In the presidential election of 2016, the question of how to reform our immigration system was at the forefront of the issues, so it is little surprise that it didn’t take very long for it to rear its head once the new president was sworn into office. First, President Trump issued his (currently in limbo) executive order limiting immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, and now the recent actions of ICE regarding illegal immigrants have drawn the expected responses from the two main political factions. The former question is an important one, but herein we will concern ourselves only with the latter issue.
The fact is that a majority of Americans favor a “pathway to citizenship” where immigrants from countries not seen as a potential terrorist threat (see: Mexico) are concerned. The country as a whole may tolerate (or even favor) the rounding up of illegals with criminal records rife with felonies, but in all likelihood, a large-scale campaign of armed federal officials tromping around peaceful Hispanic communities rounding up Abuela will not sit well with American citizens. This being the case, there are a few ways Americans whose beliefs fall somewhere between the two extremes may be able to come together on the question of what to do about immigration, at least in a very broad sense. We can start by being honest. Immigration is an emotionally charged issue. But it does no good to insist that the only reason anyone would oppose immigration is racism, or that anyone who favors a higher level of immigration than you do is a “globalist” or wants “white genocide.” Most Trump voters don’t want to round up every Mexican day laborer, and most Hillary voters aren’t for just abandoning the border and letting Mexico invade. There are those people on both sides of the issue, surely, but they don’t make up a majority of the voting public. They just happen to make a lot of noise. Assuming these things about each other makes it impossible to actually come to a consensus. It’s also important to recognize that the United States does, in fact, have the same right as every other country on earth to limit immigration in any way she sees fit, and we have always done so. The idea that limiting immigration levels from this country or that is “un-American” is historically illiterate. Borders exist. Nations are sovereign. Immigration can be limited. Illegal aliens can be deported. It is of the utmost importance to make fixing the legal immigration system a priority. Unfortunately, it is run by the federal government, so it’s a terrible mess. The horror stories of the bureaucratic nightmare that is our immigration system are well known to anyone who has spent any time working with/employing people with visas or green cards, or with people who couldn’t get one. This is where the “but the illegals are breaking the law” argument breaks down for a lot of us: dealing with any federal bureaucracy is next to impossible even for citizens. It is also imperative that all pressure that can be brought to bear on the government of Mexico to get their own house in order be applied. The cartels do exist, and they do commit crimes on American soil. This is not only a violation of our national sovereignty but makes Donald Trump’s claims about Mexican criminal elements resonate with a lot of people. That the vast majority of Mexicans crossing the border are doing so for perfectly honest reasons is lost in the noise. The Mexican government must take more responsibility for ending this problem. There is also an important point which needs to be made that has fallen out of favor recently: the need for assimilation. In the America of the last two decades or so it has become increasingly en vogue for people to “celebrate” their culture and heritage. Most of the time what this seems to mean is celebrating it over traditional American culture (think Mexican flags at pro-immigration rallies). The hard truth that needs to be faced, especially by the left, is this: the majority of Americans are perfectly willing to accept an immigrant from anywhere if that person’s objective is to become an American. This does not mean people need to lose their customs from the old country (plenty of Italian and German immigrant families who have been American for a century retain many of theirs). What it does mean is that Americans expect people to immigrate here because they love this country and what it represents and they want to be a part of it, not that they seek mere financial opportunities. The slogan “Make America Great Again” should actually be, at least when applied to immigration, “here’s why America is great and if you want to come here because you believe in it and want to be an American, well we get that, and we’ll work with you, because we love Her, too.” It should be clear that as a nation we do not expect immigrants to abandon their culture, but we do expect them to become an American in their hearts, not just on paper. As Teddy Roosevelt put it: “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all...we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” That this idea is controversial to so many is why there is so much support for a crackdown on immigration and building a border wall. None of these ideas is revelatory. They may even be, for the most part, mainstream. That they are so difficult to enact is probably a function of the squeakiest wheels always getting the grease, and until the people between the two political extremes recognize that most Americans are amenable to something like them, the squeaky wheels will continue getting greased, right up until we all slip off the cliff.
