« Guantanamo - Germany Turns a Cold Shoulder to Detainees | Main | Späte Einsicht: SPIEGEL ONLINE Finally "Corrects" Obvious Blunders... »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d83460515469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stern Magazine Implies all Hispanics in the USA "Illegals":

» Some Remarks On Illegal Immigration from Pursuit of Serenity
[Read More]

Comments

You want to read discrimination?

Get an English copy of Mexico's constitution.

They're demanding stuff here that we're not allowed there.

LOL better yet check out Mexican Laws on Aliens in their country,

Mexican Immigration Law

Pardon My English sends us to a Center for Security Policy paper (in PDF), Mexico's Glass House, which is a good rundown on Mexican immigration policy and a recommendation that we reciprocate by asking Mexico to change its immigration laws, or changing our own to reflect Mexico's.

Some of those points are:
• Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse. [I.e., no demonstrations - PJ]
• Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights. (Limitations on the type of real estate and the percentage of certain types of companies non-citizens can own.)
• Immigrants are denied equal employment rights. (Hiring preferences for citizens.)
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service. (Non-citizens can't serve in the military, police forces, and even naturalized citizens are barred from serving in the legislature, supreme court, or as president -- for president, even your parents have to be native-born Mexican.)
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
• Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants)
and hand them to the authorities.
• Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

Regarding the mexican laws: I guess that's a reaction to what happend to their northern provinces (like California and New Mexico) in the 1840s. But I agree that they should change those discriminating laws.

Regarding the housing discrimination in Germany: there is a difference betwen a state that actively discriminates (like Mexico) and a state that just allows it's citizens to discriminate if they like (like Germany). Don't get me wrong: I do not condone discrimination based on "reasons" like race, sex or religion, but I don't want the state to interfere with the private decision of a free citizen. Antidiscrimination laws are a stupid idea. Leftists promote them as a part of their "cultur war" to establish a "thought police". Antidiscrimination laws errode the civil liberties (a good book about the topic: e.g. http://www.cato.org/new/10-03/10-01-03r.html).

But if you want to replace stupid and mean antiamericanism with equally stupid and mean antigermanism ("what more could you expect of a nation like Germany [...] You may throw up now")...

Let's not go overboard here. If your translation is correct,

"They sympathize, in part, with the "illegals." According to official figures, they have been the largest minority in the USA since 2001, ahead of blacks with 37 million people",

the first usage of "they" refers to the Hispanic population of US citizens, and then, "they" "have been the largest minority...". It seems pretty clear that the article refers to the 37 million hispanics as US citizens. Perhaps the German does not say this, but your translation shows Sterm not confusing the hispanic citizen and hispanic illegal groups.

Let's not start arguments where there seems to be no reason to start one.

"37 Millionen Illegale in den USA"

I think in this case that this might be an honest(!) mistake here. It clearly says "37 Million Illegals" (and then a reference to the Spanish population), but it also says earlier within the article:

Am 1. Mai sollen in den ganzen USA Massendemonstrationen abgehalten werden, um eine leichtere Einbürgerung von illegal Eingewanderten zu erreichen. Die meisten dieser schätzungsweise zwölf Millionen Menschen stammen aus Spanisch sprechenden Ländern wie Mexiko.

(roughly)
'On May 1st mass-demonstrations will (so the source) be held throughout the USA in order to achieve an easier path to citizenship for illegals. The majority of the estimated 12 million people come mostly from Spanish speaking countries like Mexico.'

I can't imagine someone would go out of the way to write a 'catchy' header just to contradict themselves (and thus appear stupid) within the same article. Overall the article seems to present multiple sides of the issue too (although briefly - but then I'd even give them credit for having it in their paper at all). Anyway, I don't think this is really a big issue - I'd just suggest writing the editor and pointing out the mistake - if they don't fix it then I'd start to wonder, but until then I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt with this one.

