by wj
For the entire history of the United States, those who were already here have viewed with alarm that arrival of immigrants. In particular, the arrival of immigrants from new places. Currently, the focus is on Hispanics. Before that it was the Chinese and Japanese, before that the Italians and the Irish. In the earliest days of the republic, it was the Germans.
Always the concern expressed has been that the new arrivals have a different culture, and will destroy the existing American culture. And/or that they will set up enclaves of their own culture and fail to integrate with the national culture. Certainly the American culture has absorbed bits and pieces from the cultures of all of the groups who have immigranted. But historically, the second generation integrates relatively well, and by the third generation acculturation is essentially complete.
So the question is, have there been cases where a new group has failed to integrate eventually? I can only think of one off the top of my head: the Amish. Any others?
Van Hagar?
You could argue that in certain areas of the country immigrants have not integrated, even if most have. Thinking of certain Chinese enclaves here and there, but there are probably others.
You could also say that no one has been integrated, depending on what you mean by “entire history of the United States.”
Van Hagar?
You could argue that in certain areas of the country immigrants have not integrated, even if most have. Thinking of certain Chinese enclaves here and there, but there are probably others.
You could also say that no one has been integrated, depending on what you mean by “entire history of the United States.”
Van Hagar?
You could argue that in certain areas of the country immigrants have not integrated, even if most have. Thinking of certain Chinese enclaves here and there, but there are probably others.
You could also say that no one has been integrated, depending on what you mean by “entire history of the United States.”
By “entire history of the United States” I was thinking of “since the ratification of the Constitution.” Not perfect, but a reasonable rule of thumb.
And it should be said that the national culture is a moving target. My favorite example is something as superficial as St Patrick’s Day parades. Obviously an addition since the influx of the Irish in the later part of the 19th century, so not an original part of the culture. And led, in recent memory, by a Chinese American mayor of one major city — and nobody thought that particularly odd. Ditto when a black mayor somewhere leads the parade.
Yes, there are places like Chinatowns (and Japantowns) in some cities. But other than individuals who are themselves immigrants (or children of immigrants), the folks who live and work there** are as thoroughly American as anybody else — outside business hours. In short, mostly those areas remain visible primarily as tourist attractions, rather than as real cultural enclaves.
** I would note that, in my area, the folks working in Chinese restaurants are more likely to be Vietnamese or Cambodian than of actual Chinese ancestry. Preserves, I suppose, the “look and feel”, without having to pay what those who are not immigrants would demand.
By “entire history of the United States” I was thinking of “since the ratification of the Constitution.” Not perfect, but a reasonable rule of thumb.
And it should be said that the national culture is a moving target. My favorite example is something as superficial as St Patrick’s Day parades. Obviously an addition since the influx of the Irish in the later part of the 19th century, so not an original part of the culture. And led, in recent memory, by a Chinese American mayor of one major city — and nobody thought that particularly odd. Ditto when a black mayor somewhere leads the parade.
Yes, there are places like Chinatowns (and Japantowns) in some cities. But other than individuals who are themselves immigrants (or children of immigrants), the folks who live and work there** are as thoroughly American as anybody else — outside business hours. In short, mostly those areas remain visible primarily as tourist attractions, rather than as real cultural enclaves.
** I would note that, in my area, the folks working in Chinese restaurants are more likely to be Vietnamese or Cambodian than of actual Chinese ancestry. Preserves, I suppose, the “look and feel”, without having to pay what those who are not immigrants would demand.
By “entire history of the United States” I was thinking of “since the ratification of the Constitution.” Not perfect, but a reasonable rule of thumb.
And it should be said that the national culture is a moving target. My favorite example is something as superficial as St Patrick’s Day parades. Obviously an addition since the influx of the Irish in the later part of the 19th century, so not an original part of the culture. And led, in recent memory, by a Chinese American mayor of one major city — and nobody thought that particularly odd. Ditto when a black mayor somewhere leads the parade.
Yes, there are places like Chinatowns (and Japantowns) in some cities. But other than individuals who are themselves immigrants (or children of immigrants), the folks who live and work there** are as thoroughly American as anybody else — outside business hours. In short, mostly those areas remain visible primarily as tourist attractions, rather than as real cultural enclaves.
** I would note that, in my area, the folks working in Chinese restaurants are more likely to be Vietnamese or Cambodian than of actual Chinese ancestry. Preserves, I suppose, the “look and feel”, without having to pay what those who are not immigrants would demand.
A striking illustration of Latinophobia:
http://thevpo.org/2015/01/19/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/
A striking illustration of Latinophobia:
http://thevpo.org/2015/01/19/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/
A striking illustration of Latinophobia:
http://thevpo.org/2015/01/19/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/
Still, it’s nice to see some politicians blithely ignoring the ignorant rantings of the xenophobes. Indeed, treating them with the scorn they deserve. More power to them!
Still, it’s nice to see some politicians blithely ignoring the ignorant rantings of the xenophobes. Indeed, treating them with the scorn they deserve. More power to them!
Still, it’s nice to see some politicians blithely ignoring the ignorant rantings of the xenophobes. Indeed, treating them with the scorn they deserve. More power to them!
Those xenophobes are invited to dispose of all of their banknotes that have eEeevil furrin “latin” mottoes on them, by giving them to me.
Those xenophobes are invited to dispose of all of their banknotes that have eEeevil furrin “latin” mottoes on them, by giving them to me.
Those xenophobes are invited to dispose of all of their banknotes that have eEeevil furrin “latin” mottoes on them, by giving them to me.
My father’s family spoke German as their first language until the end of the 19th century. While that’s acculturating eventually, it was a long “eventually” seeing as they first arrived in 1735.
My father’s family spoke German as their first language until the end of the 19th century. While that’s acculturating eventually, it was a long “eventually” seeing as they first arrived in 1735.
My father’s family spoke German as their first language until the end of the 19th century. While that’s acculturating eventually, it was a long “eventually” seeing as they first arrived in 1735.
A striking illustration of Latinophobia
The south has no monopoly on rednecks.
