I think that the problem is that there are, perhaps, two or three people using the word "resident" as their username. There is a "resident," "Resident," "resident 1" and "residnet 1."

I took offense to the first "resident" poster's generalization and stereotype of Republicans as being racially motivated. I found it an over-the-top slur and grossly inaccurate -- and almost as ludicrous as when someone brings up "Faux News" into a discussion just to muddy the water.


10 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Comment on Mexico - look at the president and his wife - photogenic people who live in luxury and travel the world. Beautifully dressed and in top magazines.

Mexico is now running assembly lines for the US automobile industry in Mexico; they have a huge petroleum industry; they have an agricultural industry. Mexico City has art, music, good transportation, luxury hotels. Mexico has colleges and universities.

So the question on the table is why we would allow illegal immigration from a country that has the amenities to take care of their people.

It is their job to expand their educational system, provide jobs for their people, and provide medical care for their people. They may prefer to spend their money in some other manner - but guess what - we would prefer to spend our money on our own people.

Our own people are now struggling from fire, flooding, drought - we need to take care of our own people.

As to the people in Europe - notice that the people crawling over the fences are young, angry men who are demanding their rights. So why are they not storming the government in the countries they are coming from and demanding their rights? There is more of them than the people in power - take their power away.


3 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2015 at 1:03 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Trump is leading the primaries of a very racist and regressive political party by appealing to the most racist elements of that party. it's hardly surprising that he's leading the GOP primaries, as the other candidates are only now trying to catch up to his ridiculous xenophobia and racism. He took a page from pre WW2 European fascism which targeted their own scapegoats, we all remember who they were, and he does have his own.

For the record, Trump's (an anglicized German name) grandfather was an illegal immigrant for about eight years before becoming a legal resident alien. it's so ironic that this below average entertainer is riling up racist Americans over illegal immigration.


20 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 19, 2015 at 1:07 pm

It is too cute to pretend there is no difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. I think we all know better. Politics is truly poisoning this country with false outrage over non-issues and pretend non-clarity over things we fully recognize.

Every country has the right to control its borders and have a systematic method of permitting or not permitting others to visit temporarily or immigrate permanently. Otherwise, it is crystal clear this is a ploy to drain the United States taxpayers of their wealth for no legitimate basis.

By the way, the United States taxpayers on a governmental level as well as individual level are incredibly generous and giving to others in need. But we have the right to have the rule of law and reasonable systems in place to operate this country, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

In whatever era, if you move to the U.S. you can and should to some degree maintain your earlier culture and perhaps language. However, you primarily should strive to become American, learn about and appreciate our laws, history and culture and become an informed voter when the time comes if you take the oath of citizenship. I was stunned to read of Emily Blunt (I believe), a young Hollywood actress, stating in the media the other day how much she hates the U.S. and regretting becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen recently. Disgusting!

I am also concerned about apparent efforts to give benefits to illegals in an effort to win goodwill and future votes from ill-educated populations.


12 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 1:08 pm

@mauricio:

While I agree that what we did to the Native Americans is horrendous, I disagree that the pilgrims came here as "illegal immigrants." In order to be illegal they would have had to break a law, and the Native Americans had no such notion of property ownership and national sovereignty.

No clue what your final sentence is meant to communicate.


4 people like this
Posted by Commentator
a resident of Professorville
on Sep 19, 2015 at 1:10 pm

"So the question on the table is why we would allow illegal immigration from a country that has the amenities to take care of their people."

Because they work very cheap and, better yet, they provide a highly disposable work force. Native-born American workers are tracking in that direction, but until they fully arrive in that employers' nirvana, illegal immigrants will be very, very welcome.

Besides, they are wonderfully exploitable by politicians dog-whistling to voters in the Republican Base, not to mention the honestly plain-spoken Mr. Trump.

That's why we allow, even welcome, illegal immigrants.


7 people like this
Posted by PAmoderate
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 19, 2015 at 1:56 pm

PAmoderate is a registered user.

"this nation was founded by caucasian illegal immigrant from the British isles "

Right. As if there was a comprehensive governing body and recognized borders back in the 1600's.

As usual - red herring.

Actually Palo Alto is pretty anti-immigrant in the broadest sense of the word. Just look at the people who want to keep others out (see Los Robles) and those who do not want any development because they want to keep Palo Alto the way they remember it 20-40 years ago.

And it's ironic that those who want to ossify Palo Alto to keep others out probably vote Democrat.


13 people like this
Posted by Carlos
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 19, 2015 at 2:51 pm

Despite claiming to be progressive and open-minded, our community can be as anti-immigrant or racist as some of the audiences targeted by the Republican candidates. Just read some of the hateful and ignorant comments posted on this forum to get an idea.
Illegal immigration is a big issue that hasn't been properly addressed, but it's being used as an excuse by some of the bigots in this community to bash their targets of choice (Mexicans, Chinese, etc), regardless of immigration status. Let's face it, the old-time residents aren't used to the types of demographic changes this area has experienced with the tech boom, and bashing the newcomers is a convenient way to express their frustration. They'd better sell their places at a good price before the market cools down and before they get surrounded by foreign neighbors. So scary...
As Darwin discovered, you need to adapt to your surroundings if you don't want to become extinct. Or move a few hours inland.


22 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 3:16 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

I feel sorry for those who cannot understand the difference between welcoming LEGAL immigration and saying no to ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigrants should be welcomed with open arms. Illegal immigrants should not be here. There is nothing "racist" about this. It is a matter of nationality and law and not race and cultural norms.


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 3:25 pm

Well Carlos - my block has at least five different national groups represented. They are here because they are highly educated and have very good jobs.

In case you have not noticed we are in the area of Stanford University where the ticket to admission as a student or employee is good education and qualifications to do a job. Other item to note is that we have a number of international companies who transition their foreign managers through the corporate office to get training and exposure to the rest of their company. They tend to lease for a year or two and go back to their country of origin - or go on to another country for the company.

Foreign people also come here so their children can go to school and learn a new language.

Your view of what you see versus what I see is worlds apart. I see successful people who are enjoying their life here in the US / California / Palo Alto. People do not expect to get a free ride here - they work and go to school. And the tech industry is color blind - it is skill and ability to work with other people that is the key to success.

The poster did a great disservice by trying to manipulate the tone of this stream.


Like this comment
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 3:25 pm

Well, Nayeli, residents comment is pretty correct. How many minroity votes do the republicans get? There must be a reason-- maybe it has to do with how they alienate those groups. Look at California the republicans have alienated the Latino,population ( legal and illegal, Nayeli). And not only do,they dislike minorities, they do not like gays and women. So who is left angry white men.
And as for your comment about illegal immigrants, do not forget that the darling of republicans and conservatives, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to over 3 million illegal immigrants
Web Link

If he did it, why cannot you get aboard with doing it again?