@RZ
Mexico's Constitution was adopted in 1917 after Diaz was expelled and the PRI took over. Most of the anti-immigrant language was directed at German nationals that settled in Mexico because they could not get into the US. Many of these Germans were Protestans and quickly became business owners and landowners. Not exactly the type of citizens an anti-clerical and socialist country would welcome. The treaty that the US and Mexico signed, and which both sides still honor, extended citizenship and property rights to Mexican citizens that were no living in the territoies of the US. I doubt if the Mexican Constitution was adopted to keep Americans from being citizens but it did keep Americans and for that matter any foreigner from owning property or even majority shares in Mexican corporations. On this issue we might have to give the US a pass.

@ RZ,

I guess the anti-discrimination laws sound stupid unless you are the one who can't find an apartment for a year because you have kids or the wrong birthplace. And hey, let's throw out our murder laws too because they might interfere with the choices of private citizens. Sure, that makes sense...

As far as your braindead charge of anti-Germanism goes, it might help if you knew that David and I are both German citizens. (Yeah, it does help to know what you are talking about doesn't it...)

@RayD

"Yeah, I guess the anti-discrimination laws sound stupid unless you are the one who can't find an apartment for a year because you have kids or the wrong birthplace."

I doubt that anti-discrimination laws work. Even if there are laws that prohibit discrimination against families with many children, landlords still could discriminate, they just would have to stop to be frank and honest about it.

But I see, obviuosly you promote a strong nanny-state. How very German: the state is the answer to every problem.

"As far as your braindead charge of anti-Germanism goes, it might help if you knew that David and I are both German citizens. (Yeah, it does help to know what you are talking about doesn't it)"

Oh, so there are no anti-german Germans, as there are no anti-american Americans or anti-semitic Semites. Sure. Having to throw up when thinking about Germany shows how much you love the country...

There is hope for the English speaking M$M when it comes to reporting on substantive issues on Germany!

I saw a report on Fox, which was borrowed from British Independent Television, (ITV). It was a scathing report on Jerry Schroeder, accusing him of having a gross conflict of interest with GASPROM.

It mentioned the deal that he etched out while he was still Chancellor. The Ruskies and Germans are building a joint gas pipe line from Russia to Germany, through the Baltic Sea. This pipeline is 10 times more expensive than laying a pipeline on land. But it avoids traveling through the Baltic states and Poland. This gives Putin the advantage of cutting off gas to Poland or the Baltics without harming Germany whenever he wants to tighten the screws.

The reporter, who appeared to be an Irish national, tried a Dan Rather style ambush of Schoeder on the streets of Berlin. Jerry, the master weasel, slithered away from the interviewer.

The piece ended with an interview in English with Guido Westerwelle. Guido got to lay into Schroder pretty good, calling for an investigation into the conflict of interest.

Well that pipeline deal was probably made to increase german-russian relations (or like Merkel put it, to enhance our "strategic partnership"). Of course this was not made for the benefit of those baltic nations, but who needs those whining countries anyway? You could take a look at the other side of the coin: A pipeline on the land through those countries would have granted them the possibility of cutting our supplies off. Now we are safe from that threat.

And good old Schroeder doesnt have to worry about his income so much anymore, too :)
So while he benefited in person from that deal, it is also a deal for the benefit of both countries.

Dave,

"A pipeline on the land through those countries would have granted them the possibility of cutting our supplies off. Now we are safe from that threat."

But Poland has been admitted into the EU. The Baltic countries are applying for EU membership. Poland was admitted into NATO in 1999. The Baltic countries were admitted in 2004.

These countries are supposed to be your allies and friends. You are slapping them in the face. This looks bad, considering Germany's history in the region.

Also, Germany is acting unilaterally in this matter. I thought Germany was a strong believer in multi-lateral diplomacy.

What if the U.S.A., Germany's most important trading partner, decided to put "environmental" taxes on German gas guzzling automobiles. There would be many lay offs at Mercedes, BMW and Porsche. 10% of the German GDP is its automobile industry. But then, the U.S.A. would only be acting in its own interest.