I don’t think my great-grandparents were ever fluent in English. After then immigrated, they lived in a mostly-Italian area of Orange NJ, so they got by with their native tongue.
The family was, thoroughly, assimilated by the next generation.
The Amish are funny case because I don’t think they were integrated into the wider society in their original country, which I think was Switzerland. So, living as a separatist agrarian religious community in the middle of a larger secular one kind of is their version of “integrated”.
There are a number of separatist religious communities with origins in other countries who have simply brought their “we’re different!” ways here to the US.
Depending on where they are from, it may well be easier for them to live that way here. I think we’re relatively tolerant of splinter cultures.
I don’t think everyone’s experience is the same, but I was brought up with the idea that everyone should be welcome here, and that differences between people was a good thing. It made life interesting.
That wasn’t something that was specifically taught to me, it was just kind of in the air, and I absorbed it and embraced it.
I know that xenophobia has a long history here in the US, but I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than negative, sort of a phobic irrational id to the better and healthier tradition of welcoming everyone.
I’ve wandered a bit off topic, so I’ll stop there.
A striking illustration of Latinophobia
The south has no monopoly on rednecks.
I don’t think my great-grandparents were ever fluent in English. After then immigrated, they lived in a mostly-Italian area of Orange NJ, so they got by with their native tongue.
The family was, thoroughly, assimilated by the next generation.
The Amish are funny case because I don’t think they were integrated into the wider society in their original country, which I think was Switzerland. So, living as a separatist agrarian religious community in the middle of a larger secular one kind of is their version of “integrated”.
There are a number of separatist religious communities with origins in other countries who have simply brought their “we’re different!” ways here to the US.
Depending on where they are from, it may well be easier for them to live that way here. I think we’re relatively tolerant of splinter cultures.
I don’t think everyone’s experience is the same, but I was brought up with the idea that everyone should be welcome here, and that differences between people was a good thing. It made life interesting.
That wasn’t something that was specifically taught to me, it was just kind of in the air, and I absorbed it and embraced it.
I know that xenophobia has a long history here in the US, but I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than negative, sort of a phobic irrational id to the better and healthier tradition of welcoming everyone.
I’ve wandered a bit off topic, so I’ll stop there.
A striking illustration of Latinophobia
The south has no monopoly on rednecks.
I don’t think my great-grandparents were ever fluent in English. After then immigrated, they lived in a mostly-Italian area of Orange NJ, so they got by with their native tongue.
The family was, thoroughly, assimilated by the next generation.
The Amish are funny case because I don’t think they were integrated into the wider society in their original country, which I think was Switzerland. So, living as a separatist agrarian religious community in the middle of a larger secular one kind of is their version of “integrated”.
There are a number of separatist religious communities with origins in other countries who have simply brought their “we’re different!” ways here to the US.
Depending on where they are from, it may well be easier for them to live that way here. I think we’re relatively tolerant of splinter cultures.
I don’t think everyone’s experience is the same, but I was brought up with the idea that everyone should be welcome here, and that differences between people was a good thing. It made life interesting.
That wasn’t something that was specifically taught to me, it was just kind of in the air, and I absorbed it and embraced it.
I know that xenophobia has a long history here in the US, but I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than negative, sort of a phobic irrational id to the better and healthier tradition of welcoming everyone.
I’ve wandered a bit off topic, so I’ll stop there.
heckblazer, I think it may be worthwhile distinguishing between people whose first language is not English, but who are completely fluent in English as well, and those who never get fluent in English, but just get along with another language.
The former seem, to me at least, to be a complete non-problem. The latter actually are imperfectly acculturated. It’s a matter, in part, of whether you can function smoothly in the national culture; not of whether you always do.
heckblazer, I think it may be worthwhile distinguishing between people whose first language is not English, but who are completely fluent in English as well, and those who never get fluent in English, but just get along with another language.
The former seem, to me at least, to be a complete non-problem. The latter actually are imperfectly acculturated. It’s a matter, in part, of whether you can function smoothly in the national culture; not of whether you always do.
heckblazer, I think it may be worthwhile distinguishing between people whose first language is not English, but who are completely fluent in English as well, and those who never get fluent in English, but just get along with another language.
The former seem, to me at least, to be a complete non-problem. The latter actually are imperfectly acculturated. It’s a matter, in part, of whether you can function smoothly in the national culture; not of whether you always do.
So, living as a separatist agrarian religious community in the middle of a larger secular one kind of is their version of “integrated”.
I’d agree with this. I live near Amish, I see them on the roads, and I know people who interact with Amish in a business capacity on a regular basis.
They have their own communities, obviously, but that community integrates with the larger community around them fairly well.
So, living as a separatist agrarian religious community in the middle of a larger secular one kind of is their version of “integrated”.
I’d agree with this. I live near Amish, I see them on the roads, and I know people who interact with Amish in a business capacity on a regular basis.
They have their own communities, obviously, but that community integrates with the larger community around them fairly well.
So, living as a separatist agrarian religious community in the middle of a larger secular one kind of is their version of “integrated”.
I’d agree with this. I live near Amish, I see them on the roads, and I know people who interact with Amish in a business capacity on a regular basis.
They have their own communities, obviously, but that community integrates with the larger community around them fairly well.
wj, They spoke German as their sole language through at least the 1820s. That didn’t stop them from fighting in the War of 1812 though.
wj, They spoke German as their sole language through at least the 1820s. That didn’t stop them from fighting in the War of 1812 though.
wj, They spoke German as their sole language through at least the 1820s. That didn’t stop them from fighting in the War of 1812 though.
I don’t think the concern is with people who don’t acculturate. I think the concern is that, beyond some level of immigration, acculturation runs both ways. The Mexicans become Americans, but America becomes more like Mexico.
And, really, who in God’s name would want America to be more like Mexico?
I don’t think the concern is with people who don’t acculturate. I think the concern is that, beyond some level of immigration, acculturation runs both ways. The Mexicans become Americans, but America becomes more like Mexico.
And, really, who in God’s name would want America to be more like Mexico?