0 Comments
Welcome back to "Ask Alex", where I answer all of your stupid questions with even dumber answers. Have a question you need answered? Tweet it, email it or submit it here and I will get to it (maybe) next week.
-------------------------------- This week we’re talking tattoos, food and millennial sex. You’ll learn about my tramp stamp, my c-section scars, hot dogs and I’ll out some truly dangerous sandwich deniers!!! And you are lucky that I am not discussing asset and liability management for commercial banks, because that is what is going on in the Misfit DM right now...and you think we can’t have fun… Happy Reading! Submitted by: Rebecca de Winter (OK...I forgot to tackle this last week, so I am doing it now. Rebecca asked a question about one of my tattoos, which turned into a general request to talk about them all) Since I am such a super classy lady, I currently have six tattoos, and have considered getting at least a couple more. Most are meaningful and I have no desire to have any of them removed, although I’d choose not to get one of them if I could go back. Also, I just had an idea...reply in the comments or via Twitter (@verumvulnero1) and let me know which one you’d most like to see and maybe I will post a picture of it. That’s a very hard maybe. I got my first one when I was 16, which is a misdemeanor in Illinois (at least for the guy tattooing me). I’m sure you will be stunned to find out that I managed to find a tattoo parlor that was willing to take my $100 and look the other way on the age requirement… Anyway, a girl that I knew pretty well got shot in very much a wrong-place, wrong-time situation. I never wanted to forget about her, nor did I ever want to forget about exactly how much that event made me want to move as far away from there as possible. So, I got a little bird on my stomach, about two inches to the right of my belly button and just below the belt line. My favorite part about this one? It now appears to be carrying my c-section scar in mid-flight and I adore everything about that. I got the second one during my Sophomore year in college right after the end of a very long, very messy relationship with my high school boyfriend that included an ugly breakup (it’s a very long story). Feeling pretty down, I chose to remind myself that messy situations are what makes us strong, so I got that tattooed on my shoulder in Japanese (the rough-ish translation is “strength comes from adversity”). I had my friend and her Japanese father (who has now made two appearances in this space) come with me to make sure I didn’t end up with a recipe for Miso soup… The third one was a little impetuous, but I love it. When I moved away to college, my sister was about 6 and, since I wasn’t welcome at home for a while, I went nearly 18 months without seeing her. I finally came home for an extended visit right before my junior year started, and I took her to a fair where we both got temporary tattoos...a rose on my ankle and one on her arm. A couple days later, driving through Missouri on the way back to school, I found myself missing her terribly and stopped to have that rose done for real. I could do without the fourth one, but what right-minded girl who came of age in the early 2000’s doesn’t have a tramp stamp, right? Mine is a nondescript sun that I got because my friend was getting one done at the same time and I thought it might be cute. I don’t hate it, but it’s the only one that isn’t really meaningful...if I could go back, I would either not get it at all, or I’d get something representing one or both of my Alma Maters (@ladylibertas76 and I have discussed this, which reminds me that each and every one of you should encourage her to get her bar number tattooed on her lower back! Seriously, do it now...) The fifth one came along after I met my father’s family. I never met my father or his family until I was in my 20’s. He was a dirtball of epic proportions, but they are some of the nicest people I know! At the time, I had 13 cousins on that side, and only two of them were girls (we have since discovered my other sister...have I told you that story? It is super WT). Those two are pretty much best friends and they have tattoos of two intertwined rings with a vine running through them. When the older one got married a couple years later, they added a third ring and I had the three rings done on my foot, a reminded of my favorite cousins and one more thing that my asshole father deprived me of. I think we will get the fourth ring added when my sister turns 18 in a couple of years, but we’ll see if she wants to do it. The last one is only a year and a half old, and my sister (the adopted one from my mother, not the younger one from my father) and two pretend sisters (my best friend and her older sister) all have identical ones. Mine is on my ribcage, left side, just below where a bikini top sits. It’s pretty simple, all of our initials and then “αδελφότητα”, the Greek word for sisterhood (brotherhood, whatever, it’s the same word). There is a good chance that I am not done. I don’t have any for my kids, and nothing for my husband (unless you count the c-section scar, which I blame on all three of them in their own ways!!!) @Tiffany1985B was floating the idea of getting her kids birthdays on the back of her neck, and I love that idea (sort of...my kids have the same birthday, so it is only one date!) I feel like I get more questions about them now than I ever did before...likely because they look a little more out of place on a 34 year-old mother than they do on a 25 year-old girl. But I don’t ever regret any of them, and save for the tramp stamp, I love them all. They are meaningful, they have stories and they are all pretty cute. I also feel like I have conversations all the time with women who are my age or older who don’t have them and are thinking about getting one. To them, I usually say “Go for it!”