Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 19

Purpose of Purge of the Red Army in 1941?

What was the contemporary purpose of the Purge of the Red Army in 1941? The article doesn't say. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Purges are performed when those in power perceive a potential threat to their authority, whether real or imagined. Also, as alluded to in our article, they can blame defeats on "traitors", then execute them, so they can't tell the real reasons (incompetent leadership from those in power). StuRat (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Milovan Ðilas, amongst others, provides a generalised analysis of purges as being an element of necessarily self-discipline amongst the nomenklatura in order to place the survival of the class ahead of the survival of any specific members in an urgent battle for production. As Ðilas himself notes, this isn't necessarily bloody. Same with the studies of technical specialist purges in the 1930s at local levels. In the case of the 1941 Airforce purge, it looks to be a combination of internal power struggle within the nomenklatura combined with demonstrative executions for economic failure. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A number of military-minded commentators have pointed out that the purges of the military from the Tukhachevsky trial (1937) to the German invasion were militarily rather counterproductive, since they eliminated many of the most able commanders, and people who had forward-looking ideas on issues such as the use of tanks in concentrated formations etc., and replaced them with people who were often afraid to take any initiative on their own without direct orders from Moscow, and who were more concerned with keeping their heads down and not rocking the boat than advocating for improvements in the Soviet military system. Stalin had a very poor record when it came to military planning (which was always subordinated to political factors and his personal whims). AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and this accounts for the Soviet Union's defeats early after Germany invaded. However, to his credit, Stalin soon realized the importance of letting good commanders make their own decisions, since the Soviet Union could collapse and he could have been executed by the Nazis if he kept going the way he had. However, he continued to interfere in wars on fronts which were not as critical, such as in the Continuation War, where Finland was able to hold back Soviet forces. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can an action have a purpose that's not contemporary? —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that France has less alcohol related problems than USA does?

In terms of drinking and driving, diseases related to alcohol and such. ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In past decades, many claimed that the pattern of allowing children small sips of wine under parental supervision resulted in overall healthier attitudes towards drinking in young adults than the pattern of teenagers first indulging in alcohol furtively and illegally. More recently, there have been counter-claims that there's not a big difference in the end results. I don't know which is true... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally I can tell you that at the University I attended in the US, at least one freshman a year would die of alcohol poisoning. Yet even though the drinking age was 21 in my state, in high school we had the choice of Spain, France or the German speaking states to visit as 17 or 18 year olds for our senior trip. Parents were advised we would have access to alcohol and signed a waiver. None objected. We were largely Catholics who could drink in moderation at home on holidays. No one got drunk enough to cause an incident. My first drink was at 12 y/o and it put me to sleep in the backseat on the ride home. Usually the college kids who died did so their first time drinking. See http://www.hopenetworks.org/addiction/alcohol/Overdose_Deaths/List_of_Lost_Youth_Alcohol.htm μηδείς (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the downsides of the US drinking age, and how it's enforced, that I've had personal experience with. I've known young people in the USA who've become dangerously ill from binge drinking, but who refused to seek assistance because they were afraid of being arrested. FiggyBee (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Alcoholism, starting younger increases the risk. It's important to realize that alcoholism is basically an addiction, but not universally so. It's like some significant percentage of the public has one or more components in their physiology and/or psychology which will make them more vulnerable to this addiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the way the French drink alcohol (a bottle of wine with a meal) is healthier than in the US, where binge drinking is common. I get the impression that the French don't usually drink to get drunk, while Americans frequently do. Note, however, that some other nations are even worse in this respect. Russia comes to mind (does anybody drink vodka for the taste ?). StuRat (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I drink English vodka (Chase or Sipsmith, not Vladivar or Blavod!) for the taste. A good Russian vodka can make a serviceable cocktail, even a mostly-vodka one like a Vodka Martini - I recommend Stolichnaya.