@Dave: Well, let's see. So your points are: (1) Anti-corruption laws aren't really important in Germany. Good. I'll remember that the next time I hear a report about Airbus denying that its salesmen offer bribes to third-world nation leaders. In fact, maybe the U.S. should start donating large amounts of government money to German political candidates that it favors. After all, corruption isn't really that big a deal, is it? (2) Poland is currently an important U.S. and British ally. And, oh by the way, isn't Poland an EU member, and isn't the EU supposed to be a union of equals? I know, some members are more equal than others. But if the euro collapses, which it might with the end of the Stability Pact, I know which country will be in a better position to re-launch its own currency. (3) Russia's leadership is very volatile and the situation could change in an instant. Suppose Germany falls out of favor with Moscow for some reason (such as, say, harboring Chechnyan terrorist suspects). Now, Russia has the option of currying favor with Eastern Europe by sending Poland gas while cutting Germany off. If the pipeline ran through Poland, Russia couldn't cut Germany off without shutting the pipeline down altogether (which it won't do because, geopolitical considerations aside, Russia needs the rubles). But, with a separate pipeline, Russia can cut Germany off separately. Will Poland be inclined to help out by trucking gas to Germany from its terminals? Doubtful.

Back to the original subject. Look, folks, here's the deal with the illegal aliens. The U.S. has some very stringent minimum-wage laws. But, there are some industries that find it difficult to make a profit if they have to pay their workers the official minimum wage. As it happens, a lot of these are in industries that the leftists have long thought of as "brothers", plus the leftists want their organic lettuce and lattes to be cheap. So, for decades now, they have maintained a nudge-nudge-wink-wink relationship with illegal aliens. The leftists pretend that the illegals aren't there, in order to get what they want, and the illegals stay under the radar.

Well, some leftists have taken a look at this situation and seen an opportunity. Remember, one of the basic principles of leftism and socialism is class warfare: the "worker" classes are to rise up in righteous indignation and overthrow the upper and middle classes, and distribute property "equitably", whatever that means. Now, the problem that they have always had is that the U.S. doesn't really have an underclass as such. Yes, there are poor and disadvantaged people in the U.S., but by and large they chose that role themselves, in order to live a life free from responsibility of any sort. That doesn't really work for class warfare; yes, the responsibility-free class would love to get their hands on other people's property, but it it means actually getting up off the couch and missing an episode of Jerry Springer, well, they'll have to think about it and get back to you later.

So, lacking an underclass to fight their class war for them, the leftists have seized on the illegals to try to create one. Mind you, they don't really want full citizenship for these people, because if they had full citizenship, they would become, well citizens. They'd no longer be an underclass. Minimum wage laws would now apply to them. The cost of organic lettuce and lattes might go up! Horrors! So what they really want to do is create some kind of legal suspended-animation status, in which the illegals would be sort of citizens but not really, and their status would be vague and undefined and totally at the government's whim. So, when the leftists win the next election (in their dreams), they can turn these people into a bought-and-paid-for voting bloc by the simple expedient of threatening to cut their checks off if they don't fall in line. (A time-honored leftist tradition in the U.S., one that they honed for decades in the ghettos, before welfare reform broke that.)

Of course, the idea of a permanent, legally established second-class citizenry is abhorrent to clear-minded people at both ends of the U.S. political spectrum. And, as the leftist groups who are driving these protests get more outrageous with their demands (check all the "Viva La Raza" signs, an outright racist slogan), the U.S. public is turning increasingly against this sort of "reform", as recent polls have shown. So we'll have to see how it all plays out, but I'm betting that the leftists are going to wind up falling on their swords once again.

@ RZ

"I doubt that anti-discrimination laws work. Even if there are laws that prohibit discrimination against families with many children, landlords still could discriminate, they just would have to stop to be frank and honest about it.

But I see, obviuosly you promote a strong nanny-state. How very German: the state is the answer to every problem."