2 people like this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 3:29 pm

I think you missed his point Nayeli, we don't actually allow legal immigration, so it makes it easy to conflate the two and say "oh I dont't have a problem with immigrants as long as they come here legally".


22 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 3:48 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Todd - What do you mean? We do allow legal immigration. I am a legal immigrant. We followed the law. How does this mean that the United States does not allow legal immigration if hundreds of thousands of people enter the United States legally each year?


Like this comment
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 3:59 pm

Nayeli-- very nice that you are a " legal" immigrant.

However we have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the last few decades
Web Link
"The U.S. government has offered seven amnesties to various categories of illegal immigrants in the past 20 years, benefiting 5 million people. "

So, not sure why you harp on this "illegal" immigrant issue or is it a case of I got mine....


20 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Agenda: I have no idea what you are saying or suggesting. The current illegal immigrants in this nation are illegal because they aren't here legally and have not be "granted amnesty."

Don't try and pretend this is a selfish "I got mine" issue. You have no idea the amount of work and effort that my father put into following the law to allow us to immigrate to this nation legally. My dad saved almost every extra dime of his paycheck for years in order to pay the legal costs to secure our immigration papers.

Illegal immigration cheapens what we -- and millions others like us -- worked for. None of the bleeding hearts (pretending as though they are the only ones who have compassion for immigrants) will change the fact that this nation has well-defined immigration laws and that millions of foreign nationals are in this country illegally.


Like this comment
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm

Nayeli, I'm not going to explain all the reasons why the US immigration system is broken, other people can do a much better job that it than I:

Web Link

However, from person experience, 9/10 people who say they're "not anti immigrant, just anti illegal immigration", aren't actually pro legal immigration either, as in, they're against making it easier for anyone to come here legally.


Like this comment
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:12 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

In the reality of the Pilgrims era, their landing the equivalent of an illegal invasion, even if the natives didn't have what we would regard now as a modern nation state. There were already established cultures, religions and customs, a connection to the land and to the environment. In modern terms, the Pilgrims were uninvited invaders, illegal immigrants. Unlike the mostly Latino illegal immigrants, they didn't come here from desperately poor countries, where they faced starvation and sometimes the threat of death. They came here because their attempt at religious cohersion was rejected by a society that was becoming increasingly modern and less religious. Their ancestors have zero right to whine about illegal immigrants, especially those with Indian blood running through their veins.

Ironically, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Birther-in Chief, now the Xenophob-in Chief, is himself a descendent of a Germany man(his grandfather) who was an illegal immigrant for several years before being granted a legal resident alien status, which his entertainer grandson is refusing to grant to others.

Lastly, it's so much about racism. Is anyone aware that thousands of Israelis arrive in the US each year on tourist visas, overstay there visa limit and settle here, eventually getting legal status? Very few of them are deported. Has anyone ever heard of Trump and his fellow passengers in the clown car(now bus) complain about illegal Israeli immigrants who abuse our immigration system?


Like this comment
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:12 pm

And Nayeli, before they were granted amnesty, they were illegal immigrants-- so illegal one day and legal the next day.
I am curious why you go to,such great lengths to describe how you got your immigration papers ( though I am not sure I understand the process you went through-- what made your father so desirable to the US that he was granted legal immigration status?.).
You seem to hold a great deal of animosity towards people that want the same thing you do. Very strange coming from someone who Cali,s she went through so much to get her papers.


Like this comment
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:12 pm

And please don't take credit for hard work other people may have put in. Its like when people say "when my grandparents came they learned English"... they're trying to somehow take credit for something which they had to put zero effort into.


Like this comment
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:15 pm

[Post removed.]


18 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Todd: As an immigrant, I certainly see the value of LEGAL immigration. I haven't met 9/10 people who are against both illegal and legal immigration.

@ mauricio: Are you seriously going to cite incidents from 400-500 years ago as justification for illegal immigration in today's modern society? It is funny that you say the word "clown car" -- as it is a very specific talking point pushed out a few weeks ago and has been regurgitated faithfully by very vocal posters ever since. You really need to learn the difference between legal and illegal immigration. It isn't about race. It is about nationality.


16 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:20 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Todd: Is that comment directed at me? Okay, let me put it this way: Our ENTIRE FAMILY worked hard to earn money to pay both for our immigration AND the ability to stay in this country. I picked fields in Mexico. I picked fields in the United States. So, yeah, I worked for it too.


21 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Agenda: I suppose that the problem with your opinion is that it is very misguided. :-)

Let me clear this up: I think that most people who are against illegal immigration still feel compassion for those who break into this nation. I feel compassion and empathy for people who were the same boat (well, not literally a boat) that we were in. However, we followed the law. They did not.

I also feel compassion for Syrian refugees. I feel compassion for Haitians. I feel compassion for Cubans. I feel compassion for Dominicans. That doesn't mean that the citizens of the United States should suddenly open the door to all or even most of them.

Does that make sense?

You can compare our family's story with the story of illegal immigration -- but I find it grossly offensive. We followed the law. We respected the law. We would NEVER have entered this nation illegally. We moved here because we shared the same values that America stands for. We sacrificed quite a bit to move here and then remain here.

Consequently, I consider myself an American. Even prior to receiving our citizenship papers (we are U.S. citizens), I did not feel allegiance to Mexico. I am proud of my heritage and culture, but that does not come before my allegiance to the United States or its laws.

That said: I do believe in a "pathway to citizenship." However, this nation must follow its own immigration laws if any pathway to citizenship is respected. This means to cut off the highway to America and locking the back door and windows to the country.


11 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:34 pm

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm

nayeli--- love how you claim to have compassion for various groups of refugees, yet claim that the US should not let any in.
Have you read what is on the statute of Liberty-- should have part of your citizen ship classes.
And as I stated numerous times. The US has granted amnesty many times making illegal immigrants legal.
My comments may be misguided, but at least they are not cold hearted and reek of the "I have mine " attitude.


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm

"The current illegal immigrants in this nation are illegal because they aren't here legally and have not be "granted amnesty.""

They ARE here legally, in total compliance with the highest, most revered law and institution in this country: the Free and Open Marketplace. Commentator's post above described how they supply a vital need in the American economy: an exploitable underclass. Immigration laws are subordinate to the FOM.