But yes - the US does not seem to be the worst in this respect, but my own perception/experience is that the taboo about drinking, and the high minimum age, has been counter-productive. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Does vodka actually have a taste, other than that of alcohol itself? I find myself a little mystified at what people will pay for a premium vodka. If you just mixed absolute ethanol with distilled water, wouldn't that be pretty much the perfect vodka? Is this a case of five hundred still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich? --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all vodkas are colourless and unflavoured: many, like similar drinks from other cultures, are flavoured with fruits or other adjuncts – imported Pepper vodka had a vogue in the UK a few years ago. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, just a note in case anyone thinks, "Hey, there's a good idea!". Supposedly, lab grade absolute ethanol may contain traces of cancer-causing benzene.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Because vodka is required to be highly purified, the impurities that remain are highly detectable. My preferred sipping vodkas have faint sugary notes - presumably from the breakdown of the starch in the original brewing process. All vodkas taste quite astringent; the ones I wouldn't drink neat also have a bitter undernote. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about vodka; it may be the case that exactly the right trace impurities make for a superior drink, and that is difficult to achieve. I certainly don't agree with the premise of five hundred still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich with regard to wine, however. Cheap wine is cheap for a reason, and that reason is usually that it tastes like cat piss or boot polish. You don't need to be a snob or a connoisseur to recognise that some things taste horrible. FiggyBee (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive WHO figures for all countries in Europe are [1] and for the Americas [2]. The simple answer is that it depends which statistics you look at. Alcohol consumption has fallen steeply in France but is still above the level in the USA, where consumption is stable. France still has more deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. The USA has more people who abstain from alcohol, but in the USA a greater proportion of those who drink are "heavy episodic drinkers". I haven't done the calculation but it seems that more of the general population are "heavy episodic drinkers" in France. "Le binge drinking" among young people has recently been identified as a serious problem in France, leading to a ban on supermarket alcohol sales to under 18s. This followed a wave of "apéros géants", big town centre drinking parties, advertised on Facebook, and corresponding press coverage. But an international survey of young people showed that French teenagers were consuming less alcohol than before, using more cannabis than before, and less alcohol, more cannabis than in most other European countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot of young Australians also drink with the intention of getting smashed off their faces. Just going out, having a good time, meeting some new faces, hearing some cool music, having a few drinks - but still being in a reasonably coherent state at the end of the night, seems to be too boring an idea for them to contemplate. If they don't end up at least throwing up, they think they've wasted their evening. Weird. Imagine if people at restaurants ate and ate until they vomited. What's so bad about their lives that they have to regularly obliterate all memory of it? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As an adolescent of Newcastle in the 1990s, I can give you a list of what's so bad. I think mass teen alcoholism in Australia is a rational response. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bring back the six o'clock swill. FiggyBee (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's just further proof to this mature aged Australian that Wikipedia Has An Article On Everything! . HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This area fascinates me. It seems that everyone with a prejudice can find scientific research to back up their position, whatever it is, and everyone has their own story to tell, about themselves, someone they know, or their own, now grown up children. So I'll give my own view, without bothering to claim there's any science behind it, just my own observations and common sense. ;-) If kids grow up in families where alcohol is used sensibly, and have alcohol available in small quantities from a young age, it generally leads to a healthy attitude to alcohol in adulthood. If they grow up where alcohol is banned until some arbitrary age, and then join a group where alcohol consumption is common, they will tend to overdo it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there's another factor as well, which is the social meaning of alcohol and its consumption, which also varies between societies. Kate Fox, in her Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour, says (p. 261 in the Hodder & Stoughton hardback) "The experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol" (but annoyingly doesn't give any references). This means that in 'Nordic' or 'temperance' cultures (including much of the US as well as the UK), the social ill-effects of alcohol tend to be much greater than in 'Mediterranean' cultures. This doesn't say anything about the prevalence of alcohol-related effects on the health of individuals, though. --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, you left out the third option: kids who grow up in families where alcohol is abused (one or more non-recovering alcoholic parents). In my case, the result was someone who grew up avoiding alcohol like the plague and who still refuses to touch a drop (except for Communion wine) because he hates not only the taste but also the short- and long-term effects it has on individuals and society. But other people who grew up around heavy-drinking parents become moderate social drinkers as adults (e.g. my sisters), while others still become alcohol abusers themselves. Pais (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are many possible pathways. I'm glad you survived yours :-) HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven’t found any research done on this (and I've looked) yet on my travels I've noticed that it is predominately those who drink modern fast fermented lager beers that suffer the most problems. Even taking into account that in years gone by when 'weaker' beer that was drunk by the gallon because it was safer that well water, it doesn’t account for the effect the chemical larger beer has on people nor the physical damage done to their organs. --Aspro (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Italians

Is it true that amongst Europeans, Italians are sometimes known as "the Chinese people of Europe" because of low morals and high corruption? I've never had of that phrase before, and I'm wondering if it's a commonly known stereotype. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've never heard it before, where did you hear it this time? It seems to be one of those clever(?) expressions that manages to insult two ethnic groups at once. Ugly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I heard it from a Chinese history teacher discussing Italy. He's well-educated and knows a lot about Europe, which is why I suspect it might have some basis, even though I haven't been able to find other references to it. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that a person who is Chinese, or a non-Chinese person teaching Chinese history? HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind is the Irish being the Niggers of Europe, an expression not meant to insult either group. As to "Italians being the Chinese people of Europe", I don't know if "low morals and high corruption" would be the first thing to come to most European's minds about either the Italians or the Chinese, so as a racist allusion it does rather lack comprehensibility. FiggyBee (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Chinese, but it's a common enough stereotype of the Italians (normally referenced in discussions about Silvio Berlusconi and his apparently much higher approval in Italy than elsewhere). The Chinese government may be percieved as having low morals and high corruption, but I haven't heard the same applied to the Chinese people as a whole. --Tango (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Google certainly doesn't throw up evidence: the British, French and Dutch are all described on a very small number of websites as the "Chinese of Europe"/"Chinese people of Europe". The Dutch for their trading expertise, but no idea about the other two. Generally "the Chinese people of Europe" refers to people of Chinese origin living in Europe. (One site says Basque language is the Chinese of Europe.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just the latest of a series of questions from 140.180.5.169 (talk · contribs) whose purpose at least appears to be to foment arguments. 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked exactly 2 questions before this one: one about animal sexuality, and the other about how adults perceive the world differently from children. That's hardly a "series" of questions, and the second is not even remotely likely to cause an argument. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So you didn't ask the loaded question about Muslims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask any question relating to Muslims. I respectfully ask you to recheck my contributions and apologize here for your mistake. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, it was a registered user that asked that question, and you merely provided some evidence. Meanwhle, you should answer HiLo's question, immediately below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that the IP got the same question before, in this thread, and also answered it above; thirteen minutes before your latest posted message, @carrots! The answer is not a very `reliable source', of course; and that teacher might have been joking, anyhow.) JoergenB (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But where did you hear this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of such an expression being used in Europe. However, according to this book, the designation (among North Americans) had to do with skin color of immigrants:

"Italians were called 'the Chinese of Europe', (...) Chinese and Italians 'occupied an ambiguous, overlapping and intermediary position in the binary racial schema'. Neither black nor white, both were seen as in-between, or 'yellow', 'olive' or 'swarty'." - Lindert (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what time period you're talking about. Currently, I do not think that comparison would find many takers, since the Italians are perceived to be a bit more lazy (low morals) and have high corruption, whereas the Chinese culture frequently is portrayed as purveying high moral standards. E.g. the Chinese focus on education, 'Tiger mums' and the alike. However, as Lindert states above, it might be a statement from the 19th century comparing two ethnic groups that were not too highly regarded. As HiLo48 said initially, this seems to be one of those statements that probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, but is merely based on stereotypes of both groups. V85 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice that in the book Lindert quotes it was actually North Americans using the term. It is unlikely to have been Europeans since Europe (possibly with the exception of the UK) never had any large number Chinese immigrants until the end of the 20th century, and even then it is very low numbers as compared to the US. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

reaction to new apple product

Hi,

This is kind of out of the purview of the reference desk demographic, but I'm curious what the "hipster demographic" 's reaction was to the new Macbook Pro with Retina Display? Do the "hipsters" still care about Apple now that the old man has passed away? Sorry if this is a difficult question to interpreter, it's really a marketing question / what's cool for artsy-types.

thanks

Juan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.85.231 (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The hipster is not reputed to favor low resolution displays. As an artsy type I would still favor a high resolution display even though Steve Jobs has passed away. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm specifically asking about that demographic, thanks. I also love the announced computer (though I can't afford it now). But I'm asking about a different demographic, which I don't belong to. --78.92.85.231 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a hipster (otherwise I wouldn't hang out on the Wikipedia reference desk, haha), but I would suggest that hipsters do indeed still care about Apple. Their devotion to the brand is so great that it is unlikely to be swayed by Jobs no longer being around. Jobs' whole philosophy permeates the company so his death has not had, and will not have, any significant impact on its future strategy and image. As for the MBP with retina display, I would say hipsters would love it. --Viennese Waltz 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I know they don't belong here. I'm asking about them however. Could you give me any evidence that led you to this conclusion? Or is it a guess? --78.92.85.231 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what a "hipster" is, but the only two reason why this old school UNIX hacker hasn't ordered it yet are a) I have a unibody MacBook Pro, and it already is a very very good notebook, and b) I like to wait until the initial wrinkles of new technology have been ironed out. Reasons why I want it: Excellent form factor, robust, enough performance to make the NSA nervous, good battery life, ohmygofhaveyouseenthedisplayofthatthing? Things I'm less happy with: Incompatible MagSafe2, no optical drive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, I'm asking a marketing/demographics question. You might as well tell me what uses you may or may not have for a tampon. I'm not asking about you, but about a different group of people/demographic. 78.92.85.231 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Spectacular way to make sure no-one else proffers an opinion. Almost Godwinesque in its unsubtelty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and I support the OP's response to Stephan Schulz's post, which did not attempt to address the OP's question at all. --Viennese Waltz 14:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I am thankful for your responses as well, but really this is a marketing question and not about whether the product is good/bad for you or for me. So, an appopriate reponse might cite some forums that are used by those in the requested demographics: what do they have to say about it? Or, if you've talked to any. Thanks and sorry about being so specific, but this is what I'm really interested in. --78.92.85.231 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a company occupying the underdog space that Apple occupied ten years ago. Therefore the tepid competition that Apple offered ten years ago to the behemoth Microsoft is no longer an ingredient in that marketplace at all. "Hipsters" would have no product to embrace nowadays in that consumer product area if they wanted to champion the underdog. They would only be able to measure products by standard features—in the absence of the cache that might have once been associated with Apple products. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a platform/company occupying the "underdog space", and that company is the one behind the Raspberry Pi. It originates from the BBC Micro and the thread can be traced all the way up to the Pi (and other similar boards). (Disclaimer note: I am not a geek, but my husband is an uber-geek, and runs our home network off a RISC PC when he's not running the network for our local mega-hospital. There's a Beagle board sitting in a plastic box on the lounge table as I speak. I suspect the community he belongs to corresponds to the Apple nerds.) --TammyMoet (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hipsters' liking for Apple has never been anything to do with Apple being the underdog. It's because, historically, the Mac has always been associated with creative applications such as design, music and desktop publishing. Whether it's true or not (and I believe it is), there has always been a perception that the Mac is better for those types of application than the PC. Plus, a Mac looks a whole lot cooler than a PC. --Viennese Waltz 15:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cache has no cachet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From a marketing perspective, who is Apple actually targetting with the Pros? The hipster, or the boss of the hipster approving the purchases? Are you asking what the hipsters want to buy, or what the people employing 'the hipsters' want to buy? Are you sure that 'marketing' vs 'what is cool' perspectives are the same for Apple? Unilynx (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking what the hipsters want to buy and whether they pine for this one (even though most of them can't afford it): I'm asking about their reaction. Not interested in their boss's reaction in this question or any other demographic. Sorry about being so specific. --78.92.85.231 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The demographic of those willing to pay a premium for stylish, high-end products is large, but not the majority. I suspect that, in the future, Apple may continue to market to those folks (who you call "hipsters"), but also go after the mainstream market more aggressively. A different brand name might be in order for their low-end products (Crabapple ?). StuRat (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not using the term hipster to be derogatory, just specific. Not asking how much of a market it is is. I'm quite specific in that I'd like to know the reaction of this demographic and how they feel about this new product. Do they even care? (not saying this is Apple's market or anything else. Don't try to read more into my question than it contains, it really is quite specific. I'm not soapboxing here, nor do I even have a view. It's nothing related to a view or philosophy and the question is not related to where Apple gets its sales.) --78.92.85.231 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just did a handful of database searches on the terms "hipster," "hip," "macbook pro," "retina display," and "reaction" in various combinations, and got no relevant results. The closest thing I could find was Graham, Jefferson. "Talking Your Tech." USA Today 02 Apr 2012: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 19 June 2012: "She totes an iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard, iPhone, iPod Touch, MacBook Pro, HTC Evo phone, Shure microphones, white WeSC headphones and a Jambox portable speaker. "Every podcaster should have at least one obnoxiously hip item that they use," she says of the headphones. "It makes me look official and a little pretentious.'" While this does not mean that hipsters do not have a reaction one way or the other to the product, or what that reaction might or might not be, it does suggest that it's something that mainstream journalists are not concerning themselves with at the moment. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be operating on a need-to-know basis in this thread, which would be a very bad precedent for a reference desk. For those who may have read through this entire thread and still, like me, end up wondering what the hell a "hipster" is, see Hipster (contemporary subculture). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The best thing I can give by way of evidence is this (very long) forum thread. This forum is definitely populated mostly by hipsters, and this thread shows the hipsters enthusing over new Apple product. --Viennese Waltz 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Some classic (pre-Retina) snark is here. 69.228.171.149 (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

