racist cartoon? or not?

[Pogo]

You still haven't essplained how you got to the idea that immigration is about "crime". With or without the cartoon. I'm lost.

Hi Pogo:

One reason I've found for why people object, even Hispanic/Latino/Mexican Americans, to the idea of lax or amnesty approaches to immigration violations is that this doesn't treat the lawful residents and citizens fairly who did go through legal channels.

It rewards violations of laws by letting them keep the advantage they obtained unlawfully.
This is seen as allowing someone to keep the car they stole and just make the remainder of the payments.
What about someone who never stole a car?
it seems to send the wrong message.

It is okay for the church to send the message of forgiveness,
but the state should require restitution that is proportional to the wrongs and the costs incurred.*

So if you are going to overlook those violations, this opens the door to lax enforcement overall.
It invites crime, since you are not enforcing the laws for everyone.
You are saying it's okay for some people to break the law and be forgiven and allowed the same privileges
as those who didn't break the laws.

* note this is why I would recommend "earned amnesty" so this IS fair to the people who committed
no crimes, and holds people accountable including businesses based on the PROPORTION they did wrong.

So a major reason people OBJECT is they DON'T want to Encourage crime.
(where they might be hypocrites is letting businesses get away with crime
and only blaming poor people stuck in prisons or welfare for crime,
but not holding wealthy crooks to pay back for their crimes against taxpayers)

Oh - you're talking about immigration itself as a crime. I see.
I don't hear it framed that way though. What I hear is the fear of taking jobs, taking benefits, voting, driver's licenses, etc. I don't hear anyone railing against illegal immigration on the basis that it's against the law. I don't think you have assessed the focus quite right.

You are not listening to the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration crowd if you have not heard railing against illegal immigration on that basis.

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno".

The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody's personally invested in the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints -- the personal self-interest. You can't sit there and seriously suggest the objections to some group of immigrants has nothing to do with their taking jobs, benefits, citizenship, ballots etc and claim that it's instead based on "they broke the law". Does not follow.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Pogo:

One reason I've found for why people object, even Hispanic/Latino/Mexican Americans, to the idea of lax or amnesty approaches to immigration violations is that this doesn't treat the lawful residents and citizens fairly who did go through legal channels.

It rewards violations of laws by letting them keep the advantage they obtained unlawfully.
This is seen as allowing someone to keep the car they stole and just make the remainder of the payments.
What about someone who never stole a car?
it seems to send the wrong message.

It is okay for the church to send the message of forgiveness,
but the state should require restitution that is proportional to the wrongs and the costs incurred.*

So if you are going to overlook those violations, this opens the door to lax enforcement overall.
It invites crime, since you are not enforcing the laws for everyone.
You are saying it's okay for some people to break the law and be forgiven and allowed the same privileges
as those who didn't break the laws.

* note this is why I would recommend "earned amnesty" so this IS fair to the people who committed
no crimes, and holds people accountable including businesses based on the PROPORTION they did wrong.

So a major reason people OBJECT is they DON'T want to Encourage crime.
(where they might be hypocrites is letting businesses get away with crime
and only blaming poor people stuck in prisons or welfare for crime,
but not holding wealthy crooks to pay back for their crimes against taxpayers)

Oh - you're talking about immigration itself as a crime. I see.
I don't hear it framed that way though. What I hear is the fear of taking jobs, taking benefits, voting, driver's licenses, etc. I don't hear anyone railing against illegal immigration on the basis that it's against the law. I don't think you have assessed the focus quite right.

You are not listening to the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration crowd if you have not heard railing against illegal immigration on that basis.

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno".

The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody's personally invested in the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints -- the personal self-interest. You can't sit there and seriously suggest the objections to some group of immigrants has nothing to do with their taking jobs, benefits, citizenship, ballots etc and claim that it's based on "they broke the law".

Dear Pogo
If we agree to focus on not breaking laws
Then lets justcapply that to peoole and corporations and govt equally. Lets be consistent with law enforcement where we agree!

If you are afraid of adding more and more, they are too! Get it?

 

[JoeMoma]

Hi Pogo:

One reason I've found for why people object, even Hispanic/Latino/Mexican Americans, to the idea of lax or amnesty approaches to immigration violations is that this doesn't treat the lawful residents and citizens fairly who did go through legal channels.

It rewards violations of laws by letting them keep the advantage they obtained unlawfully.
This is seen as allowing someone to keep the car they stole and just make the remainder of the payments.
What about someone who never stole a car?
it seems to send the wrong message.

