stella needs a hug
Since Sunday, someone in Inga and my circle and I have been engaged in a ... debate (??) over sending mass emails. He, let's call him Sancho, just for the fun of it, sent to 67 people in his address book an email expressing disgust over the possibility of giving social security benefits to illegal aliens. You should sign the petition to sway Congressional opinion, forward it, and at the 500th signature, forward it to the Prez. Fine. Whatever. I would normally just delete this sort of thing, but it confused me that this person sent the email AND it was just so full of inaccuracies that I responded.
The email repeated again and again that "illegals" were sucking our benefits dry, that they were breaking the law, that we needed to protect ourselves, yadayada. Then it called for the Congress to require CITIZENSHIP to attain benefits. In my response, I pointed out that not all non-citizens were illegal aliens. That there are more than two categories and that requiring citizenship for benefits would deny legal resident aliens the benefits they legally paid into the system for (in my case) 50 years by retirement.
The email was also wrong in the assertion that illegal aliens don't pay into the system. They do. Illegally. They get jobs here by stealing or making up a social security number, and as a result, their paychecks are docked for FICA and taxes and social services just as everybody else's is. The difference is that they never get their money back. (I didn't say they should in my email response, nor did I say that I thought illegal immigrants were doing the right thing by breaking U.S. laws, BTW.) I did joke that perhaps it was the payments of illegal immigrants into social security that they couldn't hope to get back out that was keeping it afloat for the rest of us.
AND THEN, I pointed out that the act to which he was referring, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, was part of a bigger discussion, including granting guest worker status and amnesty, and that the questions really asked what to do with the social security status and payments of workers once they were granted legal worker status. It wasn't a blanket "let's give benefits to illegal immigrants" thing. So - the hysteria wasn't necessary.
His response? 1. He "took the liberty of interpreting" citizenship to mean legally residing, so he wasn't sure what created an "issue" with me. 2. He doesn't care if illegal aliens are paying for HIS benefits. They deserve to. 3. Whatever. And he was mean about it. 4. We should close our borders to anyone who doesn't have family here. 5. Sweden has restrictive border policies, and nobody's calling them "fascist" for it. 6. He didn't want me to insinuate that he was xenophobic, insensitive, or ignorant.
My re-response? 1. If you're calling for changes to federal law, then maybe we should be precise with our terminology. Many people in the U.S. don't realize that there are legal non-citizens, and being one such non-citizen, I'm a little offended to be asked why I don't "go back home" and why I don't "follow our laws" when, in fact, I do. And I know them better than you ignoramouses do, apparently. (I left that ignoramous thing out of my response.) But, let's not play the assume-game when we're dealing with the law.
2. If you feel this strongly about an issue, write your OWN DAMNED EMAIL OR LETTER TO YOUR CONGRESSPERSON! Don't forward a bull-shit piece of junk mail. It looks stupid, all full of grammatical errors and faulty logic.
3. Some faulty logic: (a) Why is this thing supposed to be forwarded to the Prez? I pointed out that the Congress and Executive were sepatate branches of government. If they wanted Congress to act, then they should send their petition to Congress. (b) WTF with the email petition. I reminded them that anyone who's circulated a real petition knows how hard it is to have THAT verified and accepted. Why would a non-verifiable, anonymous email petition be taken seriously? (c) I have junk mail filters for this crap. Don't they think the White House does?
4. Sweden IS widely criticized for its restrictive policies. I recommended he Google "Swedish immigration policies" and find some of that criticism. Just because it's not reported in the Center of the Universe (Sancho's hometown, USA), doesn't mean it ain't happenin'.
I got a response from a friend of Sancho's. She was pissed. I responded. We agreed on several points. She felt bad for being such a bitch.
I got a response from Sancho. The gist: How dare I respond to HIS (which was capitalized as MY in his response) e-mail list with this stuff. These are HIS friends and family, not mine. His family and friends don't care, and he's embarrassed to have had to explain my replies to them. He knows that I'll probably respond again because I have to have the last word with something equally "vitriolic" and "inappropriate." I can think he's an asshole, and he's fine if we never talk again. More or less. And he was mean about it.
Alright, so I'm not supposed to voice my opinion, which was, especially in the first email, couched in niceties and references to our friendship? I'm not supposed to point out that these junk emails aren't appreciated? You should go on thinking that just imagining that you're not xenophobic (we should close the borders?), insensitive (you sent this email to me and other non-citizens in your address book and then insulted my questioning your rationale?), or ignorant (you forward an email full of errors in language and fact with no research or deliberation?) is enough to give you these traits? I'm supposed to take whatever crap you drop into MY mailbox, unwanted, and sit on my hands while you perpetuate falsehoods with what you call an "innocent chain mailing"? My doing so would insinuate my acceptance of those beliefs. I'm tired of deleting those things out of politeness's sake.
So if you don't want a "vitriolic" (read: well considered, polite, and researched) response to a piece of what I'm on the verge of considering hate mail, be mindful of who you drop into the address line.