I don’t think the concern is with people who don’t acculturate. I think the concern is that, beyond some level of immigration, acculturation runs both ways. The Mexicans become Americans, but America becomes more like Mexico.
And, really, who in God’s name would want America to be more like Mexico?
IMO the two way thing is the best part of the deal.
I have no problem with American culture becoming “more Mexican”. a lot of the US is already pretty Mexican, and has been for longer than has been American.
IMO the two way thing is the best part of the deal.
I have no problem with American culture becoming “more Mexican”. a lot of the US is already pretty Mexican, and has been for longer than has been American.
IMO the two way thing is the best part of the deal.
I have no problem with American culture becoming “more Mexican”. a lot of the US is already pretty Mexican, and has been for longer than has been American.
I have no problem with America becoming more like Mexico, in some very limited respects having to do with cuisine. I have huge problems with America becoming more like Mexico in some other respects, like widespread corruption.
And I don’t know that we get to pick and chose which ways we become more like Mexico, as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate.
I have no problem with America becoming more like Mexico, in some very limited respects having to do with cuisine. I have huge problems with America becoming more like Mexico in some other respects, like widespread corruption.
And I don’t know that we get to pick and chose which ways we become more like Mexico, as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate.
I have no problem with America becoming more like Mexico, in some very limited respects having to do with cuisine. I have huge problems with America becoming more like Mexico in some other respects, like widespread corruption.
And I don’t know that we get to pick and chose which ways we become more like Mexico, as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate.
“like widespread corruption.”
I can’t stop giggling. Wouldn’t it be terrible if our financial sector ever became as corrupt as Mexico? What if police forces in some areas started using the local black population as a source of revenue?
“like widespread corruption.”
I can’t stop giggling. Wouldn’t it be terrible if our financial sector ever became as corrupt as Mexico? What if police forces in some areas started using the local black population as a source of revenue?
“like widespread corruption.”
I can’t stop giggling. Wouldn’t it be terrible if our financial sector ever became as corrupt as Mexico? What if police forces in some areas started using the local black population as a source of revenue?
Yeah, giggle. If you’re very, very unlucky, you might get to experience what the US would be like with Mexican levels of corruption.
Think about it: There’s a reason people are immigrating in this direction, not the other.
Yeah, giggle. If you’re very, very unlucky, you might get to experience what the US would be like with Mexican levels of corruption.
Think about it: There’s a reason people are immigrating in this direction, not the other.
Yeah, giggle. If you’re very, very unlucky, you might get to experience what the US would be like with Mexican levels of corruption.
Think about it: There’s a reason people are immigrating in this direction, not the other.
Yes, but we have the rule of law. Much of our corruption is above board and legal.
Yes, but we have the rule of law. Much of our corruption is above board and legal.
Yes, but we have the rule of law. Much of our corruption is above board and legal.
More and more, we *had* the rule of law. We’re losing it fast.
More and more, we *had* the rule of law. We’re losing it fast.
More and more, we *had* the rule of law. We’re losing it fast.
I think it was an American commenting on Marginal Revolution who said it best. He was in total agreement with an illegal immigrant from Guatemala. The immigrant didn’t want to live in Guatemala, and neither did he.
I think it was an American commenting on Marginal Revolution who said it best. He was in total agreement with an illegal immigrant from Guatemala. The immigrant didn’t want to live in Guatemala, and neither did he.
I think it was an American commenting on Marginal Revolution who said it best. He was in total agreement with an illegal immigrant from Guatemala. The immigrant didn’t want to live in Guatemala, and neither did he.
as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate.1880-1920. Of those, slightly more than 1/2 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. Furthermore, the population from Mexico has levelled off in recent years.
What is the basis for this assertion? Total foreign born account for about 13% of the US population. This is comparable to that during the period
It took a couple of generations to “assimilate” the masses from Eastern Europe who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th century, but apparently you insist that those darned “‘mexicans” assimilate in one generation.
Why is that?
as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate.1880-1920. Of those, slightly more than 1/2 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. Furthermore, the population from Mexico has levelled off in recent years.
What is the basis for this assertion? Total foreign born account for about 13% of the US population. This is comparable to that during the period
It took a couple of generations to “assimilate” the masses from Eastern Europe who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th century, but apparently you insist that those darned “‘mexicans” assimilate in one generation.
Why is that?
as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate.1880-1920. Of those, slightly more than 1/2 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. Furthermore, the population from Mexico has levelled off in recent years.
What is the basis for this assertion? Total foreign born account for about 13% of the US population. This is comparable to that during the period
It took a couple of generations to “assimilate” the masses from Eastern Europe who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th century, but apparently you insist that those darned “‘mexicans” assimilate in one generation.
Why is that?
as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants
Good heavens, what poppycock.
There is no conspiracy to flood the US with “more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate”. The only way that statement makes sense is if you think American businesses that preferentially employ immigrants (especially illegal immigrants, who are much cheaper to hire and easier to abuse) would prefer if those immigrants not assimilate, because that keeps them more dependent and controllable.
Where are you getting these ideas, Brett? You say you don’t watch FoxNews, so where is it coming from?
as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants
Good heavens, what poppycock.
There is no conspiracy to flood the US with “more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate”. The only way that statement makes sense is if you think American businesses that preferentially employ immigrants (especially illegal immigrants, who are much cheaper to hire and easier to abuse) would prefer if those immigrants not assimilate, because that keeps them more dependent and controllable.
Where are you getting these ideas, Brett? You say you don’t watch FoxNews, so where is it coming from?
as we are deliberately flooded with more Mexican immigrants
Good heavens, what poppycock.
There is no conspiracy to flood the US with “more Mexican immigrants than we can assimilate”. The only way that statement makes sense is if you think American businesses that preferentially employ immigrants (especially illegal immigrants, who are much cheaper to hire and easier to abuse) would prefer if those immigrants not assimilate, because that keeps them more dependent and controllable.
Where are you getting these ideas, Brett? You say you don’t watch FoxNews, so where is it coming from?