But the Mexican newcomers run afoul of a much older and far more powerful law: deep instinctive dislike of people who look or talk or act different. They would be much, much better accepted if they had Scot-white skins and spoke with a British accent.


4 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Funny....I do know a guy with a British accent. I like him not because of his accent but because he came here legally. Had he been a Mexican or a Chinese, I would still like him provided that he arrived here legally. Otherwise, I would have called ICE to report. Oh wait....forgot about the SF sanctuary law thingy...darn it!


17 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Agenda: By arguing that "illegal immigrants" designation is meaningless because some (in the past) previously illegal immigrants were granted amnesty is somewhat like arguing to a cop that I am not really a "speeder" because traffic court judges have previously thrown out some speeding tickets. It certainly shouldn't be used to justify someone ignoring speed limit laws.

As for the New Colossus poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty: That is not an immigration policy. That is not law. That is a nice poem. Still, this nation has the right -- legal and moral -- to determine who is granted admission and residency in this nation.

As for your claim that we should "not let anyone in:" I never said that. You did. I said: "I also feel compassion for Syrian refugees. I feel compassion for Haitians. I feel compassion for Cubans. I feel compassion for Dominicans. That doesn't mean that the citizens of the United States should suddenly open the door to ALL OR EVEN MOST OF THEM" (emphasis mine).

You wrote, "My comments may be misguided, but at least they are not cold hearted and reek of the 'I have mine' attitude."

How is it that you pretend to know my heart? The point is the respect of law. I know someone who is in prison for something that they did (theft). That person admitted that he did it. I feel compassion for that person. Does that mean that such a person shouldn't be in prison or that the law shouldn't have bearing in this case? Of course not.

This nation cannot stand without a respect for law. We followed the law and immigrated into this nation. Hundreds of thousands each year do the same. LEGAL immigrants should be welcomed. However, compassion for the plight of certain illegal immigrants doesn't mean that they should ignore immigration law -- law that is already very clear.

This nation is not led by laws of bleeding heart compassion. This nation is a nation of laws that must be respected by all for our society to stand. YES, legal immigrants can and should be permitted (and welcomed) into this nation. I even believe in immigration reform to the point of a "vocational need" basis -- changing laws by year according to the needs of certain industries. If the nation needs more agricultural workers, the quota can change accordingly. If there is a surplus of specific engineering jobs, the quota can also change accordingly.

HOWEVER, illegal immigration should not be permitted on the basis of feeling sorry for someone. If you feel sorry for them, then I urge you to assist them in going through the legal immigration process.


9 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:01 pm

We allow messy, noisy, and aggressive Canadian geese at Mitchell Park, so it would seem that we are quite tolerant of immigrants.


Like this comment
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm

[Post removed.]


3 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 pm

"Funny....I do know a guy with a British accent. I like him not because of his accent but because he came here legally."

You left out the important part: his skin color.


1 person likes this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:15 pm

Of course its not a legal vs illegal issue, because nobody would be satisfied if we simply said anyone who passed a background check and wanted to come here is now legal to enter. People like Nayeli and others seem to think that all those illegal immigrants just didnt want to or were too lazy to follow the steps that her family did.


Like this comment
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:19 pm

@Curmudgeon- oh yes my bad. The lad skin is as white as my toilet bowl with a few wrinkles here and there. Does this help?


15 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:21 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Agenda: [Portion removed.]

BTW, about the semantics: I didn't say "all" or "any." I said "all" or "most." In context, when speaking about compassion, I said that compassion for foreign citizens in difficult circumstance "doesn't mean that the citizens of the United States should suddenly open the door to ALL or EVEN MOST of them."

Do you see the difference? AT NO TIME did I ever indicate any tendency of being anti-immigrant. Immigrants who follow the law should be welcomed into this nation with open arms. Those are the only immigrants who are legal.

This nation SHOULD welcome immigrants who follow the law -- regardless of their nation of origin or race/ethnicity. We should welcome them, embrace them and do what we can to be good neighbors to them. I believe that our immigration policy should be a "living" policy that changes yearly determined by domestic vocational, skill or educational need.

Still, our immigration policy should be clear, enforced and respected by anyone who wants to enter or live here.


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:30 pm

"@Curmudgeon- oh yes my bad. The lad skin is as white as my toilet bowl with a few wrinkles here and there. Does this help?"

Says it all. Sorry, no halo for you.


12 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 5:51 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Todd:

You wrote: " People like Nayeli and others seem to think that all those illegal immigrants just didnt want to or were too lazy to follow the steps that her family did."

That is quite an imagination that you have there! However, what you wrote couldn't be further from the truth. I didn't say it. I didn't see anyone else say it either. That was...all...you. If you fancy yourself a mind reader, you might want to keep your day job.

I will say that -- even if true -- ignorance of the law or inability to comply with the law is no excuse to break the law. I'll also say that many (if not most) illegal immigrants -- including a neighbor living here with his girlfriend in Palo Alto (who has spent several stints in jail for theft and two "hit and runs") who was deported following each deportation and still made it back to Palo Alto within a week -- is very aware of American immigration law.


2 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 6:00 pm

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2015 at 6:37 pm

The US has something for everyone. Palo Alto is a university town - the main business of PA is the university and the educational requirement that revolve around that environment. That is the way it will always be. Carlos not withstanding. It is 26 square miles - totally built out.

I grew up in Hollywood - that is a movie city environment - anyone can get ahead if they have the right skills for the jobs related to that industry - all colors represented. A lot of art skills.

In LA you have UCLA - that university has huge populations of different race in the school. Certain races dominate certain school disciplines.

I help at Second Harvest Foodbank in San Jose - the company people that come in to help are all colors - San Jose has a tech related population and the ticket in the door is education related to the tech industry.

The Central Valley is an agricultural location that has a huge Mexican population - agriculture is the skill set required.

Go to the lower central valley - that is the oil industry are - a strong back and skills in the oil industry can be learned by anyone.

People have to have a skill to offer to get paid anything - no matter who they are or what color.

If people are smart enough to get here then they need to be smart enough to find the right area for their interests and skills.


6 people like this
Posted by ignore her
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Sep 19, 2015 at 6:43 pm

[Post removed.]


16 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 7:19 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by PA Norte
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 19, 2015 at 8:14 pm

[Post removed.]


9 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 9:52 pm

[Post removed.]