It is okay for the church to send the message of forgiveness,
but the state should require restitution that is proportional to the wrongs and the costs incurred.*

So if you are going to overlook those violations, this opens the door to lax enforcement overall.
It invites crime, since you are not enforcing the laws for everyone.
You are saying it's okay for some people to break the law and be forgiven and allowed the same privileges
as those who didn't break the laws.

* note this is why I would recommend "earned amnesty" so this IS fair to the people who committed
no crimes, and holds people accountable including businesses based on the PROPORTION they did wrong.

So a major reason people OBJECT is they DON'T want to Encourage crime.
(where they might be hypocrites is letting businesses get away with crime
and only blaming poor people stuck in prisons or welfare for crime,
but not holding wealthy crooks to pay back for their crimes against taxpayers)

Oh - you're talking about immigration itself as a crime. I see.
I don't hear it framed that way though. What I hear is the fear of taking jobs, taking benefits, voting, driver's licenses, etc. I don't hear anyone railing against illegal immigration on the basis that it's against the law. I don't think you have assessed the focus quite right.

You are not listening to the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration crowd if you have not heard railing against illegal immigration on that basis.

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno". The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody cares about the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints.

It is where is starts and ends. Hence the word ILLEGAL. And since these immigrants are illegal, they have no right to those resources.

 

[Pogo]

Oh - you're talking about immigration itself as a crime. I see.
I don't hear it framed that way though. What I hear is the fear of taking jobs, taking benefits, voting, driver's licenses, etc. I don't hear anyone railing against illegal immigration on the basis that it's against the law. I don't think you have assessed the focus quite right.

You are not listening to the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration crowd if you have not heard railing against illegal immigration on that basis.

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno".

The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody's personally invested in the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints -- the personal self-interest. You can't sit there and seriously suggest the objections to some group of immigrants has nothing to do with their taking jobs, benefits, citizenship, ballots etc and claim that it's based on "they broke the law".

Dear Pogo
If we agree to focus on not breaking laws
Then lets justcapply that to peoole and corporations and govt equally. Lets be consistent with law enforcement where we agree!

If you are afraid of adding more and more, they are too! Get it?

Consistency is always a good thing. But introducing "crimes" (and for that matter corporations) at this late stage isn't consistent. They simply aren't part of this cartoon. I sense a big red herring being tossed in the rhetorical karahi here.

(Not that there's anything 'inferior' about red herring as opposed to black, brown, etc.... )

 

[Pogo]

Oh - you're talking about immigration itself as a crime. I see.
I don't hear it framed that way though. What I hear is the fear of taking jobs, taking benefits, voting, driver's licenses, etc. I don't hear anyone railing against illegal immigration on the basis that it's against the law. I don't think you have assessed the focus quite right.

You are not listening to the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration crowd if you have not heard railing against illegal immigration on that basis.

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno". The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody cares about the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints.

It is where is starts and ends. Hence the word ILLEGAL. And since these immigrants are illegal, they have no right to those resources.

Oh Bolshoi. You're actually suggesting people care more about whether some stranger a thousand miles away broke the law, than in stuff that directly affects their own self-interest?

 

[Ame®icano]

cartoon JIMROMENESKO.COM

Yes. By showing them coming in the window, seemingly uninvited it's racist.

You know when liberal is losing the argument there will be race card pulled out of nowhere.

 

[JoeMoma]

You are not listening to the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration crowd if you have not heard railing against illegal immigration on that basis.

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno". The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody cares about the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints.

It is where is starts and ends. Hence the word ILLEGAL. And since these immigrants are illegal, they have no right to those resources.

Oh Bolshoi. You're actually suggesting people care more about whether some stranger a thousand miles away broke the law, than in stuff that directly affects their own self-interest?

No, I'm saying that they go together. Let's relate this to the cartoon. The Hispanic looking people are not knocking on the front door so that they can be invited to come in. They are coming in through the window, uninvited. This symbolizes that the are coming in illegally as in without permission. They are coming in for the turkey, mashed potatos and pumpkin pie uninvited. If they were to come through the front door like legal immigrants, then sitting down at the table would be expected. Since the family being invaded does not have the resources to feed the world, they have every right to only allow people that they invite over in for the meal. So you see, it has everything to do with being either legal or illegal, invited or not invited. So all the bitching about taking jobs, welfare, etc. starts with that they are not invited to have use of these resources to begin with. They are here illegally!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Emily?

Hate to burst yo bubbly, but he was talking to me.

Yeah I know!!!!
I was still teasing him about turning me on with all that dirty talk.
Bad boys are so sexy, y'know.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily?