Dr. S, you are missing a basic principle:
Bad things don’t just happen. If something bad happens, it must be due to a deliberate act of some ill-intentioned person.** The only question is who . . . and maybe what could possibly have motivated them, although that is not critical to the identification.
** In truly exceptional cases, it could just be massive stupidity on the part of the actor. But the chances of that are tiny, since it is generally obvious that the actions imputed would have the ill effect seen.
Dr. S, you are missing a basic principle:
Bad things don’t just happen. If something bad happens, it must be due to a deliberate act of some ill-intentioned person.** The only question is who . . . and maybe what could possibly have motivated them, although that is not critical to the identification.
** In truly exceptional cases, it could just be massive stupidity on the part of the actor. But the chances of that are tiny, since it is generally obvious that the actions imputed would have the ill effect seen.
Dr. S, you are missing a basic principle:
Bad things don’t just happen. If something bad happens, it must be due to a deliberate act of some ill-intentioned person.** The only question is who . . . and maybe what could possibly have motivated them, although that is not critical to the identification.
** In truly exceptional cases, it could just be massive stupidity on the part of the actor. But the chances of that are tiny, since it is generally obvious that the actions imputed would have the ill effect seen.
There’s a reason people are immigrating in this direction, not the other.
There are probably a very generous handful of reasons that people from Mexico, along with South and Central America, want to immigrate here. Legally, illegally, any way they can.
The fact that the US is significantly less corrupt, especially in ways that are likely to touch on their lives directly, is no doubt among them.
Which is why I would find it unlikely that folks coming here from those places would try to reproduce similar patterns of corruption here.
What you’re saying doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
As far as our “ability to assimilate”, the fact is that the folks you’re worried about are *already here*. Working, paying taxes, many of them starting businesses, having kids, buying homes, living their lives.
They’re already here. They’ve assimilated, about as well as any other identifiable group of immigrants ever did.
The only impediment is their status.
The other thing I’ll note is that the way most illegals come here – i.e., find a way across the border and show up – is how most immigrants have ever come here.
When my great-grands came here from Italy, they didn’t have paperwork or visas or whatever. The got on a boat in Italy, and got off the boat at Ellis Island. Basically, they showed up on the doorstep. Working their way through the process of becoming citizens came after.
My understanding is that we let something like 600K people into the US per year as legal immigrants. That’s two tenths of one percent of the population. There are lots of issues to consider in making changes to the current immigration regime, but I don’t think our ability to assimilate more than two tenths of one percent of the population is one of them.
There’s a reason people are immigrating in this direction, not the other.
There are probably a very generous handful of reasons that people from Mexico, along with South and Central America, want to immigrate here. Legally, illegally, any way they can.
The fact that the US is significantly less corrupt, especially in ways that are likely to touch on their lives directly, is no doubt among them.
Which is why I would find it unlikely that folks coming here from those places would try to reproduce similar patterns of corruption here.
What you’re saying doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
As far as our “ability to assimilate”, the fact is that the folks you’re worried about are *already here*. Working, paying taxes, many of them starting businesses, having kids, buying homes, living their lives.
They’re already here. They’ve assimilated, about as well as any other identifiable group of immigrants ever did.
The only impediment is their status.
The other thing I’ll note is that the way most illegals come here – i.e., find a way across the border and show up – is how most immigrants have ever come here.
When my great-grands came here from Italy, they didn’t have paperwork or visas or whatever. The got on a boat in Italy, and got off the boat at Ellis Island. Basically, they showed up on the doorstep. Working their way through the process of becoming citizens came after.
My understanding is that we let something like 600K people into the US per year as legal immigrants. That’s two tenths of one percent of the population. There are lots of issues to consider in making changes to the current immigration regime, but I don’t think our ability to assimilate more than two tenths of one percent of the population is one of them.
There’s a reason people are immigrating in this direction, not the other.
There are probably a very generous handful of reasons that people from Mexico, along with South and Central America, want to immigrate here. Legally, illegally, any way they can.
The fact that the US is significantly less corrupt, especially in ways that are likely to touch on their lives directly, is no doubt among them.
Which is why I would find it unlikely that folks coming here from those places would try to reproduce similar patterns of corruption here.
What you’re saying doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
As far as our “ability to assimilate”, the fact is that the folks you’re worried about are *already here*. Working, paying taxes, many of them starting businesses, having kids, buying homes, living their lives.
They’re already here. They’ve assimilated, about as well as any other identifiable group of immigrants ever did.
The only impediment is their status.
The other thing I’ll note is that the way most illegals come here – i.e., find a way across the border and show up – is how most immigrants have ever come here.
When my great-grands came here from Italy, they didn’t have paperwork or visas or whatever. The got on a boat in Italy, and got off the boat at Ellis Island. Basically, they showed up on the doorstep. Working their way through the process of becoming citizens came after.
My understanding is that we let something like 600K people into the US per year as legal immigrants. That’s two tenths of one percent of the population. There are lots of issues to consider in making changes to the current immigration regime, but I don’t think our ability to assimilate more than two tenths of one percent of the population is one of them.
“Which is why I would find it unlikely that folks coming here from those places would try to reproduce similar patterns of corruption here.”
They don’t have to try. They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
“Which is why I would find it unlikely that folks coming here from those places would try to reproduce similar patterns of corruption here.”
They don’t have to try. They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
“Which is why I would find it unlikely that folks coming here from those places would try to reproduce similar patterns of corruption here.”
They don’t have to try. They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
Starting, I should say, with the fact that they don’t have any problem entering a country in defiance of it’s laws, engaging in identity theft and fraud in order to obtain ID so they can work…
Essentially, we’ve set up a big filter on our southern border, that only lets in people who don’t respect the law. But does, deliberately, let them in.
Starting, I should say, with the fact that they don’t have any problem entering a country in defiance of it’s laws, engaging in identity theft and fraud in order to obtain ID so they can work…
Essentially, we’ve set up a big filter on our southern border, that only lets in people who don’t respect the law. But does, deliberately, let them in.