29 people like this
Posted by Chinese Born Here
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Sep 19, 2015 at 10:24 pm

I grew up in Palo Alto and graduated in the early 80s from Paly and never experienced any prejudice at all in Palo Alto, which is why I chose to raise my children here. An African-American gal in my grade felt the same and is raising her children here. It wasn't until I lived in different states that I was exposed to racism. There is still going to be racism everywhere, especially on an anonymous forum, but an intellectual place like Palo Alto is a good place to be. I understand the Asian immigrant resentment, but please don't assume all of us are Tiger parents. Americanized Asians are not, and many Asian immigrants are not (part of the reason they moved to America). Please don't assume.


10 people like this
Posted by Terrry
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2015 at 10:24 pm

@ Nayeli, I lack the patience to argue with close minded folks, who can't even use their first name. I always feel good when I see your name authoring a post, as I know a thoughtful and refreshing comment in forthcoming. You speak for me and no doubt many more. Thanks for your energy here, ... much appreciated.


5 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 10:46 pm

All of these baseless claims of racism are just a distraction from the facts and the actual views of anyone who dares to suggest this country should protect itself from exploitation and potential attack. Don't take the bait - just ignore it, no matter how outrageous you find the tactic.


4 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 10:47 pm

@Todd:

>> "However, from person (sic) experience, 9/10 people who say they're "not anti immigrant, just anti illegal immigration", aren't actually pro legal immigration either, as in, they're against making it easier for anyone to come here legally."

Wow, that's a whopper of a conclusion! Please clarify how many people you included in your study, what your method was for ascertaining that your "9/10" "aren't actually pro legal immigration either," and where the detailed results of your study can be found. Because, I think you're just making it up as you go along. It is fun to toss out made-up statistics, though.

The U.S. was founded on strong principles of religious and individual freedom, and welcomed people from everywhere. Obviously, time moves forward and so must a nation in order to protect its citizens and it's very way of life. Just as we no longer see slavery as just, we also see unlimited immigration is not in the best interests of the citizens, so laws are put in place to protect the EXISTING citizens before potential new citizens. Hence, immigration laws. Those who enter or remain in the U.S. illegally should receive our empathy for their situation, but not a free pass to stay here.

If someone is willing to commit one crime (illegal immigration), are they not more likely to be willing to commit more? I bet there are statistics on this but I don't have the bandwidth to find them.


7 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 11:05 pm

@Chinese Born Here:

I'm so glad you and your school-mate have had a positive experience! You hit the nail on the head - it doesn't matter what you look like or what your ethnic background is, what matters is a level of integration with the existing culture.


Like this comment
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2015 at 11:54 pm

I'm sorry for posting so many times, but just one last comment (for now ;).

@Terrry:

"I lack the patience to argue with close minded folks, who can't even use their first name."

Well, I lack the patience of people whom can't even spell their own first name (if your name truly has three Rs I apologize). Do you realize that anyone can put anything in the "Name" box? The username "Nayeli" may actually be that of a person named, "Bob." Your username of "Terrry" may actually be used by someone named Mohamed.

Why are some people so gullible as to think that seeing a "real name" means that person is actually somehow self-identifying? And why is identification so important to some people? Does "knowing" the name, gender, ethnicity of someone who posts make their post more or less credible?

Are those who demand to know the identities of those with whom they are interacting on an online blog the real racists? :-)


1 person likes this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm

Here is the dipole from 2 aquaintances I know.

One british chap that spouts racist remarks without knowing it. Statements like "chinese have copied and stolen everything from the west. But had he stepped back and think for a minute, he would realize that it was the British who invented the concept of stealing, pillaging, raping and enslavering of others during their colonialist expansion morally corrupted era. Funny how for the 21 st century, all of my British acquatances have decided to take the morale high ground.

On the other extreme, my ABC Chinese beer buddy often spouts racist remarks without realizing them either! His disparaging statement on FOBs and other newly arrived immigrants are incredulous and at times outrageous. Again, only had he looked himself in the mirror, he would have realized that it wasn't long ago that he and his family were considered sloped eyed FOB!

There you have it.....we all have the propensity to be a great racist without knowing it


4 people like this
Posted by Proud American
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 20, 2015 at 1:06 pm

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



Just as a matter of practicality, exiles who are "wretched refuse" tend to have a harder time emigrating with all the official paperwork.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,"

We really stood for that at one time. You can argue against it, but it's a matter of values and human compassion. People who come to this nation and get a break tend to be extremely loyal and productive, not taking it for granted.


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2015 at 1:21 pm

"...what matters is a level of integration with the existing culture."

True if we ban corned beef and cabbage, bratwurst, Polish sausage, lasagna, nachos, tamales, strudel, burritos, tacos, and lager beer.


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 20, 2015 at 1:28 pm

The originator of this topic started a incendiary problem by tying it to a political party. Reality is Obama pledged to do something about immigration but has done nothing with a Democratic plurality in both houses.

I have to assume that the original poster has her own agenda which is to assist her flagging candidate and distract from the upcoming debacle that is going to happen.

Bring it on!


5 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 20, 2015 at 5:19 pm

@Curmudgean said:

""...what matters is a level of integration with the existing culture."

"True if we ban corned beef and cabbage, bratwurst, Polish sausage, lasagna, nachos, tamales, strudel, burritos, tacos, and lager beer."

Do you understand the term, "a level of integration?" Maybe that was too vague. A level of integration means that there is some attempt to fit in with the existing culture, as opposed to clinging only to those of your own culture and creating a subculture that in no way wants to blend with the existing culture(s). A level of integration does not mean leaving everything of your original culture behind. But I bet you already knew that.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2015 at 5:24 pm

"...what matters is a level of integration with the existing culture."

The integration just goes on and on: Web Link


7 people like this
Posted by Reading-History-Is-Good-For-You
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 20, 2015 at 5:34 pm

> this nation was founded by caucasian
> illegal immigrant from the British isles

> In the reality of the Pilgrims era, their landing the
> equivalent of an illegal invasion

[Portion removed.]

At the time, there were no laws that restricted European colonization in the new world. (There was always forceful resitance, however.)


Catholic Church in the Age of Discovery:
Web Link

Later, the 1481 Papal Bull Aeterni regis granted all lands south of the Canary Islands to Portugal, while in May 1493 the Spanish-born Pope Alexander VI decreed in the Bull Inter caetera that all lands west of a meridian only 100 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands should belong to Spain while new lands discovered east of that line would belong to Portugal. A further Bull, Dudum siquidem, made some more concessions to Spain, and the pope's arrangements were then amended by the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 negotiated between Spain and Portugal.

Treaty of Tordesillas:
Web Link

Of course, the Protestant countries were not included in this arrangement—but they did not feel any obligation to consult the Pope on their colonial plans—so North America was colonized by England, France, Holland and Sweden.