Hate to burst yo bubbly, but he was talking to me.

Yeah I know!!!!
I was still teasing him about turning me on with all that dirty talk.
Bad boys are so sexy, y'know.

^ Hey what's this? ^
Mr. M&M on a bad day?

I'd bail him out of jail but
couldn't guarantee I wouldn't eat him for lunch!

 

[emilynghiem]

cartoon JIMROMENESKO.COM

Yes. By showing them coming in the window, seemingly uninvited it's racist.

You know when liberal is losing the argument there will be race card pulled out of nowhere.

Well Ame®icano, this may prove that I'm a little of both, blended together like a dangerous cocktail.

I agree with both Pogo's explanations about class instead of race,
I agree with Vigilante's and others explanations about crime and breaking laws, instead of fomenting any race issue.
(I don't think the same way as bigr who didn't think my own humor was racist too, when it deliberately uses racial references and stereotypes to make a point with satire, but as long as BR applies that same system consistently, and doesn't call one thing racist and another thing not, then I can follow the logic and it's right for them. I agree that is consistent.)

All this, and I STILL agree with the observation
that the skin color in this cartoon was deliberately
made white or lighter skinned for the people inside
and deliberately brown or darker skin for the people outside.

I agree with everyone's views above, about what the ISSUE is or is not,
but that Cartoon still uses skin color in a way that implies race.

You can call it racist, racial bias, racial perception or stereotype,
but it is clearly a reference to skin color which is associated with race
and the Cartoonist knew this. Even if the Cartoon was merely poking at
the public debate going on. And I agree the real debate is over other issues.
but the Cartoon is satirizing the issue and using references to race by skin tone.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Emily?

Hate to burst yo bubbly, but he was talking to me.

Yeah I know!!!!
I was still teasing him about turning me on with all that dirty talk.
Bad boys are so sexy, y'know.

^ Hey what's this? ^
Mr. M&M on a bad day?

I'd bail him out of jail but
couldn't guarantee I wouldn't eat him for lunch!

just a bad boy trying to be sexy......

 

[Pogo]

I've heard that trotted out as an argument -- but I haven't heard it used as a rationale for their concerns.

You follow the distinction?

IOW I hear "they're taking our jobs", I hear "they're taking welfare", I hear "they're dropping babies", "they're voting", "they're getting driver's licenses". What I don't hear--- as a personal concern -- is "they're breaking the law".

(Which of those is not like the others?)

Breaking the law by being here....not adhering to the established immigration system/law is where all those other points start. That being said, most of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration crowd think that by stressing the word ILLEGAL that it is understood that breaking the law is a focal point of the issue. This is the reason why many people object to illegal immigrants being called UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.

Nnnnnooo, I don't think that's where they start at all; I think that's where they end.

There's a reason I typed "which of these is not like the others". Fears of immigrants taking jobs, benefits, ballots, driver's licenses, healthcare, citizenship --- all of those derive from self-interest. They're all personal. "How will this affect Numero Uno". The legal status is the one not like the others. Law is abstract, not personal. Nobody cares about the rule of law; that's just a tool to address the former complaints.

It is where is starts and ends. Hence the word ILLEGAL. And since these immigrants are illegal, they have no right to those resources.

Oh Bolshoi. You're actually suggesting people care more about whether some stranger a thousand miles away broke the law, than in stuff that directly affects their own self-interest?

No, I'm saying that they go together. Let's relate this to the cartoon. The Hispanic looking people are not knocking on the front door so that they can be invited to come in. They are coming in through the window, uninvited. This symbolizes that the are coming in illegally as in without permission. They are coming in for the turkey, mashed potatos and pumpkin pie uninvited. If they were to come through the front door like legal immigrants, then sitting down at the table would be expected. Since the family being invaded does not have the resources to feed the world, they have every right to only allow people that they invite over in for the meal. So you see, it has everything to do with being either legal or illegal, invited or not invited. So all the bitching about taking jobs, welfare, etc. starts with that they are not invited to have use of these resources to begin with. They are here illegally!

I don't disagree that "uninvited intruders" is the metaphor. What that is is is an emotional level.

But concerns about "legality" just do not follow from that. It would be translating an emotion into an abstract. The message, however flawed, thrives perfectly well on that emotional level, much longer in fact than a rational level would. Mob mentality is not swayed by rationality but by emotion. Translation to an abstract would in fact dilute the whole thrust of it and defeat its purpose.

Besides which, you've been trying to make the case that the cartoon centers on color -- now you're switching over to abstractions of "legalities", which could hardly be a more different base of reasoning. Pick a side awready.