English term for 'Cabinet question'

I have a political science type of question. this seemed to be the appropriate place to put it; but please inform me, if you have a better suggestion!

I've in vain sought through some en-wp articles (and some dictionaries) for the precise English term corresponding to Danish Kabinetsspørgsmål, Norwegian nn:Kabinettsspørsmål, and Swedish Kabinettsfråga; literary, this translates as 'question of cabinet'. The concept is closely related to the concepts motion of confidence' and 'motion of no confidence', but there are some important differences of nuances.

I've been wondering if the reason I haven't found the corresponding concept might be that it is particular for the Nordic monarchies. I simply do not know enough about "the Westminster system" to know if it works in precisely the same way as ours, in this respect (which I always thought). Therefore, my question is twofold:
Is there a tradition or concept of explicitly announcing certain 'material proposals' as decisive for whether the cabinet will remain, under the Westminster system? If so, what is the term (in English) for this concept?

In case there might be a true difference of systems, let me briefly describe the Scandinavian system I know, and then you Britich, Canadian, and so forth, guys may tell me whether this sounds familiar or strange:

In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the government (i.e., the cabinet) may lose a vote of minor importance in the respective parliament now and then. This is considered to be no big deal, especially if the decisions just concern legislative details with no or little budgetary impact. Of course, if the government loses too many such votes, which separately are of minor significance, it might decide the situation untenable, and resign, and/or try to find a new parliamentary governmental solution, or (not in Norway, though, I think) demand a dissolution of the parliament. The reasons for losing votes may be that this is a minority government; and/or some of the individual members (or parties in a coalition government) may go against the government; or the question simply may be non-party-bound. (Some fifty years ago, I think that the majority of questions up for voting in the Swedish parliament were "non-partisan"; I do not know how common such motions are to-day. Of course, in such cases, the motions in general are not presented by the government, which nevertheless may have opinions about them.)

On the other hand, a decision might be so important, that the government decides that it cannot go on ruling, if it loses that vote. This is more or less automatically true for major budget decisions; but it is in general up to the prime minister or the entire cabinet to decide whether the question is important enough. If they do, the proposal is declared a 'cabinet question'. This means in practice, that the vote will have a dual function: Primarily, in the 'material matter', but secondarily (and often more importantly) as a kind of vote of confidence. Everybody knows that the government will resign if it loses. This often may cause members from the government party or parties to vote for the proposition, ot at least abstain from voting, if they are against the material proposal, but do not wish to cause a government resignation. However, in some situations, it may also induce e.g. members of the opposition to vote against a proposition they actually materially support.

If the government nevertheless loses the vote, it resigns. The parliament negotiations often leads to a new government; possibly a minority government lead by the former opposition leader. In an impossible parliamentary situation, instead, they may lead to a re-election of the parliament. The negotiations also may end in parts of or the entire government returning to power, after a compromise of some sort has been reached about the material matter, with this compromise having a majority support in the parliament.

Answers to these question would be very valuable both for iw linkage and content in the mentioned articles; whence I also would appreciate sources, if such are available. Thanks in advance, JoergenB (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not what you asked, but. The country in which I've spent the most time that has a parliamentary system is Italy. There, this is called porre la fiducia, to "put the confidence" (that's kind of a word-for-word translation; there may be a more elegant one somewhere). In the States, of course, there's no such thing at all (a Congress's mandate continues to the next election no matter what; a President's, as long as he doesn't resign or get impeached) so I don't have much experience with it in my native language. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I immediately thought of the motion of no confidence, to which you have already linked, but I suppose you're right, that is slightly different. A no confidence vote would probably cause the government to collapse, and a new election would be called. We often have cabinet shuffles, after an election for example (or a by-election), or to replace cabinet ministers who have resigned, or just to shake things up a bit. For the other situations you desrcibe, I can think of similar recent examples in Canada where there was a minority government, and the opposition parties strategically voted with the minority governing party on certain issues in order to avoid a new election (which the other parties knew they could not win at the time). But these situations are "confidence" questions, not "cabinet" questions. Perhaps "cabinet" has a different meaning in Scandinavia. In the Westminster system, a cabinet is the ministers appointed from the ruling party to lead the major ministries (foreign affairs, defense, health, etc). For you, is it just another name for the government in general? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the answer is a vote of confidence. Adam's talk about cabinet reshuffle is not relevant, because I think when JoergenB says "cabinet" it means "government" in our terms. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Trovatore, thanks a lot! Is this the matter covered in the article it:Questione di fiducia (ordinamento italiano), which I see also lacks iwlinks?