None of this colonization was illegal—since there was no body of international law that constrained countries from colonizing where they wanted to colonize.

How can people not know this?
---


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2015 at 5:40 pm

"Do you understand the term, "a level of integration?" Maybe that was too vague. A level of integration means that there is some attempt to fit in with the existing culture, as opposed to clinging only to those of your own culture and creating a subculture that in no way wants to blend with the existing culture(s). A level of integration does not mean leaving everything of your original culture behind. But I bet you already knew that."

Ever been to Fredericksburg, Texas, just north of San Antonio? It was settled by Germans in 1846, who had the temerity to name it after Prince Frederick of Prussia, and they kept their language and customs for generations Web Link. Few people minded; in fact, the tidy picturesque bilingual town is a tourist magnet.

Whaddayathinkathat?

In the upper Midwest are other examples of northern European immigrants clinging only to those of their own culture and creating a subculture that in no way wanted to blend with the existing culture(s).

Whaddayathinkathat?

The key is northern European immigrants. Mexicans apparently ain't allowed to act like that.


4 people like this
Posted by Kelly
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2015 at 6:33 pm

We are being inundated with people who do not come legally and as a result are a burden to our resources. [Portion removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by @Kelly
a resident of another community
on Sep 20, 2015 at 6:37 pm

"We are being inundated with people who do not come legally and as a result are a burden to our resources. Handouts should not be given so freely."

Right. Those handouts should be reserved solely for billionaires that have already run out of their most recent handouts.


Like this comment
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 20, 2015 at 7:16 pm

"At the time, there were no laws that restricted European colonization in the new world. (There was always forceful resitance, however.)"

The statement above is definitely an indicator of ethnocentricity and an absolute ignorance to mankind history. Just because it did not exist in the European law book, then it must be ok to pillage, steal, rape and destroy a civilization? How do you know the indigenous people did not have laws, boundaries and property rights? Perhaps the invaders destroyed and burnt them thus no one could find any records at all. Have you wondered what happened to the entire civilization such as the Inca Empire? Extremely advanced people but were wiped out and historians could not piece them back together. What a real shame.

Yes it helps to read history, but you need to hook the neurons up and have them properly connected before spouting nonsense and passing these statements as fact!


Like this comment
Posted by carson
a resident of another community
on Sep 20, 2015 at 8:10 pm

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 20, 2015 at 9:06 pm

Just to remind you of history, Britain was invaded last by the Normans in 1066. Prior to that there were the Vikings and the Romans. Raping and pillaging abounded. There are very few nations that have not had some type of invasion if you go back far enough. American history is quite short in comparison.


5 people like this
Posted by Dan
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 20, 2015 at 10:29 pm

I do believe the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is purposefully swept under the carpet often by those who think people are just dumb enough to fall for it. I know of very few people who support illegal immigration ... so maybe we can drum up support by only talking about "immigrants" without the distinction of whether people are breaking the laws or not? You probably could get support for more liberalized legal immigration, but not by ignoring the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration. At least in this country we are not supposed to pick and choose which laws are followed.... that is a road to chaos.


Like this comment
Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 20, 2015 at 10:49 pm

Me,

The Pilgrims, at least, *did* get permission to set up their settlement near Plymouth.They also signed and abided by (for 50 years) the Mayflower Compact. So, "illegal" really doesn't apply to that group.

Of course, the grim underlying fact is that land was available because European disease had already done a number on the local population. Disease did far more to destroy the American native population than pillage, destruction, etc.--estimates range from 70 to 90 percent of the indigenous population being destroyed by disease (Alaska being a notable exception, FWIW.)

The historical ignorance around here is depressing.

As for immigration--*both* parties are invested in the status quo. Republicans don't want to fix the problem because illegal immigration means a source of cheap laborers who have few rights. Democrats don't want to push too hard because an influx of immigrants means lower wages and increased competition for blue-collar jobs, something its union base doesn't like.

It wouldn't be that impossible to create a better and more sensible immigration process--but there's limited political incentive to do so.


4 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 20, 2015 at 10:55 pm

Folks,

It's great to supply a link to a website if someone wants to go read more on the topic, but it's standard practice for authors to provide a summary of the point they are trying to make, not to mention common courtesy. I'm not going to go off to unknown "web links" to try and figure out what your point is, nor would most readers. So, if all you can provide is a web link, expect to have your message ignored by many, if not most.

@curmudgeon,

You asked (twice), "Whaddayathinkathat?"

I think I continue to be thrilled that I do not live in Fredricksburg, TX or the upper midwest.

And I think you are not engaging in a rational discussion on this topic.


5 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 20, 2015 at 11:44 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Curmudgeon: Okay, I'll bite.

My sister lives just outside of Fredericksburg and teaches in a school in that area. It is NOT a "bilingual" town (in the sense of German and English). In fact, I suspect that there are far more Spanish-speaking residents than German-speaking residents. The same is true of all of those German, French, Slavic and Czech towns around that area of Texas. If they are "bilingual" in any sense, it is because the vast majority speak English and a growing number speak Spanish (*even if a small minority also speak the language of their ancestors).

I will say something else: There is a very big difference (in my opinion) between the legal Mexican-Americans living in Texas (Tejanos) -- who are PROUD of their Mexican-American but decidedly American culture -- and many of the illegal immigrants who have begun to flood in the United States. I suppose that one could easily raise the issue of allegiance. Perhaps this is why a much larger percentage of Hispanic voters in Texas align with the Republican Party than in some other parts of the nation (like California).


1 person likes this
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 21, 2015 at 1:40 am

I've witnessed some really lousy, racist treatment of American people of color in Palo Alto. The white immigrants in my family, Caucasian relatives visiting from other countries and white immigrant friends in Palo Alto haven't had any problems.


1 person likes this
Posted by resident
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 21, 2015 at 8:04 am

I'd like to also point out that you can find immigrants being more than
"the person who cares for your garden or empties the trash in your office." The cultural competency in as educated of a town as Palo Alto astounds me.


1 person likes this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 21, 2015 at 8:22 am

What gets me is a one sided perspective of history and some posters passing it as facts. What about Eastern Civilization and many other destroyed civilizations that are still being piece back together by historians?

Once upon a time, there was a guy named Hitler. He believed like many here that the only law that was legal was the law passed by his party. Hence nothing else matters. Pillaging, raping, murders, persecution of other cultures and invading of weaker countries were justified. We really don't have to go back that far to see the effect of a one sided ignorant use of history!


7 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 21, 2015 at 8:45 am

mauricio is a registered user.