Starting, I should say, with the fact that they don’t have any problem entering a country in defiance of it’s laws, engaging in identity theft and fraud in order to obtain ID so they can work…
Essentially, we’ve set up a big filter on our southern border, that only lets in people who don’t respect the law. But does, deliberately, let them in.
“Cultural values” again.
Brett has made it clear that gun ownership is one of his cultural values, and I can’t tell whether his worry is that immigrants share it, or that they don’t.
“The southern border” again.
You’d think that people coming in through our airports, with visas, and never bothering to leave when the visas expire, are not a problem for Brett. I suppose that’s because flying internationally is a good “cultural value”.
–TP
“Cultural values” again.
Brett has made it clear that gun ownership is one of his cultural values, and I can’t tell whether his worry is that immigrants share it, or that they don’t.
“The southern border” again.
You’d think that people coming in through our airports, with visas, and never bothering to leave when the visas expire, are not a problem for Brett. I suppose that’s because flying internationally is a good “cultural value”.
–TP
“Cultural values” again.
Brett has made it clear that gun ownership is one of his cultural values, and I can’t tell whether his worry is that immigrants share it, or that they don’t.
“The southern border” again.
You’d think that people coming in through our airports, with visas, and never bothering to leave when the visas expire, are not a problem for Brett. I suppose that’s because flying internationally is a good “cultural value”.
–TP
say, have all us long-time Americans worked-out our culture of genocide and slavery? or are we still trying to keep that alive?
say, have all us long-time Americans worked-out our culture of genocide and slavery? or are we still trying to keep that alive?
say, have all us long-time Americans worked-out our culture of genocide and slavery? or are we still trying to keep that alive?
For example, the amount of remittances received per year in Pakistan varies from $2 to $3 billion per year (1980s), constituting almost 9% of GDP; in Mexico it is over $2 billion per year. According to Annelies Zoomers it is estimated that people sending remittances are now reaching a number of 500 million people, what is almost 8% of the world population.
Today, over 200 million people reside in a country that is not their birthplace. About 82 percent of migrants originate in developing countries, and their remittances, which amounted to an estimated $305 billion in 2008, represent an essential source of foreign exchange, as well as a major instrument in the fight against poverty. Migrants typically triple their real earnings by working overseas; and every 10 percent increase in per capita official remittances leads to a 3.5 percent decline in the share of people living in poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_results_of_migration
It is postulated that migration comes out of a lack of respect for law and order, with the data being that first world people don’t do that, so therefore it has to be a lack of respect, never considering the alternative explanation that they are willing to take any number of risks to bring their parents, children, and extended family out of poverty.
Perhaps someone will again come in after Brett and trim off the racist fat so that a conversation can arise and he can assure himself he’s not a troll because he brings up the points no one else will.
For example, the amount of remittances received per year in Pakistan varies from $2 to $3 billion per year (1980s), constituting almost 9% of GDP; in Mexico it is over $2 billion per year. According to Annelies Zoomers it is estimated that people sending remittances are now reaching a number of 500 million people, what is almost 8% of the world population.
Today, over 200 million people reside in a country that is not their birthplace. About 82 percent of migrants originate in developing countries, and their remittances, which amounted to an estimated $305 billion in 2008, represent an essential source of foreign exchange, as well as a major instrument in the fight against poverty. Migrants typically triple their real earnings by working overseas; and every 10 percent increase in per capita official remittances leads to a 3.5 percent decline in the share of people living in poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_results_of_migration
It is postulated that migration comes out of a lack of respect for law and order, with the data being that first world people don’t do that, so therefore it has to be a lack of respect, never considering the alternative explanation that they are willing to take any number of risks to bring their parents, children, and extended family out of poverty.
Perhaps someone will again come in after Brett and trim off the racist fat so that a conversation can arise and he can assure himself he’s not a troll because he brings up the points no one else will.
For example, the amount of remittances received per year in Pakistan varies from $2 to $3 billion per year (1980s), constituting almost 9% of GDP; in Mexico it is over $2 billion per year. According to Annelies Zoomers it is estimated that people sending remittances are now reaching a number of 500 million people, what is almost 8% of the world population.
Today, over 200 million people reside in a country that is not their birthplace. About 82 percent of migrants originate in developing countries, and their remittances, which amounted to an estimated $305 billion in 2008, represent an essential source of foreign exchange, as well as a major instrument in the fight against poverty. Migrants typically triple their real earnings by working overseas; and every 10 percent increase in per capita official remittances leads to a 3.5 percent decline in the share of people living in poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_results_of_migration
It is postulated that migration comes out of a lack of respect for law and order, with the data being that first world people don’t do that, so therefore it has to be a lack of respect, never considering the alternative explanation that they are willing to take any number of risks to bring their parents, children, and extended family out of poverty.
Perhaps someone will again come in after Brett and trim off the racist fat so that a conversation can arise and he can assure himself he’s not a troll because he brings up the points no one else will.
I do not postulate that migration comes out of a lack of respect for law and order. Except maybe to the extent that not valuing it enough made the home country nasty enough that people wanted to migrate to some place where it was valued higher.
But choosing to violate a nation’s laws in the process of migrating there? I’m not going to pretend that illegal immigration has nothing to do with whether somebody respects law and order.
I do not postulate that migration comes out of a lack of respect for law and order. Except maybe to the extent that not valuing it enough made the home country nasty enough that people wanted to migrate to some place where it was valued higher.
But choosing to violate a nation’s laws in the process of migrating there? I’m not going to pretend that illegal immigration has nothing to do with whether somebody respects law and order.
I do not postulate that migration comes out of a lack of respect for law and order. Except maybe to the extent that not valuing it enough made the home country nasty enough that people wanted to migrate to some place where it was valued higher.
But choosing to violate a nation’s laws in the process of migrating there? I’m not going to pretend that illegal immigration has nothing to do with whether somebody respects law and order.
Oh, and I’m the guy who’s in a mixed race marriage, and lives in a neighborhood that’s about half black. So tell me again how I’m a racist. I could use the laugh.