. I get the trepidation about having a ton of ink at the senior’s social in 2040, but frankly that seems overblown. It’s not like you are going to be the only one there with a tattoo. But, I have always been a little scared of huge, unhideable pieces, so I kind of encourage people to avoid those...mine are all small and easy to cover (except the ankle) at any time and I am glad for that. Also, this should go without saying, but make sure it is something you want to have forever. Getting them removed is much more expensive and more painful than getting them done! Anything relating to your kids or to lost family members is pretty safe...but if you haven’t gotten around to marrying that boy yet, it is probably not a great idea to get his name permanently inked anywhere;-). Final note on tattoos...I may have sold Rebecca on getting her first, and if we all beg really hard, maybe she will tell us what it’s gonna be because, seriously, it’s a pretty awesome idea! Submitted by: Ross Did you weigh in on the great Sandwich Debate of February 2017? If not what are your thoughts on what and doesn't constitute a sandwich? Please site specific examples. Or don't. For those who missed it, there were two related sandwich questions going around. 1) Is a hot dog a sandwich? and 2) What defines a sandwich? The insightful and witty CDPayne79 has offered his thoughts on the first question, which is worth reading other than his inability to take a really firm position on the actual question at hand. I, however, am more than willing to suffer the slings and arrows that come with taking definitive positions on controversial issues! So I tell you with full confidence, that NO!, a hot dog is not a sandwich. You’re out of your mind for even asking. There were a variety of points offered in support of non-sandwich-hood by voices ranging from culinary luminaries (@miscraymer) to convicted food criminals (@gentlemanrascal). These included a history of the hot dog (“Dachsund Sandwiches” came up) and strange theories about slice positioning and topping containment. While I agree with them, I find the analysis to be entirely superfluous. Why? Because a hot dog simply isn’t a sandwich and the idea is ludicrous enough to not require further discussion. Much like Thomas Jefferson, I believe that some truths are self-evident, and this is one of them. This would be like asking “Is an oak tree a flower?” No, of course not...it’s a fucking oak tree. Stop asking stupid questions. The second question went to a surprising place. One of Twitter’s great thinkers (@molratty) posited that nothing is a sandwich if the bread is not sliced completely enough to have separated it into two halves. While this is an interesting idea that would establish clear criteria, ultimately it is unsatisfying to me. The problem, of course, is that this rules out all subs, hoagies, grinders, po boys or whatever else you want to call them. Mo maintains that these are not sandwiches, that they are distinct and separate creations with a similarity but no actual relation to a sandwich. @Danieltobin tried to convince me that these are not sandwiches, but that they are clearly derivative. I think they have both been smoking meth all week because that’s just asinine, and I won’t stand for this kind of sandwich denialism. That’s right, people, I am making a shocking allegation: the fate of the planet’s stomach is on the line, and these enemies of science have chosen to be Sandwich Deniers. Burn the witches!!! So what makes a sandwich? It’s just a fucking sandwich!!! Why is this so hard...must you people argue so much about everything? Just eat it and shut up already. Also, someone get me a chicken parm, I’m starving. Submitted by: Anonymous Long story. I was involved in a few threads/DMs and I noticed that there were what appeared to be some "unsatisfied" women, mostly in their late 20’s and early 30’s - Millennial Age. They started out talking about it with a tinge of humor. But the more the conversations wore, the less funny it seemed to get. Obviously, people complain about their sex lives, but normally the comments are about 2-minute men, or only having time for fast sex. I'm fairly certain is has a lot to do with young marriages with kids and/or careers. You know, the more I talk about it the less I feel I want to know. Oh, you don’t want to know? Well too bad!!! The fifth rule of #AskAlex is “no takesies backsies”. First, full disclosure, I am probably not a great person to ask about this. Based on everything I have ever heard from my peers, I have a lot more sex than most married women my age (I’m 34, btw). I’ll spare you the video details, but I know what I hear from IRL