@Adam Bishop and @ColinFine: Yes, I here use "government" as synonymous with "cabinet (government)". As to whether or not the 'cabinet question' is the same as a 'vote of confidence': What is the custom in Canada as regards the cabinet losing in the parliament? Will it resign or dissolve the parliament as soon as it loses any voting in the parliament; or will it tolerate a few minor losses (as the Scandinavian governments/cabinets do)? JoergenB (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Trovatore, I sought for porre la confidencia in itwp; but most of the references seemed to concern regular motions of confidence (as separate issues). Of course, I'm not that good in Italian (but it cannot be that much harder than Latin, can it?:-). I think that the example most closely related to what I am seeking is an historikal item, typically enough from the time of monarchy, namely it:Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour#Il primo governo Cavour (1852-1855). If I understand the text correctly, Cavour indeed made a motion about civil marriage to a 'cabinet question' in approximately the sense supra. Is this correct? JoergenB (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, confidencia is not an Italian word. Try porre la fiducia or mettere la fiducia or inflected forms thereof (pone la fiducia, pose la fiducia, ha posto la fiducia, mette la fiducia, mise la fiducia, ha messo la fiducia). --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can find lots of Google hits on "mette la fiducia". Try this article just as an example. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From Parliament of Canada: "The lower house may attempt to bring down the government by either rejecting a motion of confidence—generally initiated by a minister to reinforce the Cabinet's support in the Commons—or by passing a motion of no confidence—introduced by the opposition to display its distrust of the Cabinet. Important bills that form part of the government's agenda will usually be considered matters of confidence, as are budgets. Where a government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, the prime minister is obliged to either resign (allowing the governor general to appoint the Leader of the Opposition to the office), or seek the dissolution of parliament and call a new general election. A precedent, however, was set in 1968, when the government of Lester B. Pearson unexpectedly lost a confidence vote but was allowed to remain in power with the mutual consent of the leaders of the other parties." 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The closest equivalent in Westminster is, indeed, the confidence vote. That can either be an explicit motion of confidence, or it can be a vote that is conventionally considered to be a confidence vote in addition to its regular function. Those are the vote on the Queen's Speech at the beginning of a session, and votes on money bills (the definition in this context is a little different to the one in that article - any bill that involves collecting taxes is a money bill in this context). There can be other votes that are deemed to be politically equivalent to a confidence vote, in that it would be untenable for the government to continue, but there is no convention actually requiring them to resign in that case (this is all just matters of convention, as with a lot of the Westminster system, there are no explicit rules about this stuff). Another relevant term is the three line whip, which is where a party tells its members that they absolutely have to turn up and vote along party lines or they risk being thrown out of the party. There is no convention requiring a government losing a vote that they declared a three line whip on to resign, but that could easily be the result. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Supply is a confidence motion in Westminster systems. For example, traditionally in Australia, Supply or the Budget, has been a prerogative of the lower house, the upper house agreeing to pass supply bills as a matter of course. (Failure to pass supply bills might mean, for example, rioting postmen). In the early 1970s an Australian government failed to pass a Supply motion because the upper house chose to block supply. This caused a crisis—but as the government was able to maintain its majority in the lower house, it had not been defeated in its own house on a confidence motion. The matter was settled when the Governor General (the ultimate "executive" figure) accepted another party's proposal to form government. (Whitlam dismissal) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But only after he had asked the leader of that party to please make such a proposal, which occurred after he had dismissed the incumbent government. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly were a variety of irregularities in terms of Australian Westminster conventions and sources of constitutional power that year. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

From the article Motion of no confidence: "Sometimes, the government will choose to declare that one of its bills is a motions of confidence." This is what a "Kabinettspørsmål" is: The government makes any vote, regardless of how trivial the topic might be, a vote of confidence, in order to coax the parliament into supporting it. Given that it is such a powerful tool, though, it would make sense to use it for something that's somewhat important. Going by the sentence in the article "Motion of no confidence", it would seem that "Kabinettspørsmål" and "Mistillitsvotum" are two terms for basically the same thing, but it depends on who initiates the vote of no confidence (government/cabinet or parliament, respectively). Another difference, at least in Norway, is that a vote of no confidence, initiated by the parliament, is institutionalised (Constitution's §15), and legally binding, whereas a vote of confidence, initiated by the government, isn't institutionalised in the same way - there are no laws laying it out. So, if the government is at the losing end of a vote of no confidence that it itself initiated, it could choose how to interpret the result. Well... 47.5% is actually 50% when rounded up... close enough!. V85 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm an American so I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I am reasonably certain that, in English, a motion of no confidence is proposed by the opposition, not by the government. If you vote aye on a motion of no confidence, you are voting for the government to resign; I suppose it's not impossible in principle that the government itself could propose such a resolution, but plausible reasons that they would are hard to come up with.