So is it also promoting "a strong nanny-state" to ban slavery, child labor and segregation as well? After all, that is the government interfering with the decisions of private individuals, right? Furthermore, your argument that you "doubt" anti-discrimination laws work is hardly convincing or backed by any evidence. Just ask successful blacks and other minorities who can now live and go to school and play golf where they please how effective (or not) those laws have been.

As far as your charge of being anti-German. Let me put that to bed as well. I am disgusted not with Germany as an entire nation, but with elitist segments of German society, media and politics that on the one hand condone open and flagrant discrimination against minorities domestically and on the other hand turn around and think it is their duty to lecture the United States on minority rights. In other words, I am disgusted with the hypocrisy we see in Germany on a regular basis. If you were a little too dense to catch that than perhaps you should reread the article my friend.

And by the way, isn't it ironic that you accuse us of being anti-German and then turn around yourself and stereotype all Germans as thinking "the state is the answer to every problem." It's obvious from your comments that you have no idea what we stand for here.

And oh by the way, if you want to keep commenting, I suggest you stop insulting the people who provide you this site for free (as anti-German, etc.) and come back with some reasonable, factually supported arguments.

@RZ
Just take a look at the antidiscrimination laws in the US. They indeed work. We also have, because of that law the most stringent policies regarding the disabled. That is a law the German Government decided to scrap because it was too expensive. We did it and, yes, it was very expensive, but it protected all people from age discrimination to religion, race, ethic heritage and much more. Please use your computer to educate yourself before commenting nonsense, it does work.

@ George M

"These countries are supposed to be your allies and friends. You are slapping them in the face."

Its more of a "We know you and thus react" - approach. Poland has fallen in our back regarding EU matters several times now, and cannot be trusted. They tend to dislike us for whatever reason and relations are not very friendly. So finding a workaround solution was a good idea to avoid future conflicts on the vital energy supply sector.

"Also, Germany is acting unilaterally in this matter. I thought Germany was a strong believer in multi-lateral diplomacy."

I dont know if thats still true, since Schroeder became chancellor (continueing now under Merkel) our country has initiated quite some unilateral "strategic" partnerships (Russia, China, India, Brasil, I recently found a nice article regarding Chile - if you understand german language: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/56342)

So today the multilateral approach might only apply to the united nations affairs.

Well Dave, that's exactly the point. If Germany is going to act unilaterally on its own behalf, that's one thing. But German elites seem to think that this privilege is exclusively theirs; they rip the U.S. day in and day out for doing the same things they are doing. And if Germany no longer believes in multi-lateral diplomacy, why does it still insist on a seat on the U.N. Security Council? And further, is Germany now abdicating its leadership role in the EU?

As for Polish dislike: Think that might have something to do with "Polish plumber" campaigns?

@ Cousin Dave

"And, oh by the way, isn't Poland an EU member, and isn't the EU supposed to be a union of equals? I know, some members are more equal than others."

Of course some are more equal than others. Or did you really think we pay billions of euros every year into the EU out of altruism? As we all know the german state has to save money on every spot, but why isnt the european donations critisized? Its because its well worth the effort. it ensures the influence of our government, our political parties on the european level and our industries. Other members might question our right to own such a level of representation if we stopped paying this much. But this way, we are pretty safe from that pressure.

"Russia's leadership is very volatile and the situation could change in an instant. Suppose Germany falls out of favor with Moscow for some reason (such as, say, harboring Chechnyan terrorist suspects)"

First of all, I consider russia´s leadership to be very strong and have no doubts about that. And secondly, all our governments cooperated very much with russia regarding chechnya in the past. I dont see any changes there, the guys in the foreign ministry are too sensitive to make such a mistake.

Want to know Germany's take on undocumented workers? You force them into prostitution!

Check out this great article published in Focus:
http://focus.msn.de/sport/wm2006/zwangsprostitution_nid_28376.html

Germany is subsidizing forced prostitution for the Soccer World Cup. The Russian mob, (ex KGB), recruits desperate young girls from all around Eastern Europe, enticing them with “dancing” or “hostess” jobs. When they arrive, they are assigned a pimp and put into the legal bordellos that are pervasive in Germany. Both FIFA, the Soccer governing organization, and members of the U.S. Congress are warning Germany on this subject. Apparently, pimps are getting big government handouts to open "super bordellos" in time for the soccer games.