Frankly, undocumented immigrants who pick fruit and vegetables in extreme heat for 7 dollars and hour and no benefits are much more productive and contribute much more to our society than billionaires and other immoral corporatists who rape and pillage our economy and our society while being assured of perpetual hands out and bailouts, courtesy of the tax payers. They are the ones who should be deported and they are the real illegals.


6 people like this
Posted by cnn
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 21, 2015 at 9:44 am

CNN News discusses Muslim-bashing by Republican presidential candidates: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 21, 2015 at 11:31 am

"@ Curmudgeon: Okay, I'll bite."

It is telling that you mention contemporary Spanish usage repeatedly and ignore the persistence of German culture.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 21, 2015 at 11:56 am

"I think you are not engaging in a rational discussion on this topic."

In other words, you don't like what I say. No problemo.

I'm certainly guilty of introducing unwelcome facts. Some readers might find them embarrassing, but that does not mean my engagement in the discussion is not rational.


3 people like this
Posted by Commentator
a resident of Professorville
on Sep 21, 2015 at 12:18 pm

"The historical ignorance around here is depressing."

The historical revisionism for convenience around here is even more depressing, particularly in a college rown like this one.

Fact is, the Europeans came here uninvited and parked their unwelcome butts where they pleased. The natives lost the ensuing fight.

This is not unlike the other migratory invasions throughout history. In most cases the populations eventually assimilate; in others the invaders are repelled or move on.

We are experiencing such an event today, with the exception that these newcomers are tacitly invited by powerful economic entities in the host country that profit from cheap disposable labor. They are additionally encouraged by the Reagan Immigration Amnesty Act of 1987. In the long term all of us will meld into a single culture enriched and invigorated by contributions from both sides.

My advice: Stop complaining about something you cannot stop, and watch a major historical transition unfold.


1 person likes this
Posted by Reading-History-Is-Good-For-You
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2015 at 12:27 pm

It’s hard to know whether to laugh, or cry, when reading some of the posts on this web-site.

The history of mankind is one of continuous war/destruction—interspersed with periods of relative peace when societies here and there worked to rebuild their homes and cities which were destroyed in the last war.

And just how long has man been warring with man? No one knows for certain, but archaeology has located a burial site in Egypt that has bodies that are believed to be the victims of war (of some sort) that occurred around 14,000 years ago--

Web Link
The first archaeological record of what could be a prehistoric battle is at the 14,340- to 13,140-year old Mesolithic site known as Cemetery 117, located on the Nile near the Egypt-Sudan border. It contains a large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, which indicates that they may have been the casualties of a battle. Some question this conclusion by arguing that the bodies may have accumulated over many decades, and may even be evidence of the murder of trespassers rather than actual battles. Nearly half of the bodies are female, and this fact also causes some to question the argument for large-scale warfare.

Why did people go to war that long ago? Well, no one knows for certain, but water shortages seem to be one possibility.

According to the poster above—we have to ask: “what right did these ancient people have to go to war, since it’s a bad thing?” Should we assume that one side in this battle was involved in “illegal immigration” 14,000 years ago?

One of the real tragedies which has happened to the US in the past fifty years is the failure to adequately educate ourselves in the details, and methodology, of history and historical research. Too many people now see past event through the optics of their everyday lives, not the optics of the historical periods of the past. Sadly, too many revisionists have been able to convince too many people to ignore the reality of the past, replacing it with an artificial reality based on today’s morality, and legal system—which clearly did not exist long ago.

When we look at major historical events—the Babylonian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, the Hittite Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, to name only a few—how many of these great human activities were based on “human rights”, or “social justice” or “income redistribution”? In reality, these empires were based on greed, power and money—often driven by one man, or a small group of men, who comprised the monarchies of these societies. (Monarchies that were not democratically elected, by the way).

Although history is subject to interpretation in some cases, our 21st Century views should never be applied pejoratively to the past.


1 person likes this
Posted by Proud American
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2015 at 12:44 pm

My parents were both legal immigrants. One parent was already a citizen by virtue of a grandparent who was a citizen, but had never lived here before adulthood. Yet my parents could not legally have been married in many states of the union, and had only been allowed to marry just a few years before they did in California. When marriage was forbidden simply on the basis of race, what was legal was unconscionable.

On the other hand, because of war, most of my parent's siblings's births were never recognized by the US govt and they were stateless. If they had come here with him, they would have been illegal. They didn't come illegally, but were only able to join the family as a result of years of the most exhaustive work by that parent who had entered the military (as a US soldier) and spent every minute of leave trying to help family to safety.

Sometime the law is an @ss. I do not expect everyone in the world to exercise compassion, but for me, it is a guiding principal and I think also of our nation. Exercising compassion does not have to make anyone a doormat, it can even be to the advantage of the nation. (This nation benefited from major brain drain from the rest of the world for decades until George Bush put a stop to it.)


1 person likes this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 21, 2015 at 2:43 pm

"None of this colonization was illegal—since there was no body of international law that constrained countries from colonizing where they wanted to colonize."

Really? Through whose lenses are you talking about? To the American Indians? To the the whole African continent that was basically raped and pillage under the flag of colonization? What human history are we discussing? Tell this to the 6 millions Jews that were put in the oven and their belongings stolen as they were gassed. Jawohl mein Fuhrer had the same epiphany like this poster since he did not recognize international law except his own.

This is fact and please cut the mumble jumble in the very one sided account of history


Like this comment
Posted by Roger Overnaut
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 21, 2015 at 2:54 pm

"None of this colonization was illegal—since there was no body of international law that constrained countries from colonizing where they wanted to colonize."

Vintage liberal guilt.


1 person likes this
Posted by Reading-History-Is-Good-For-You
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2015 at 3:31 pm

> Through whose lenses are you talking about?

Sooner or later, the lenses that were used at the time.

> To the the whole African continent that was
> basically raped and pillage under the flag of colonization

European colonization was very late in the history of Africa. Suggest that people who think otherwise might want to review the history of the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade—that predated any impact of European colonization by a thousand years—

Web Link

Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, the Horn of Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and Sicily) beginning during the era of the Arab conquests and continuing through the 19th century. The trade was conducted through slave markets in the Middle East, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, with the slaves captured from Africa's interior.

Web Link

Africa’s domestic slavery was fuelled by demands for slaves to work in plantations and mines in the Americas, North Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and South East Asia including China and Japan. Some African kings became active suppliers of Africans as slaves to international European and Arab slave merchants.

The trans-Saharan slave trade commenced late in the 7th century when Abdallah Ben Said, the King of Islamised Egypt, conquered via Jihad the Sudan – “the land of infidels” – and in 652 imposed on Sudanese King Khalidurat a treaty known as Bakht.
- -- ---

[Portion removed.]