I believe in liberty, and liberty isn’t worth beans if it doesn’t extend to letting people act in ways you wouldn’t. I don’t want this country to become the “Everything that’s not mandatory is prohibited” dystopia. There has to be room to do things that ought to be frowned on.
Oh, and I’m the guy who’s in a mixed race marriage, and lives in a neighborhood that’s about half black. So tell me again how I’m a racist. I could use the laugh.
I believe in liberty, and liberty isn’t worth beans if it doesn’t extend to letting people act in ways you wouldn’t. I don’t want this country to become the “Everything that’s not mandatory is prohibited” dystopia. There has to be room to do things that ought to be frowned on.
Oh, and I’m the guy who’s in a mixed race marriage, and lives in a neighborhood that’s about half black. So tell me again how I’m a racist. I could use the laugh.
I believe in liberty, and liberty isn’t worth beans if it doesn’t extend to letting people act in ways you wouldn’t. I don’t want this country to become the “Everything that’s not mandatory is prohibited” dystopia. There has to be room to do things that ought to be frowned on.
Being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime. It’s a civil violation, which is why the government does not supply defense attorneys for people undergoing deportation hearings. As for not respecting our laws, a poor Mexican with no family in the US has pretty much no way of getting a green card, so clandestinely crossing the border is the only way to get here.
Being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime. It’s a civil violation, which is why the government does not supply defense attorneys for people undergoing deportation hearings. As for not respecting our laws, a poor Mexican with no family in the US has pretty much no way of getting a green card, so clandestinely crossing the border is the only way to get here.
Being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime. It’s a civil violation, which is why the government does not supply defense attorneys for people undergoing deportation hearings. As for not respecting our laws, a poor Mexican with no family in the US has pretty much no way of getting a green card, so clandestinely crossing the border is the only way to get here.
Brett, I know you won’t understand this, but just because you are in a mixed race marriage, or you have black neighbors doesn’t give you a free ‘I’m not a racist’ card. As heckblazer points out, the folks doing this don’t have a lot of options. Of course, if they didn’t do everything they could for their family, you would argue that they don’t respect the central role of family as much as you claim to.
Brett, I know you won’t understand this, but just because you are in a mixed race marriage, or you have black neighbors doesn’t give you a free ‘I’m not a racist’ card. As heckblazer points out, the folks doing this don’t have a lot of options. Of course, if they didn’t do everything they could for their family, you would argue that they don’t respect the central role of family as much as you claim to.
Brett, I know you won’t understand this, but just because you are in a mixed race marriage, or you have black neighbors doesn’t give you a free ‘I’m not a racist’ card. As heckblazer points out, the folks doing this don’t have a lot of options. Of course, if they didn’t do everything they could for their family, you would argue that they don’t respect the central role of family as much as you claim to.
[sarcasm]Yeah, all those Jews from Poland, Russia and Germany unwilling to adhere to the laws of their countries of birth proved their general disdain for law and order by trying to illegaly immigrate into Britain, Palestine and the US too. Not only that, they also refused (and still do) to assimilate to the dominant local (Christian) culture. [/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Yeah, all those Jews from Poland, Russia and Germany unwilling to adhere to the laws of their countries of birth proved their general disdain for law and order by trying to illegaly immigrate into Britain, Palestine and the US too. Not only that, they also refused (and still do) to assimilate to the dominant local (Christian) culture. [/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Yeah, all those Jews from Poland, Russia and Germany unwilling to adhere to the laws of their countries of birth proved their general disdain for law and order by trying to illegaly immigrate into Britain, Palestine and the US too. Not only that, they also refused (and still do) to assimilate to the dominant local (Christian) culture. [/sarcasm]
I believe in liberty, and liberty isn’t worth beans if it doesn’t extend to letting people act in ways you wouldn’t.
Then let them come. Let them speak their native tongue. Let them have their unique ‘cultural values’. Let them contribute to our wealth and progress in ways that you are unwilling to (i.e., perform backbreaking labor for crap wages). Let them enhance our common humanity.
Otherwise, you are just another run of the mill right wing authoritarian asshole.
I believe in liberty, and liberty isn’t worth beans if it doesn’t extend to letting people act in ways you wouldn’t.
Then let them come. Let them speak their native tongue. Let them have their unique ‘cultural values’. Let them contribute to our wealth and progress in ways that you are unwilling to (i.e., perform backbreaking labor for crap wages). Let them enhance our common humanity.
Otherwise, you are just another run of the mill right wing authoritarian asshole.
I believe in liberty, and liberty isn’t worth beans if it doesn’t extend to letting people act in ways you wouldn’t.
Then let them come. Let them speak their native tongue. Let them have their unique ‘cultural values’. Let them contribute to our wealth and progress in ways that you are unwilling to (i.e., perform backbreaking labor for crap wages). Let them enhance our common humanity.
Otherwise, you are just another run of the mill right wing authoritarian asshole.
Rule #1: once you’re in, pull the ladder to keep more parasites from follwowing your example and ruining it for you.
Why is what you’re doing/have done not illegal? Beacuse I had the law rewritten retroactively.
[acidic mood eating holes through keyboard again]
Rule #1: once you’re in, pull the ladder to keep more parasites from follwowing your example and ruining it for you.
Why is what you’re doing/have done not illegal? Beacuse I had the law rewritten retroactively.
[acidic mood eating holes through keyboard again]
Rule #1: once you’re in, pull the ladder to keep more parasites from follwowing your example and ruining it for you.
Why is what you’re doing/have done not illegal? Beacuse I had the law rewritten retroactively.
[acidic mood eating holes through keyboard again]
They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
Of course, the fact that part of the reason they are fleeing is to get away from corruption just might suggest that they are not bringing that cultural value with them. In fact, I would suggest that the cultural value involved in corruption is far more likely to be part of the subculture which is gaining money from bribes than of the subculture which is having to pay them.
They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
Of course, the fact that part of the reason they are fleeing is to get away from corruption just might suggest that they are not bringing that cultural value with them. In fact, I would suggest that the cultural value involved in corruption is far more likely to be part of the subculture which is gaining money from bribes than of the subculture which is having to pay them.