I think this is the difference between a vote of confidence and a vote of no confidence — in the former, an aye vote is to retain the government, whereas in the latter, an aye vote is for the government to step down. I can't say I'm sure, though. I would like to see this explained better in the article, and possibly have it split into two articles (one for confidence, one for no confidence), as they seem fairly different circumstances. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, is that this is not, strictly speaking, a vote of confidence/no confidence. It is basically a threat from the government attached to a bill: If the bill doesn't pass, the government will resign. The vote of confidence is thereby indirect. A bill will be before parliament, that bill is on some issue, e.g. reducing pollution. According to the laws of the country, the only thing that the parliamentarians are voting on, will be the issue at hand, in this case pollution. However, since the government has said that it will resign if the bill doesn't pass, the vote is simultaneously a vote of confidence: a vote against the bill is also a vote of no confidence. V85 (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In Australia, at least, there have been direct votes on motions of "want of confidence in the government". These are always initiated by the opposition and are almost always symbolic gestures, as the numbers on the floor of the house are extremely good predictors of the result, and if the government has the numbers, they get to stay in power as long as everyone turns up to the vote, and votes along party lines. It's only when there's a hung parliament, as we have at the moment, where the government remains in power only through the support of independents and minor parties, that there's any real prospect of such a motion ever passing. But it's not unprecedented. Back in 1940, the last time there was a hung parliament, the UAP/Country coalition government led by Robert Menzies had to resign when 2 independents switched their allegiances to the Labor Party, and John Curtin became PM. That switch wasn't actually a result of a motion of want of confidence in the government, but it easily could have been. In fact, it happened when they chose to vote against a budget measure involving a triflingly small amount of money. See, principles triumph after all, when it suits people for them to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The situation, I suspect, is different in parliaments with no more than (say) four significant parties where the government usually consists of no more than two major parties (e.g. the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in the United Kingdom, the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union coalition with the Free Democrats in Germany, or many governing coalitions of the Irish Labour Party with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael), or one party supported "from outside" by another (e.g. several Canadian parliaments where the Liberals were supported by the New Democratic Party, or several British ones where Labour was supported by the Liberals, the latter party in each case not being in the Cabinet but either voting for the government's programme or at least promising not to vote against it). In more pluralistic parliaments, it doesn't seem unusual for the prime minister, tired of friction with several coalition partners, their demands or their threats, to threaten to call his or her own vote of confidence (by whatever name) with the implicit threat that if the government falls, the minor partners will lose their seats in Cabinet, subsidies to favoured causes, perhaps their entire parliamentary delegation in a snap election, etc. I'm thinking (perhaps falsely) of the Israeli Knesset, where I have the impression that several recent Prime Ministers have at least threatened to make a major vote (e.g. on settlements) into a vote of confidence. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Israeli politics could clarify. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, a "cabinet question" is not exactly the same as a vote of confidence (or of no confidence); it has a dual character. The user V85 reminded you of this. I am a Swede, and V85 a Norwegian; and I suspect that there really is some difference between the Scandinavian practice, and the Westminster one. For a pure vote of confidence, there is just one important issue: Whether or not the cabinet will retain (or gain) the confidence of the parliament. On the other hand, when a proposal has been declared a "question of cabinet", the "material issues" in that proposition remain, and may actually be more important than the accompanying question about the cabinet.

Nevertheless, some of your answers pointed out that some questions by custom are considered as "implicit votes of confidence", or that a cabinet by custom may declare a question to be of this dignity. Of course; all this goes "by custom". Remember that "parlamentaric monarchy" in countries like the UK (which one older Swedish encyclopædia called "a republic indisguise") essentially evolved from "real" monarchies by a slow, creeping process, where often more democratic "custom" de facto changed the political content, while still retaining the older monarchistic de jure forms. Thus, I'm not interested in the formal votes of confidence, but precisely of the customary practice.

Shall I understand your answers to mean that there is no other term than "vote of confidence" for this? Would a Canadian journal write something like "The Prime Minister declared that this piece of legislation is a vote of confidence", or are there also other terms for this? Moreover, it was pointed out to me, that the Swedish term "Kabinettsfråga" originates from the French question de cabinet, according to Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Does anyone of you have access to a good French-English dictionary, and the possibility to check what the direct translation of the French term is? JoergenB (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but in the unabridged Dansk-Engelsk Ordbog (Danish-English dictionary) by Hermann Vinterberg & C.A. Bodelsen, published by Gyldendal, 2004, on page 977: "kabinetsspørgsmål" has the following translation: "question (or matter) of confidence", with the given example: "the Government decided to treat the rejection of their proposal as a vote of no confidence". --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have herd the term "matter of confidence" used before on the matter, as in something like "the Prime Minister declared that the bill would be considered a matter of confidence." I think it matches up with the term cabinet question quite well, personally.Rabuve (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is not clear 1:1 translation of this term, and that this way of dealing with issues is unknown in Westminster-style democracies. (Keep in mind that the British parliament is set up in such a way as to yield clear majorities where the government needing to 'threaten' parliament might not be necessary, as it already has a majority.) Perhaps the best approach, if you want to discuss this at length, would be to provide a short paragraph outlining exactly what a "Kabinettspørsmål" is.

I searched :fr:WP for the term question de cabinet. Sadly, they don't have an article on it, but from reading the paragraphs in the few articles where it is used, it seems to be a term relatively close in meaning to the Scandinavian "Kabinettspørsmål".

