Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: America First 14

Journal by pudge

I don't care what flags you like to fly. If you want to fly a Mexican, Swiss, British, Saudi, or Chinese flag, I'm fine. Fly your flag in the U.S. Whatever.

But when you fly the U.S. flag upside down, below the Mexican flag, in front of a U.S.-financed public school, that many of you are illegally attending: yeah, I take offense. Seriously, just leave.

I know that story is several days old now, but I saw today that some students are now being suspended for bringing American flags to school. The reasoning goes that the flag might be "offensive" to some, so the U.S. and Mexican flags are banned. A flag should not, as one administrator in California said, be used as a rhetorical "weapon."

There's something to be said for that notion. He called such use of the flag "desecration," and I can dig that. But in the United States, if the U.S. flag is offensive to you, then you are the problem. No one should rub it in your face just to tick you off, but they would not be able to if you weren't the problem.

Who would be in the U.S., attending public schools, and be offended by the American flag? Who would consider it a "weapon" against them? Only people who hate the U.S., or want to subjugate the U.S. to Mexico, or are simply not in their right minds. And I don't really care about not offending any of those three groups of people.

I'm very tolerant. Live and let live. Don't hurt anyone else, and do as you please. But a serious line is crossed when you are in my country and want to subjugate my country for yours. My tolerance does not extend toward you wanting to take away my country from me, which is, of course, the real goal of many of the people here: to claim California for Mexico.

Obviously, that's not the goal of everyone. Some immigrants -- most, I hope -- do love America and simply want to become Americans, or at least, respect our country while they are our guests (not that I don't recognize the cognitive dissonance required of them to respect our country while willfully violating our immigration laws). But the people who turned the U.S. flag upside down and under the Mexican flag are not among them. These people do not want to be Americans, nor do they have a minimum of respect for America. And they should therefore leave.

Then there's the ANSWER coalition, which is organizing the economic boycott on May 1: everyone stop working for a day to prove that workers are the backbone of the economy. Or something. They don't want to return California to Mexico, they just want worldwide communism, with open borders between all countries, until no countries are left, only workers.

They tried this boycott already in California. Far from hurting the economy, it only hurt the public schools: L.A. schools lost $5 million because of all the students who didn't attend school that day. So I guess I have no real reason to oppose the boycott, since it's likely doomed to failure.

To the extent the immigration debate is about immigrants becoming Americans, I think most Americans can get behind our immigrants, even if they believe we still need to reduce immigration and secure the borders toward that end, and for security purposes. But the ugly truth is that this is not the whole story. And if by some incredible circumstances the ANSWER boycott is successful, then we will know that far more of our immigrants have ulterior motives than we thought.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America First More

America First

Comments Filter:

  • Some immigrants -- most, I hope -- do love America and simply want to become Americans, or at least, respect our country while they are our guests (not that I don't recognize the cognitive dissonance required of them to respect our country while willfully violating our immigration laws).

    It is important to keep in mind that there is a long history of fundamental bigotry behind our immigration laws, one that is more masked but still evident today. If you are demographically likely to be protestant you have

    • Our ideal is to treat all people equally. Our laws don't reflect this. If one believes this is particularly egregious, then one can easily justify ignoring the law.

      Never.

      It doesn't make any sense to me to care what someone thinks of American law, if they aren't citizens here. It's the same reason why my opinions of Mexican, British or Canadian law don't mean anything, because I'm not a citizen of those countries.

      If they honestly think that our laws aren't right, then they can become citizens and work with

      • The proper solution to an unfair (or unpopular) law is not now, nor has it ever been, to ignore the law. The correct solution is to change the law using methods defined for the level at which the law exists.

        I'm going to avoid triggering Godwin in my first response, so we'll ignore the whole Nazi Germany angle. :)

        You are a bit more absolute on that than can be easily justified. In the 1850s, the fugitive slave act was the law of the land. Would you be willing to call the people that maned the undergrou

        • In the 1850s, the fugitive slave act was the law of the land. Would you be willing to call the people that maned the underground railroad criminals?

          Sure, of course they were.

          In 1776, the "Founding Fathers" committed treason against their lawful king. Would you say that they should never have revolted?

          I wouldn't say that, but I *would* call them criminals.

          I know you are not replying to me, but the distinction I would make, myself, is that crimes are sometimes justified. Note that a crime is not just what is
        • Would you be willing to call the people that maned the underground railroad criminals?

          Within the law of the day [pbs.org], yes they were. That is a bit different than immigration, though. Illegal immigrants willfully enter this country.

          In 1776, the "Founding Fathers" committed treason against their lawful king. Would you say that they should never have revolted?

          The Colonies didn't like the law as it was written, so they changed it. In so doing, it meant that Britain lost control over the Colonies. Britain (and

  • Something remotely relevant... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sr180 ( 700526 ) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @03:04AM (#15064264) Journal
    In the age of political correctness and racial battles in Australia, where some of the results including Christmas displays being banned in locations because they might be offensive to non-christian immigrants, this was submitted as a letter to the editor of the major Sydney newspaper. I think that similar things apply to America.. ie Dont move to a new country, and try to make it exactly the same as the one you've just left.

    IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It
    I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some
    individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

    However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.

    However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

    This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.
    As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

    This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

    We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
    Russian, or any other language.
    Therefore, if you wish to become part
    of our society, Learn the language!

    "In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.
    It is certainly appropriate to display it on
    the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.

    If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

    We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, And we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

    This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
    every opportunity to enjoy all this.

    But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag,
    Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

    "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

  • I agree government funds should not be used to fund desecration of government symbols. Of course one solution to that is to not take funds involuntarily; then it is implicit that those contributing the funds approve of the actions of the government, taken as a whole. So in this specific case, if we'd quit stealing money and compelling attendance in order to prop up the government education monopoly, the problem would go away, since we agree it's not a problem for people to do whatever they want with any f

    • You and I are not Californians.

      I lived there for 9 years, and most of my family lives there. Close enough to comment on it.

      I recognize the right of the people of California ... to secession.

      I don't. At all.

      As long as they don't interfere with my relationship with my employer, which is a relationship every bit as private as that between a thirteen year old and her doctor.

      If you mean to the exclusion of a parent, then no, there is no right to privacy between a thirteen-year-old and her doctor, at all, of an

      • I lived there for 9 years, and most of my family lives there. Close enough to comment on it.

        Then you do in fact have more claim to it than I do.

        I recognize the right of the people of California ... to secession.

        I don't. At all.

        And there you and I definitely part ways, and you are opposed to the right of persons living in California to govern themselves, as well as an important check against federal tyranny.

        If you mean to the exclusion of a parent, then no, there is no right to privacy betwe

        • And there you and I definitely part ways, and you are opposed to the right of persons living in California to govern themselves, as well as an important check against federal tyranny.

          I am not opposed to them governing themselves. No one forced California to join the union. But now California is a part of the union, and with that choice to join comes certain obligations. The rest of the country relies on each other state in many ways, and you can't just back out.

          And as I don't see secession as valid, I do
  • "But when you fly the U.S. flag upside down, below the Mexican flag, in front of a U.S.-financed public school, that many of you are illegally attending: yeah, I take offense. Seriously, just leave."

    Do you have a source or picture of this? I haven't seen it, but I have heard it mentioned a number of times.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close