The email repeated again and again that "illegals" were sucking our benefits dry, that they were breaking the law, that we needed to protect ourselves, yadayada. Then it called for the Congress to require CITIZENSHIP to attain benefits. In my response, I pointed out that not all non-citizens were illegal aliens. That there are more than two categories and that requiring citizenship for benefits would deny legal resident aliens the benefits they legally paid into the system for (in my case) 50 years by retirement.
The email was also wrong in the assertion that illegal aliens don't pay into the system. They do. Illegally. They get jobs here by stealing or making up a social security number, and as a result, their paychecks are docked for FICA and taxes and social services just as everybody else's is. The difference is that they never get their money back. (I didn't say they should in my email response, nor did I say that I thought illegal immigrants were doing the right thing by breaking U.S. laws, BTW.) I did joke that perhaps it was the payments of illegal immigrants into social security that they couldn't hope to get back out that was keeping it afloat for the rest of us.
AND THEN, I pointed out that the act to which he was referring, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, was part of a bigger discussion, including granting guest worker status and amnesty, and that the questions really asked what to do with the social security status and payments of workers once they were granted legal worker status. It wasn't a blanket "let's give benefits to illegal immigrants" thing. So - the hysteria wasn't necessary.
His response? 1. He "took the liberty of interpreting" citizenship to mean legally residing, so he wasn't sure what created an "issue" with me. 2. He doesn't care if illegal aliens are paying for HIS benefits. They deserve to. 3. Whatever. And he was mean about it. 4. We should close our borders to anyone who doesn't have family here. 5. Sweden has restrictive border policies, and nobody's calling them "fascist" for it. 6. He didn't want me to insinuate that he was xenophobic, insensitive, or ignorant.
My re-response? 1. If you're calling for changes to federal law, then maybe we should be precise with our terminology. Many people in the U.S. don't realize that there are legal non-citizens, and being one such non-citizen, I'm a little offended to be asked why I don't "go back home" and why I don't "follow our laws" when, in fact, I do. And I know them better than you ignoramouses do, apparently. (I left that ignoramous thing out of my response.) But, let's not play the assume-game when we're dealing with the law.
2. If you feel this strongly about an issue, write your OWN DAMNED EMAIL OR LETTER TO YOUR CONGRESSPERSON! Don't forward a bull-shit piece of junk mail. It looks stupid, all full of grammatical errors and faulty logic.
3. Some faulty logic: (a) Why is this thing supposed to be forwarded to the Prez? I pointed out that the Congress and Executive were sepatate branches of government. If they wanted Congress to act, then they should send their petition to Congress. (b) WTF with the email petition. I reminded them that anyone who's circulated a real petition knows how hard it is to have THAT verified and accepted. Why would a non-verifiable, anonymous email petition be taken seriously? (c) I have junk mail filters for this crap. Don't they think the White House does?
4. Sweden IS widely criticized for its restrictive policies. I recommended he Google "Swedish immigration policies" and find some of that criticism. Just because it's not reported in the Center of the Universe (Sancho's hometown, USA), doesn't mean it ain't happenin'.
I got a response from a friend of Sancho's. She was pissed. I responded. We agreed on several points. She felt bad for being such a bitch.
I got a response from Sancho. The gist: How dare I respond to HIS (which was capitalized as MY in his response) e-mail list with this stuff. These are HIS friends and family, not mine. His family and friends don't care, and he's embarrassed to have had to explain my replies to them. He knows that I'll probably respond again because I have to have the last word with something equally "vitriolic" and "inappropriate." I can think he's an asshole, and he's fine if we never talk again. More or less. And he was mean about it.
Alright, so I'm not supposed to voice my opinion, which was, especially in the first email, couched in niceties and references to our friendship? I'm not supposed to point out that these junk emails aren't appreciated? You should go on thinking that just imagining that you're not xenophobic (we should close the borders?), insensitive (you sent this email to me and other non-citizens in your address book and then insulted my questioning your rationale?), or ignorant (you forward an email full of errors in language and fact with no research or deliberation?) is enough to give you these traits? I'm supposed to take whatever crap you drop into MY mailbox, unwanted, and sit on my hands while you perpetuate falsehoods with what you call an "innocent chain mailing"? My doing so would insinuate my acceptance of those beliefs. I'm tired of deleting those things out of politeness's sake.
So if you don't want a "vitriolic" (read: well considered, polite, and researched) response to a piece of what I'm on the verge of considering hate mail, be mindful of who you drop into the address line.
posted by stella at 7:38 AM
2 Comments:
agatha just called and gave a mighty big shout out to you stel; she is from a family of immigrants and feels passionately about this topic, as we all do. Well, all of us, who, you know, care about people and who, even when we might disagree with someone, try to do so in a logical, kind, respectful way.
it's just so tempting to use this discussion to discuss with my students (a) audience awareness and (b) faulty logic.
thanks, agatha! you wanna know what's worse still? inga and i think he responded so strongly in part because a WOMAN (!!!) had the nerve to speak up. definer, a new definition, please. one to cover this sort of person? "tool" is already taken, right? ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home