Whatever translation you go with will, of course, depend on the specific context, and not least, sentence structure; personally, I think Saddhiyama's suggestion is pretty good. V85 (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

JoergenB, I'm sure that (in Britain) "vote of confidence" is the phrase in general use, and therefore, in practical terms, the correct translation. Maybe the the average British person doesnt know precisely what it means constitutionally (as discussed above). But that doesnt stop it being the correct translation lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here’s a current usage:

• Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, meanwhile, is refusing to back down on his hardline on offshore policy. He has reiterated that the Coalition will not back the Malaysia solution, saying "it is not the job of the Opposition to support bad policy". He says the Government will have to negotiate with the Greens or take the drastic action in Parliament of making asylum policy a matter of confidence and putting the legislation to a vote. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 "shackle" sneakers: what is the shackle for?

Google it, if you don't know what is it all about: [3]. Was that a SM edition from Adidas? Was that racist? I sincerely don't see any use for putting it there, so this open the door for speculation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the sneakers were designed by Jeremy Scott who is not exactly known for subtlety in his designs. This is the reference desk, not the opinion desk, so I won't offer my own opinion on whether or not the sneakers in question were racist, but for what it's worth, Scott himself claims the design is based on one of his childhood toys. -- Ferkelparade π 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to enter into the question whether it's racist or not, but I couldn't recognize any practical or esthetical value on these sneakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But you yourself asked the question "was that racist". FWIW I would say that the reason they were withdrawn was because of the uncomfortable associations of shackles with slavery. Whether that's "racist" or not I couldn't say. Nor could I comment on what Adidas were thinking of when they designed the shoes. --Viennese Waltz 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a rhetoric question, not meant to be answered. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case it was a comment, even though you later disclaimed any desire to enter into the question. If you didn't want to get into such a question, why did you open it up in the first place? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me think again: actually I would like to know whether it can be racist, even if not intended. Can a message without intention have the non-intended meaning? What do you all mean? Please tell me your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not racist exactly, just potentially offensive. And, unfortunately, the public won't get a chance to decide, since they were yanked by the shoe's maker. This kind of falls into the "What more they thinking?" category, like the folks who tried to replace classic Coca Cola. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear OsmanRF34. Authorial intention has been widely rejected in literary criticism. Sneaker criticism follows many of the rules of literary criticism. Therefore, critics of sneakers can declare that sneakers are racist, regardless of the intention of the sneaker's author. See Post-modernism, literary criticism and authorial intent. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I get your point (except the part when you extrapolate from literary criticism to sneaker criticism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source in which the designer explains just what fashion statement he was trying to make? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You could also look at fine art criticism, but literary criticism has the highest developed debate on authorial intention available. Sneaker criticism is a lagging field, with no full professors. In contrast almost all true Universities (ie: places with multiple faculties) have at least one member of staff who deals with literary criticism. So there's much more methodology available from literary criticism to deal with the intentions of an author. Using this, we can reject the intentions of a sneaker's author, and merely critique the sneaker itself on the basis of its poetics (inherent aesthetic techniques used). For one, I would suggest that the use of prison orange, combined with chained shackles, combined with over-priced mass market sneakers exposes an irony about the variety of methods used to oppress african americans. Also, its bloody offensive selling people their own oppression. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Slave bracelet bondage and discipline transgression fashion. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

illegal immigrants in the us

just curious, why are there so many illegal immigrants in the U.S.?

I would guess that the drug cartels drive a lot of people into the south U.S., and many try to avoid the legal immigration process due to difficulty getting in.

Also, has any politician ever really looked at why people migrate to the U.S. illegally, as opposed to just how to get rid of them? Heck froze over (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Illegal immigration to the United States. Please read it and let us know if you have any unanswered questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It ain't rocket science (or a science question at all): rich country + looong border with a poor region + mild penalty for getting caught + difficulty immigrating legally = influx. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I'd just add that many illegal immigrants send the money they earn back home, to help relieve poverty there. There are some villages devoid of any working age males (and most working-age females), since they are off earning money for their families.