By the way, for all of you who are vilifying the Europeans who colonized North and South America—what would your lives be like today if they had stayed home and not brought European civilization to these shores?


41 people like this
Posted by Legal is not always Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm

Some legal immigrants, who should be deported and will be if caught, come to the US specifically to conduct criminal business, to launder money by opening phony businesses and buying houses they never even live in or rent out, or to cheat their way into top schools. Unfortunately for the rest of us, most do not get caught.


6 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 21, 2015 at 5:43 pm

"By the way, for all of you who are vilifying the Europeans who colonized North and South America—what would your lives be like today if they had stayed home and not brought European civilization to these shores?"

Reading-History-Is-Good-For-You, nut-historical-speculation-is-fiction. Factually meaningless, it conveys whatever narrative its author invents.


8 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 22, 2015 at 10:34 am

Commentator thinks we are all going to meld into one happy face group. I am reading about the Ottoman Empire right now and their disintegration from the 1870's to WW1. Same caste of characters, same issues. If you look at the situation today it is no different. We can all get along but we are not going to carve up our national identity - nor is any other country.

The young people today are trying to fit in but they also are trying to hold up and defend their national identities.

If you look at the Christian religions right now they are arguing internally about what direction their church is going. If no agreement then they are splitting into specific factions which control how the funding and governance of the religion is conducted. Look no further than the Presbyterian Church and the splitting which occurred on this format. What social programs are addressed and how much of the individual church funds are allocated to those social issues a big disagreement.

The Catholic Church also has its issues which are documented in the SFC regarding the governance of the Catholic School System. The Episcopal Church has a number of internal disagreements which have split the church.

If you look at the Jewish religion it is carved into specific factions which debate on the direction or governance of the religion.

If you look at the Muslim religion then it is broken down into factions which are conducting mayhem on each other and the Christians and Jews. You would think that the moderate Muslims would exert some control over the overtly war like Muslims - but they do not.

Our Constitution does guarantee freedom of religion but the governance of the country is very specific and does not include Sharia Law. Sharia Law is not in agreement with our Constitution. The treatment of women is not in agreement with our laws and intended direction.

Each country wants to define their political governance and that has a lot to do with the predominant religion of the people. Each country has a right to define themselves and their laws.

If people come here to get a better education then they need to go back and improve the governance of the country they came from.

We are not going to change these dynamics - religion and education can modify but not change it.


8 people like this
Posted by racist
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 22, 2015 at 11:40 am

seems to us that those who wish to dinegrate others by calling them racist, are actually more racist and less tolerant than the ones they are dinegrating. seems ironic--but those people want to group anyone who disagrees with their view points as being racist. anyone who includes "all" of one group or another, are inherently racist. if you choose to say "so and so" is racist and can back it up--then, that is your view point--but to claim anyone who looks like "so and so" in any sort of general grouping is doing themselves and their viewpoints a huge disservice and discredits their opinion. it is too easy to generalize "all" this group or "all" that group. it doesnt matter if one is a democrate, a republican, rich, poor, one color or another color, old, young, senior, student, non-student, president, president wanna-be, or non-president, legal, illegal, american, foreigner, rent, own, or whatever other categories one can think of. when you start grouping and generalizing you are leaning very much towards the "racist" label yourself. be careful when calling others something that you wouldn't want others to call you. "racist" is a word that really needs to be analyzed before using it in a derogatory manner.


3 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 22, 2015 at 11:55 am

So bring this all forward to today in the State of California. Articles in the papers today about the underhanded method being employed by the Los Angeles Water District to purchase the "island tracts" in the Delta so they can push their two tunnel water distribution method - which will ruin the delta and as they say "provide no additional water to SOCAL than already is being provided". This is to skirt the environmental laws that have not been met. That is a Jerry Brown pet project.

How about HSR - another Jerry Brown pet project - another blowout of state available funding to enrich Jerry's friends.

How about turning the port of Oakland into a coal collection point that was engineered by Jerry's business partner - now the city of Oakland is trying to stop that debacle.

How about Lt. Newsom and his desire to turn California into a pot growing state. Not just medicinal - but also recreational.

The story goes on concerning the "progressives" who are busy trying to enrich themselves. The duplicity is staggering. I think they have reached the end of their political life. Please do not point your finders at the other parties out there - the big D party is out of control and out of time - they have done nothing but create trouble.


3 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Sep 22, 2015 at 12:36 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

First: DO NOT THINK OF THE INDIA IMMIGRANTS AS AMARINDS ( the PC short word foe American Indians ). The ONLY people that were looked down on by Black people. Many Amerinds were made to feel ASHAMED of their Indian heritage. My ancestors actually HID when the Dawes Rolls were taken. When my g-gmother ( A FULL BLOODED Indian " Squaw " was asked if she was an Indian, she denied it.
Being marked as an Indian was DEATH in our South. That also figured in our Palo Alto history. PAO knows what I mean as I discussed this privately. Do I want your property? No. Have I toured Alcatraz? Yes, many times. Do I want the recently settled reparations? No. As MLKJr. said " The content of their character. " I've made my " bones " by helping to create supercomputers and this network we are using right now.
Do I want IMMIGRATION stopped? No. However, that LEGAL IMMIGRATION must protect the US job market for U.S. CITIZENS!

Do I want ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION? NO! Do I support ILLEGAL ALIENS ( the PROPER U.S.CODE DESCRIPTION ) A RESOUNDING NO! Would I remove FEDERAL funds to Sanctuary Cities or CITIES THAT BEHAVE AS SANCTUARY CITIES? A RESOUNDING YES! Anyone who aid and abets ILLEGAL ALIENS is also breaking the u.S. Code ( OUR FEDERAL LAWS ) themselves!
I also admit that U.S. Law is not enforced right now. Our system is broken due to POLITICALLY CORRECT PANDERING TO A POSSIBLE NEW VOTER BASE. My Daughter-in-law is a Canadian Citizen. It has cost $5,000 just to get a " green card " by being forced to submit the same paperwork our government claims to have " lost".
Operation " Wetback " worked for Eisenhower ( Iron Worker Auf Deutsch )when he had to deal with our Illegal Alien problem. We were PROMISED that there would be no more AMNESTIES back in 1986 BY TED KENNEDY.

So now we are repeating history by letting invaders in our country while our government embraces them!

From " The Art of War ": "True genius is to capture a country without firing a shot ".

Think about History; It can also describe your future...


