The undocumented workers are not the problem, the problem is the criminal element of the immigrants and those who don't fit in to the local culture.
It takes time. I have somewhat mixed views on the concept of assimilation. The country has had a checkered history when it comes to forcing people to assimilate to the basically "wasp" culture which has predominated in the country. There was a backlash and reaction against that which coincided with the Civil Rights movement. On the other hand, most do tend to assimilate over time, mainly because it is advantageous to do so. Eventually, they fit in to the culture, especially by the second or third generation.
The criminal element, regardless of what their race, ethnicity, or culture might be, needs to be dealt with by law enforcement and the civilian politicians who supervise law enforcement. That's where it can get dicey, especially if the politicians are corrupt and have a vested interest in protecting criminal elements. Sometimes law enforcement officers have also been known to accept bribes to look the other way. But again, that would not be the immigrants' fault. Also, I know in many cases of crime attributed to immigrants, the victims are often other immigrants. So, I think it's in the interest of all to work to root out the criminal elements - in all communities.
I believe RFK (the original) said "Crime is a question of criminals. It is not a matter of race, color, or creed."
The Beast is more relevant from a religious point of view, specifically the eagle. The wings being plucked off represents U.S. independence.
The first [was] like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
Daniel 7:4
Yes, it was in a religious context I've heard it discussed, but it basically refers to the apparatus and leadership of the US government but presenting them in an unflattering way. I sense a good deal of bureaucratic inertia and internal rot within the system which seems to lead to periodic breakdowns, miscalculations, and misjudgments which can be rather costly. This is even without factoring the degree of corruption which likely exists within the system.
It's funny, because some might refer to the same phenomenon as "The Man," which is just another euphemism. "The Beast" is "The Man."
How do you think that those who hire undocumented workers have created the current problem with immigrants?
They're the ones who have benefited from the process and provide the incentive for politicians to continue and encourage more of the same. All of these businesses are complaining that they can't get workers, because "no one wants to work" (at least that's what they say). They're the ones who are clamoring for cheaper labor costs, all while they're raising prices through the roof. Apparently, that's how all those Haitians ended up in Springfield, Ohio, as a local employer was ostensibly desperate for cheap labor.
And in tough economic times, people tend to look for something or someone to blame for all their troubles. It's not about eating cats. If this is all about protecting cats, I can point to another thread where I posted a link to a news story where some cops were caught shooting and killing a cat they were using as target practice.
I was certainly outraged when I read this, and I think anyone else reading it would have been outraged. But somehow, it didn't get the same level of national attention.
The only relevant status quo I know of is the strategy of increasing the percentage of the population who will vote for the party that gives them free stuff.
Nothing is ever really free, and I don't think it would really be that way in the long run. The irony is that many immigrants come from countries and regions of the world which could be described as "socially conservative" with views that might coincide with the religious right. They might have even voted for them on that basis, if not for the fact that so many on the right wing view them with such scorn and contempt because of where they come from. The nationalistic and racist elements among them actually drives away many people who might otherwise support them.
They wouldn't automatically go with the Democrats, but considering that the Republicans aren't exactly welcoming them with open arms, they'll go with the party which seems friendlier (or maybe just the "lesser of two evils" just like everyone else does).
The core service of the state is protection/security. Security issues are naturally opaque, so the democratic model does work well for that.
It's one of the duties of the state. The ways and means by which security is conducted may often be kept classified from the people, although the priorities and security perceptions can be somewhat subjective and should be reviewed through open and democratic processes. Many questionable practices of government have been explained away and/or justified because it's for the protection of our national security. It's why the U.S. has a military presence in 80 or so separate countries around the world, why we have a formidable air, naval, and space force - along with a deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons ready to strike at a moment's notice. It's why we have an extensive and widespread intelligence and law enforcement community at all levels of government. It's why the NSA listens in on people's phone calls, while the CIA and FBI do all kinds of dirty tricks.
It's all about "national interests." Economics. In other words, nationalism. If that's the priority of the state at present, then the people might be inclined to support it, if they are genuinely convinced that it's in their own interests. And, if they're convinced that it's for the greater good of world freedom and democracy, then they can support US militarism with a clear conscience and still consider themselves good, moral, and noble human beings.
But even that can't filter out normal human response. If the state does something atrocious, then it does leave a bitter taste in a lot of people's mouths, even if it was done for them and in their interests. But very often, it's not actually done "for" the people or the people's interests, and people can often get a sense of that at street level.
The only wise vote is a vote not cast IMO.
Hard to say. I remember Andy Rooney once saying that "an idiot's vote counts just as much as your vote." In that way, I get the sense that smart people are vastly outnumbered at the polls.