A good follow-up Q might be why their own economies are so poor. Part of it seems to be the Spanish colonial policy of extracting resources and sending them back to Spain, rather than building up local infrastructure. However, illegal immigration to the US may also provide a "safety valve", which allows their own governments to keep them poor. If there was no US where they could earn a living, they would need to either have a revolution or starve to death. So, I suspect you'd see more revolutions, and more socialist governments as a result, distributing the wealth of those nations more evenly. StuRat (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While revolutions would be more likely, I'm not sure why you'd refer to them as socialist. Historically revolutions in central/south america have led to dictatorships, I'm sure most that would happen would end up the same way. Most states in that region aren't particularly flush with resources they're hoarding among a few, many are poor on average as well. Chris M. (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to both be a dictator and be socialist. While hardly ideal, the initial redistribution of wealth can improve conditions enough for the poor so that they don't actually die. If not, you get revolution after revolution until either democracy is achieved or an acceptable dictator is found. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: the great majority come here looking for work. And there are a number of businesses that depend critically on migrant workers, in particular picking fruits and vegetables. Having lived in California and South Texas, I have known a number of illegal immigrants, and on the whole I find them to be the hardest-working and most reliable people you will find anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone in the government ever considered making the legal immigration process a little easier? I know my father (an asian engineer with 20+ experience when he first moved here) had trouble getting in. Heck froze over (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that a group with considerable political clout, the "fiscal conservatives" (like Mitt Romney) want it the way it is (as distinct from the "social conservatives", who don't want any immigration at all, except perhaps white Europeans). The fiscal conservatives want there to be immigration, and they want it to be illegal immigration. This ensures a large labor force for their businesses, which, due to their legal status, have no protection from the law. This allows their businesses to thoroughly exploit those workers, which is the ideal situation for increasing profit. "Liberals", on the other hand, tend to favor legalized immigration, but, in tough economic times, they don't push this very hard, since many of the poor people they represent are worried about losing their jobs to immigrants. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Because everyone wants to be in the United States. FlySoHigh.6783 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Except Canadians, apparently. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't say about the general population, but there are quite a few American actors who were Canadian-born. William Shatner and Dan Aykroyd come to mind immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a presumption here that if people want to get in but can't that something is wrong. But the U.S. has 40 million legal immigrants (more than 10% of its population) compared to 11 million illegal immigrants. It accepts 1 million immigrants a year (more people as citizens in 2006 than all the rest of the world combined, according to Immigration to the United States). The foreign born population in the U.S. has reached the level of the early 20th century - including almost 1 million Canadians (about 1 of every 40). Although almost 1 of every ten Mexicans lives in the U.S. Rmhermen (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The US is really very generous with immigration, but we can't let everyone in. Where would we put them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Your country appears to be dangerously underpopulated". - Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If everyone in the world were to move to Texas, the resulting population density would be that of a typical suburb. (Or so I once read somewhere.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That statistic (more new citizens than the rest of the world combined) gives a very different impression to List of countries by foreign-born population in 2005, which shows that the US has a large number of immigrants relative to its population, but smaller than many other countries. Note that legal immigration is very different to citizenship - perhaps the US makes it particularly easy or desirable for immigrants to acquire citizenship? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. We just want to do some cross-border shopping. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one reason for not addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, is that those reasons are very complex and difficult to resolve. Instead, politicians focus on policies that might deter people from illegally crossing borders, such as physical barriers, to make it more difficult to cross the border, or penalties such as imprisonment and fines, and lastly, deportation, putting the illegal immigrant back to "Square 1". (The efficacy of such policies is, of course, debatable.) Solving the underlying causes, however, would require a lot more work. As Clarityfiend says, it is caused by a long, porous border separating a rich country from a poor country. I.e. to solve the underlying problem, you'd have to solve poverty. How do you do that? It's much easier to find a simplistic solution, such as building a fence. V85 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to us to fix Mexico's problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be up to "us" to refrain from causing them, e.g. with the drug war. —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to imply that the US should at least tackle the underlying causes of illegal immigration, and I fail to understand why can't the US just choose whom to let in and ignore the situation south of the border. As stated above, 40 million are already here, and 1 million is allowed to enter legally each year, the illegal 11 millions are clearly out of place. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked "has any politician ever really looked at why people migrate to the U.S. illegally, as opposed to just how to get rid of them?" I was trying to answer that question. V85 (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference is nice, and opinion ... is just opinion. I would suggest the OP to read Illegal immigration to the United States, which Someguy1221 provided earlier, and Beyond Borders: A History of Mexican Migration to the United States ISBN: 978-1-4051-9430-3 and form your own opinion. As for politician looking into the why behind illegal immigration - they have no incentive to, because any self-respecting politician aiming for success would not go against local public sentiment and opinion on this issue. Royor (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that pollies are driven by votes, rather than ethics and principles? :-0 HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but they used to say this about Richard Nixon: "If he thought America had wanted a President with scruples, he'd've had some." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the USA doesn't really have that many refugees and asylum seekers. According to this data from the UNHCR, the US has only the 10th most 'refugees and people in refugee-like situations'. The countries higher in the list may surprise you - Pakistan is top by some margin, followed by Iran, Syria, Germany, Kenya, Jordan, Chad, China and Ethiopia. Other than Germany, all those countries are close to an area where there is serious war, famine or civil disorder. I haven't got time now to go through the data to tie in refugees vs population, but I am prepared to bet that the US (and much of the developed world) take in a lot fewer refugees (and spend a great deal less on supporting them) per head of population than many third world countries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! A quarter of a million people doesn't qualify as a 'that many'? The US is in the top of almost 200 countries. Sure, any country could probably do more for people who have been forced to flee, but the US does seem to be doing its share. ::Furthermore, the developed states might not take in a lot of refugees, but they do give a lot of money to organisations working with refugees. In 2009, the US, was the UNHCR's biggest donor, providing it with over half a billion dollars.[4] So, even if they aren't spending money on refugees at home, the US is certainly providing financing for refugees abroad. According to the UNHCR, all of Pakistan's 1.7 million refugees were assisted by the UNHCR, and the Pakistani government provided no funding for the UNHCR.[5]

Another question is how long a refugee stays a 'refugee'. I recall reading (somewhere...) that most conflicts in the world today last 10 years or longer, potentially meaning that a person who is a refugee could stay a refugee for 10 years of longer. One way in which the number of refugees in the US might be lower than what it actually is, is the question of how refugees are labelled by the authorities. Are they labelled as 'refugees', or perhaps some other type of 'alien resident'? Another way in which the US number might be comparatively lower than for other countries, is that people who originally came to the US have naturalised and become citizens - by definition, they are then no longer refugees. V85 (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Coming in the top 10 isn't that impressive when you bear in mind that there are only about 30-40 'developed' countries, and that the US is vastly larger than any of the others. Though I think, as Cucumber Mike said, proximity to warzones has a much greater effect on the numbers than generosity - parts of Southern Europe seem to have a particular problem with dealing with large numbers of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When immigration is illegal (as it is for most people), only illegals will immigrate. —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)