3 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 22, 2015 at 4:59 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 22, 2015 at 6:50 pm

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by PAmoderate
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 23, 2015 at 1:09 pm

PAmoderate is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by Mike-Crescent Park
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 23, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Mike-Crescent Park is a registered user.

Being certified immigrant friendly seems to be for progressives like getting a merit badge. Many of the issues progressives love to pursue are exacerbated by population growth.

For over 100 years our country has significantly helped people all over the world in myriad ways. Bringing massive immigrant groups from other cultures into our country has few benefits for our country and its people but many, many negatives.


3 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 23, 2015 at 3:41 pm

"Many of the issues progressives love to pursue are exacerbated by population growth."

Including family planning, birth control, and abortion?


8 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 23, 2015 at 11:59 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Curmudgeon - "Including family planning, birth control, and abortion?"

More like, welfare, food-stamps. unemployment, medi-cal, and public housing.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 24, 2015 at 8:37 am

Prime Minister Modi of India is here to talk about US companies using Indian people for high technology jobs on H1B visas. Those are the people in our neighborhoods. You all can go off on some tangents but reality is in Silicon Valley the people who are here to work are here on Visas for your favorite companies.
The articles on this topic in SJM and SFC 09/24/15 indicate that people from India cannot have dual citizenship. If someone goes through the process of naturalization, becomes a US citizen - then they are not going to be able to go back and work in India.

The major countries that we are working with have their own rules as to how things go down and as to how the governance of their countries is conducted. Whether you are a R, I, or D you have no impact on what other countries are doing regarding how they run their countries.

You all keep arguing as though any one party has control of the situation - collectively you have little to do with the situation.

And you can see here who the angry people are - the same people all of the time.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 24, 2015 at 10:53 am

"More like, welfare, food-stamps. unemployment, medi-cal, and public housing."

Brings to mind the observation that a new liberal is an old conservative who just lost his job.


6 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 24, 2015 at 12:13 pm

Wow - everyone is throwing around the terms -D, I, R, now progressive and conservative. Maybe a progressive should delineate what they believe in since they hold onto that designation with such pride.

Personally I do no think you all know what you are any more - the whole system is a shambles. There are twenty shades of conservative, 20 shades of liberal, 20 shades of R, I, D.
For the purposes of this forum maybe it would help if people stop slinging around meaningless terms and simply state a whole thought that delineates what you are talking about.


8 people like this
Posted by Quit it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29 pm

@resident 1:

I wish I could "like" your post 100 times.


12 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 24, 2015 at 12:42 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

Curmudgeon wrote: "Brings to mind the observation that a new liberal is an old conservative who just lost his job."

...or the observation that a new Conservative is just an old Liberal who has been mugged...or feels the weight of encroaching and hidden taxation...or thinks that her children should be able to open a lemonade stand without paying for a license...or someone who is good with math (and economics)...or someone who simply understands that fascism and communism are two sides of the same hellish liberty-killing coin...or thinks that any American can succeed without politicians' acting like economic zookeepers or chess players in which we are all the pawns.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)

Here are a few others:

"A conservative is someone who realizes that foreign tourists pay sales taxes in the U.S. so he wants to increase foreign tourism. A liberal is someone who realizes that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes in the U.S. so he wants to make them citizens."

"A wealthy Palo Alto liberal is someone who often tries to boost his public image by saying that he would have no objection to the government raising his taxes...but then watches nervously to make sure that conservative politicians never let that happen."

"A liberal is someone who thinks that burning the American flag is a constitutionally protected form of free speech....as long as nobody says anything that is politically incorrect when they're doing it."

"A liberal is someone who looks at the size of his piece of the pie and cries out, 'No fair -- his is bigger than mine!'"

"A liberal is someone who, after making a claim, will spend around $200 million in government 'revenue' to create a bureaucracy that will search for the proof needed to substantiate that claim."

"A liberal is a person who wants the government 'out of the bedroom' but, through regulation and laws, in the kitchen, living room, garage, bathroom, office, drive way and front/back yard."

"A conservative is someone who sees the poor and gives out of her/his own pocket to charities that will help until they get back on their feet. A liberal is someone who sees the poor and calls for politicians to take more money from taxpayers to support them for as long as they will keep voting for those politicians."

;-)


4 people like this
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 24, 2015 at 12:45 pm

>Brings to mind the observation that a new liberal is an old conservative who just lost his job.

@Curmudgeon: That's a good one! Reminds me of the saying, "a neoconservative is a former liberal who got mugged!"


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 24, 2015 at 1:17 pm

I want to throw in another category - a sociopath - a person who lies in a continual manner - does not matter what they call themselves - it is only to get power and money. Does that sound like anyone you know in this election?


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 24, 2015 at 1:20 pm

"@Curmudgeon: That's a good one! Reminds me of the saying, "a neoconservative is a former liberal who got mugged!""

Yep. Testing the depth of one's principles.


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 24, 2015 at 1:53 pm

>I want to throw in another category - a sociopath - a person who lies in a continual manner - does not matter what they call themselves - it is only to get power and money. Does that sound like anyone you know in this election?

Certainly Hillary, not Bernie, probably Trump...who else?


2 people like this
Posted by Roger Overnaut
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 24, 2015 at 2:58 pm

"Certainly Hillary..."

Give it up now, Laughlin. The Republicans have been picking fights with her for a quarter century, often at great cost to taxpayers, and they've lost every one.


2 people like this
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 24, 2015 at 3:11 pm


> Give it up now, Laughlin

How could I? I was simply answering the question about lying on a continual basis. Her current email scandal is very similar, in style and substance, to Nixon and his tapes. Eerie, really. Hillary is not trustworthy, because she lies and tells half truths, on a regular basis...directly and through omission. That is why she is my top pick as the answer to the question.


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 24, 2015 at 3:25 pm

Gee Roger - Ms. Clinton has a laundry list of errors in judgment that are discussed in the papers every day. The current mayor of NYC did not go to her kick-off - he does not like her - and you cannot call him a conservative in any manner. That is from the NYT.

Any one who has worked for the government with security clearances knows how the system works and what is expected. That is a lot of people who live in Santa Clara Valley in the government defense business. A lot of people who live in the State of California.

Anyone who watches the TV show Madam Secretary - Hollywood pulls story lines from her tenure. People get killed. Even Hollywood gets it.

Sorry - as Ms C says you can fool me once but you cannot fool me twice. She actually said that. Okay - we got it - we are not fooled now.

What did they say in WWII - loose lips looses ships.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 3,216 views

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 30 comments | 2,780 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,403 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,148 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 5 comments | 439 views