They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
Of course, the fact that part of the reason they are fleeing is to get away from corruption just might suggest that they are not bringing that cultural value with them. In fact, I would suggest that the cultural value involved in corruption is far more likely to be part of the subculture which is gaining money from bribes than of the subculture which is having to pay them.
Oh, and I’m the guy who’s in a mixed race marriage, and lives in a neighborhood that’s about half black. So tell me again how I’m a racist. I could use the laugh.
Fair enough, you’re not accurately characterized as a racist. However your comments certainly suggest you are xenophobic — for all that your definition of the “others” you are fearful of doesn’t happen to include a racial element.
Oh, and I’m the guy who’s in a mixed race marriage, and lives in a neighborhood that’s about half black. So tell me again how I’m a racist. I could use the laugh.
Fair enough, you’re not accurately characterized as a racist. However your comments certainly suggest you are xenophobic — for all that your definition of the “others” you are fearful of doesn’t happen to include a racial element.
Oh, and I’m the guy who’s in a mixed race marriage, and lives in a neighborhood that’s about half black. So tell me again how I’m a racist. I could use the laugh.
Fair enough, you’re not accurately characterized as a racist. However your comments certainly suggest you are xenophobic — for all that your definition of the “others” you are fearful of doesn’t happen to include a racial element.
“Brett, I know you won’t understand this, but just because you are in a mixed race marriage, or you have black neighbors doesn’t give you a free ‘I’m not a racist’ card.”
Heck, I know that. Nothing gives you a free “I’m not a racist” card, except membership in the Democratic party. That’s widely understood: The epithet “racist!” has grown almost utterly unconnected to actual racism.
“Brett, I know you won’t understand this, but just because you are in a mixed race marriage, or you have black neighbors doesn’t give you a free ‘I’m not a racist’ card.”
Heck, I know that. Nothing gives you a free “I’m not a racist” card, except membership in the Democratic party. That’s widely understood: The epithet “racist!” has grown almost utterly unconnected to actual racism.
“Brett, I know you won’t understand this, but just because you are in a mixed race marriage, or you have black neighbors doesn’t give you a free ‘I’m not a racist’ card.”
Heck, I know that. Nothing gives you a free “I’m not a racist” card, except membership in the Democratic party. That’s widely understood: The epithet “racist!” has grown almost utterly unconnected to actual racism.
it strikes me that Mexico and other places might be a whole less corrupt if Americans could find a way to obey their own narcotics laws. Or, maybe even change them so they aren’the so stupid.
but obviously, the real problem à re those Mexican cultural values.
it strikes me that Mexico and other places might be a whole less corrupt if Americans could find a way to obey their own narcotics laws. Or, maybe even change them so they aren’the so stupid.
but obviously, the real problem à re those Mexican cultural values.
it strikes me that Mexico and other places might be a whole less corrupt if Americans could find a way to obey their own narcotics laws. Or, maybe even change them so they aren’the so stupid.
but obviously, the real problem à re those Mexican cultural values.
Having just been in Guatemala City over a week ago, I have to call BS on the caricature of Guatemalans as being corrupt, not respecting the rule of law, or otherwise dramatically culturally divergent from the US.
They too hate crime, traffic, their corrupt politician, cancer *, and so on. Their taxi drivers are possibly even less corrupt than ours!
My co-workers there are hard working, smart, coffee and beer swilling nerds just like in the states. It really chaps my hide to hear the non-stop drone about how shitty Guatemala is**.
* True! My first day saw an Avon Breast Cancer Awareness walk/run with ~10,000 locals participating.
** from American know-it-all folks. From those actually living there, they can tell you with precision what sucks and what does not. For example, GT tried to enforce mandatory smog controls on their cars, but folks were too poor to fix things, and corruption made it cheaper to fake inspections.
Having just been in Guatemala City over a week ago, I have to call BS on the caricature of Guatemalans as being corrupt, not respecting the rule of law, or otherwise dramatically culturally divergent from the US.
They too hate crime, traffic, their corrupt politician, cancer *, and so on. Their taxi drivers are possibly even less corrupt than ours!
My co-workers there are hard working, smart, coffee and beer swilling nerds just like in the states. It really chaps my hide to hear the non-stop drone about how shitty Guatemala is**.
* True! My first day saw an Avon Breast Cancer Awareness walk/run with ~10,000 locals participating.
** from American know-it-all folks. From those actually living there, they can tell you with precision what sucks and what does not. For example, GT tried to enforce mandatory smog controls on their cars, but folks were too poor to fix things, and corruption made it cheaper to fake inspections.
Having just been in Guatemala City over a week ago, I have to call BS on the caricature of Guatemalans as being corrupt, not respecting the rule of law, or otherwise dramatically culturally divergent from the US.
They too hate crime, traffic, their corrupt politician, cancer *, and so on. Their taxi drivers are possibly even less corrupt than ours!
My co-workers there are hard working, smart, coffee and beer swilling nerds just like in the states. It really chaps my hide to hear the non-stop drone about how shitty Guatemala is**.
* True! My first day saw an Avon Breast Cancer Awareness walk/run with ~10,000 locals participating.
** from American know-it-all folks. From those actually living there, they can tell you with precision what sucks and what does not. For example, GT tried to enforce mandatory smog controls on their cars, but folks were too poor to fix things, and corruption made it cheaper to fake inspections.
I’m still giggling, Brett. The idea that poor Mexicans and others will corrupt our lily white innocence is unbelievably stupid. It’s like you slept through the financial crisis. And yeah, rule of law. Yeah, we’re all about the rule of law in the US.
I can grant the existence of corruption in other countries without taking seriously your belief it will be poor people who will bring corruption and ruin to our nation.
I’m still giggling, Brett. The idea that poor Mexicans and others will corrupt our lily white innocence is unbelievably stupid. It’s like you slept through the financial crisis. And yeah, rule of law. Yeah, we’re all about the rule of law in the US.
I can grant the existence of corruption in other countries without taking seriously your belief it will be poor people who will bring corruption and ruin to our nation.