Members of the U.S. Congress want this subject to be brought up to Chancellor Merkel during her upcoming visit to Washington.

Note: Focus tried to put a spin on this, implying that the "criticism" is originating from the U.S. religious right....but FIFA is definitely not affiliated with the U.S. or any religious denomination.

@Dave: That is not at all my understanding of how the EU is structured. If it were, what would be Poland's motivation to join? But someone please jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.

And you wouldn't make too many assumptions about Russia's stability of government if you knew anything about its 20th-century history.

Cousin Dave

"If it were, what would be Poland's motivation to join?"

They gain most money of those newly joined members. I think thats a nice reason to join.

Regarding the direct pipeline between Russia and Germany...as they say, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Russia has, and still is, playing threatening games with energy supplies. The fact that they tried to play games with Ukraine using a pipeline that supplies gas to most of Europe was instrumental in ending that game so quickly when all of Europe rose in protest. Now, just imagine there is a direct pipeline to each country and Russia can selectively "shut off" gas to any individual country they like without affecting supplies to any other country. Imagine they decide to shut off gas to Germany -- who else would care in that case?

Contrary to what many here seem to think, I'm not so sure it is a very good strategic decision to limit ones options like that.

@RayD

"So is it also promoting "a strong nanny-state" to ban slavery, child labor and segregation as well? After all, that is the government interfering with the decisions of private individuals, right?"

No, it's not. That's a faulty comparison, just as your previous comparison with murder. Slavery is a violation of the basic human rights of the slave, child labor is a violation if the basic human rights of a child. Segregation is an policy of the government.

But if a landlord decides not to (e.g.) rent a flat to a woman, that is neither an policy of the government nor a violation of her basic human rights, because there is no human right of getting a contract with another free citizen. In fact, not being forced to socialise with people or make contracts with people if you don't want to and not being forced to explain your reasons for such an act to the government is an essential part of what makes a citizen a free citizen.

The landlord will probably have dozens of men and women who want to rent the flat, and he has to make the decision who gets the flat. Anti-discrimination laws do nothing exept to tell the landlord "the reason is ok" (e.g. "I hate republicans", "Your face is ugly", "I hate fat people",...) or "this reason is not ok, don't admit it".

"Furthermore, your argument that you "doubt" anti-discrimination laws work is hardly convincing or backed by any evidence. Just ask successful blacks and other minorities who can now live and go to school and play golf where they please how effective (or not) those laws have been."

That argument only makes sense if you believe that the white us-americans are still racists and only socialise with blacks because they are forced to by effective anti-discrimination laws. I do not believe that.

"I am disgusted not with Germany as an entire nation, but with elitist segments of German society, media and politics [...] If you were a little too dense to catch that than perhaps you should reread the article my friend."

Ok, in that case I still disagree with you about the discrimination topic, but you are not anti-german.

But the reason for me thinking that you are anti-german was not me "beeing dense". The article says "what more could you expect of a nation like Germany [...] You may throw up now...". If you didn't mean to say that, you shouldn't have put it that way.

Oh, by the way: that remindes me of many guys who also regularly say things like "What more could you expect of a country like the USA (yuck! you may now thorw up)" and then say "No, I love the USA and it's citizens, I just critisize President Bush". Aren't those guys called "anti-americans" on this blog?

"Secondly, and most importantly, not all illegal aliens are Hispanic and not all Hispanics are illegals as Stern outrageously implies. The publication is guilty of either journalistic negligence or shameless racism."

It is also guilty of journalistic ignorance. What the hell is the "Spanish-Mexican cultural group?" And since when are Hispanics "Spanish-Mexican" as implied by their statement "the Spanish-Mexican cultural group, the Hispanics?" Stern seems to be guilty of ignorance, negligence and racism all rolled into one.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31