friends and Twitter friends, so I have at least a decent idea on where the collective young woman’s head is at. It is a pretty dry time for young mothers at or near age 30. I think you have largely already answered your own question...mostly it is related to their life stage. There are two competing dynamics here: the desire to have sex and the opportunity to have sex. Humans, as a general rule, are hornier when they are younger and gradually lose their sex drive. Desire, for most people, decreases at mostly a slow and steady pace from about age 25 onward. The decline for men is probably steeper than women, but I’m not sure that they are hugely different. The opportunity, however, peaks at about the same time - mid-late 20’s for most people - and then craters almost immediately before it recovers some years later. People at peak-horniness who don’t have kids can deal with this pretty easily...they have lots of time, finally have their own places to live and are high on the exhilaration of having the time, money and confidence to enjoy their free time. It is also the time when the largest portion of people your own age are at their most attractive. The combination...attractive people, high sex drive, ample time and space to pursue it...leads to a lot of sex. Then some very unfunny things start to happen… The most obvious one is having children. Kids are a huge time suck, and a huge energy suck. You can’t have sex while they are awake, really, and when they finally fall asleep your primary goal is usually to take care of the million chores you put off because while they were keeping you occupied. Then, to get to bed and catch up on the sleep that they make you miss. It is also a time when people tend to get more serious about their professional life. They spend more time at work, more time working when they are at home and more time thinking about their work responsibilities. This comes with more money, of course, which creates complications around buying houses and investing in retirement, education and other pursuits. Those activities all take time and energy and none of them are exactly sexy. I mean, my husband gets a little turned on if I talk about asset allocation decisions in a rising rate environment, but he’s not normal...that’s kind of a boner killer for most people;-) Another reason is that people have begun to physically deteriorate during these years. You’re getting older, and all of those things I mentioned above mean that something has to get cut out of the regular routine...often, that something is taking care of yourself. Men and women both often tend to put on weight during these years. Some start to get wrinkles and go grey. Women never quite get their bodies back after having a baby. Men lose their hair. While these things make a person less attractive to others, that is only the secondary issue...much more importantly, I think, is that they make you feel less attractive. The fact that your husband or wife is paying less attention to you (cuz babies) just reinforces this, despite not actually being related. Nobody wants to get naked if they don't feel good about the way they look. And finally, sex is just less interesting. When you are 20 years old, sex is still new and exciting and the fact that you can do that with another person and feel like that is still somewhat novel. Five years into a marriage, even if the sex is still good, it’s clearly not as novel as it was when you first met your spouse. Even without kids, you’re going to spend fewer weekends entirely naked than you might have at 22 or 23. So, there is a lot going on, and the result is less sex than we’re used to, and less than we would like. Sadly, there isn’t a whole lot to be done about it (other than, of course, all that boring shit about making time for each other and communicating and hiring hookers.) The good news is that this might be a temporary problem. Your natural desire to have sex is going to continue to wane, and you will find more opportunities as the kids get older and don’t need you so much. You’ll be less exhausted when they go to bed and you’ll have nights where they are at Grandma’s, or when you are away and have left them home with a sitter. Also, if you work close enough to home to schedule lunch dates in your bed and you’re not doing that, then you are REALLY missing out… If case you haven’t figured it out, #SALT is an acronym;-) Your desire and your opportunity, therefore, are likely to come back into line with each other. That doesn’t totally get you out of the woods (the biggest physical issue in a marriage is a divergence in the desire of the two parties to have sex...you can both want it all the time or you can both rarely want it, but running at different speeds is a problem) but it is going to take care of the biggest part of the problem. If that fails, I’ve got a whole library of filthy text messages that seem to be pretty effective;-)
It is a question which has haunted humanity for generations. It has divided America, pitting husband against wife, brother against brother, normally reasonable people against typically level-headed folks. It has, on numerous occasions, sent Twitter to the brink of insanity. It is time, once and for all, to answer the question to end all questions: is a hot dog a sandwich?
The sandwich, as we know it, is said to have been invented by John Montagu, the Fourth Earl of Sandwich (1718-1792). It is said that the Earl, an inveterate gambler, desired to take his meal in such a manner so as not to necessitate his leaving the gaming table. His servants would bring him meat and cheese between two slices of bread, the habit was noted by his gambling contemporaries, and soon many were ordering “the same as Sandwich.” Thus, history tells us, was the sandwich born. This history may be accurate insofar as the name of the sandwich, but the act of putting meat between a couple pieces of bread is undoubtedly far older. Most people believe Mark 10:9 is about marriage. Well, it’s not. That’s right, that verse you had read at your wedding is actually a biblical injunction to not eat your sandwich ingredients separately like a crazy person. The Council of Nicea would later rule on the matter in an oft-overlooked addendum adopted by the Council brought on by the clash between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria, with Nicholas of Myra declaring that “as the Son has no beginning but has an eternal derivation from the Father and therefore is co-equal with Him, so is thy mutton co-equal with thy 2 pieces of bread.” The sandwich also has a long secular pedigree. Julius Caesar’s main objective in Gaul was capturing what Caesar termed “the recipe for that great crusty bread paired with cheese by the tribe of Vercingetorix.” Nobles who owned deli slicers were noted in the Doomsday Book. The first Swedish-Bremen war of 1653-1654 was fought mainly over the Hanseatic refusal to recognize Charles X Gustav’s very Swedish dictate about mayonnaise. Queen Victoria was given the same panini press by four different people as a wedding gift. The hot dog, by contrast, is a relatively recent invention. It seems to have been invented simultaneously in the 1870s on both Coney Island by a German immigrant named Charles Feltman and in St. Louis by a Bavarian named Feuchtwanger. The story goes that Mrs. Feuchtwanger was tired of her husband losing money because he kept giving gloves to lady customers who purchased his sausages and then didn’t return the gloves, so she made him start using buns. History does not record if Mrs. Feltman had any similar involvement in her husband’s decision to use buns. None of that is dispositive about the question at hand one way or another, which leads us to another story from the early days of the hot dog. A man named Harry M. Stevens owned concession stands at the old Polo Grounds in New York City around the turn of the century. Some of his German vendors sold sausages on rolls. When asked by a newspaper man what they were, Mr. Stevens called them “Dachshund sandwiches” both due to the shape of the sausage and as an homage to his German employees. The reporter (actually a cartoonist with the New York Post, natch), unable to spell “Dachshund”, called them “hot dogs” when he drew up the cartoon of the vendors selling their wares. So there you have it. But for the poor spelling and possible anti-German immigrant leanings of one newspaper cartoonist, we would be calling them Dachshund sandwiches today, and the debate over whether or not they’re a sandwich wouldn’t even exist. So instead of arguing over whether or not a hot dog is a sandwich, let us all just agree that we’re lucky to be calling them hot dogs at all. |
MisfitsJust a gaggle of people from all over who have similar interests and loud opinions mixed with a dose of humor. We met on Twitter. Archives
January 2024
|