I’m still giggling, Brett. The idea that poor Mexicans and others will corrupt our lily white innocence is unbelievably stupid. It’s like you slept through the financial crisis. And yeah, rule of law. Yeah, we’re all about the rule of law in the US.
I can grant the existence of corruption in other countries without taking seriously your belief it will be poor people who will bring corruption and ruin to our nation.
it strikes me that Mexico and other places might be a whole less corrupt if Americans could find a way to obey their own narcotics laws.
Speaking of obeying laws, how about our hiring laws? A willful pattern of hiring undocumented workers can result in jail time. But in wingnut land only laws that assist the comfortable and keep the ladder of success from those not the right colored “others” are real laws, you know, the laws that we are allegedly a nation of.
it strikes me that Mexico and other places might be a whole less corrupt if Americans could find a way to obey their own narcotics laws.
Speaking of obeying laws, how about our hiring laws? A willful pattern of hiring undocumented workers can result in jail time. But in wingnut land only laws that assist the comfortable and keep the ladder of success from those not the right colored “others” are real laws, you know, the laws that we are allegedly a nation of.
it strikes me that Mexico and other places might be a whole less corrupt if Americans could find a way to obey their own narcotics laws.
Speaking of obeying laws, how about our hiring laws? A willful pattern of hiring undocumented workers can result in jail time. But in wingnut land only laws that assist the comfortable and keep the ladder of success from those not the right colored “others” are real laws, you know, the laws that we are allegedly a nation of.
I’m just not following how the whole “introduce a culture of corruption” works.
Are they going to run for office? Are they going to go bribe a lot of people? With what money?
For every undocumented immigrant that’s working here illegally, there’s an American paying them off the books.
What might also fall under the heading of “societal corruption” are entire industries – restaurant, hospitality, agriculture, health care – that rely on cheap immigrant labor, whether documented or not.
You aren’t kidding when you say it’s a two way street.
I’m just not following how the whole “introduce a culture of corruption” works.
Are they going to run for office? Are they going to go bribe a lot of people? With what money?
For every undocumented immigrant that’s working here illegally, there’s an American paying them off the books.
What might also fall under the heading of “societal corruption” are entire industries – restaurant, hospitality, agriculture, health care – that rely on cheap immigrant labor, whether documented or not.
You aren’t kidding when you say it’s a two way street.
I’m just not following how the whole “introduce a culture of corruption” works.
Are they going to run for office? Are they going to go bribe a lot of people? With what money?
For every undocumented immigrant that’s working here illegally, there’s an American paying them off the books.
What might also fall under the heading of “societal corruption” are entire industries – restaurant, hospitality, agriculture, health care – that rely on cheap immigrant labor, whether documented or not.
You aren’t kidding when you say it’s a two way street.
Russell, perhaps they are at fault for putting temptation in the way of hiring managers?
Of course, that’s the logic that says we should arrest drug dealers, but not those who buy from them. Because, after all, those who supply an illegal demand are totally at fault; not those who make the demand….
Russell, perhaps they are at fault for putting temptation in the way of hiring managers?
Of course, that’s the logic that says we should arrest drug dealers, but not those who buy from them. Because, after all, those who supply an illegal demand are totally at fault; not those who make the demand….
Russell, perhaps they are at fault for putting temptation in the way of hiring managers?
Of course, that’s the logic that says we should arrest drug dealers, but not those who buy from them. Because, after all, those who supply an illegal demand are totally at fault; not those who make the demand….
I’m just not following how the whole “introduce a culture of corruption” works.
You have to understand, like most conservative tropes, it is not designed to “work” in the commonly understood sense of that term.
Think of it as just another political brickbat.
I’m just not following how the whole “introduce a culture of corruption” works.
You have to understand, like most conservative tropes, it is not designed to “work” in the commonly understood sense of that term.
Think of it as just another political brickbat.
I’m just not following how the whole “introduce a culture of corruption” works.
You have to understand, like most conservative tropes, it is not designed to “work” in the commonly understood sense of that term.
Think of it as just another political brickbat.
Fair enough, you’re not accurately characterized as a racist. However your comments certainly suggest you are xenophobic
wj, I understand how there could be a theoretical difference, but in practice, the two varieties look a distinction without a difference. Any edifice of xenophobia has to be built on a foundation of claims that ‘they’ are just not like ‘us’. In fact, it was Brett that invoked his marriage and his African-American neighbors. It’s a move on a par with ‘my best friend is black/asian/gay’, so to paraphrase the bible, his own blog comments testify against him. His line about Dems being the only racists is a really desperate attempt to divert attention at being called out.
Fair enough, you’re not accurately characterized as a racist. However your comments certainly suggest you are xenophobic
wj, I understand how there could be a theoretical difference, but in practice, the two varieties look a distinction without a difference. Any edifice of xenophobia has to be built on a foundation of claims that ‘they’ are just not like ‘us’. In fact, it was Brett that invoked his marriage and his African-American neighbors. It’s a move on a par with ‘my best friend is black/asian/gay’, so to paraphrase the bible, his own blog comments testify against him. His line about Dems being the only racists is a really desperate attempt to divert attention at being called out.
Fair enough, you’re not accurately characterized as a racist. However your comments certainly suggest you are xenophobic
wj, I understand how there could be a theoretical difference, but in practice, the two varieties look a distinction without a difference. Any edifice of xenophobia has to be built on a foundation of claims that ‘they’ are just not like ‘us’. In fact, it was Brett that invoked his marriage and his African-American neighbors. It’s a move on a par with ‘my best friend is black/asian/gay’, so to paraphrase the bible, his own blog comments testify against him. His line about Dems being the only racists is a really desperate attempt to divert attention at being called out.
But racism is just a subset of xenophobia. Which is to say, a racist is xenophobic — he hates and fears “others”, where for him “others” means members of other races. But it is entirely possible to be a xenophobe on a basis of something other than race.
For example, there are those in this country who are very proud of how accepting they are of (rich, successful) members of other races. While being extremely harsh about those who are not. They get, inaccurately, accused of being racists, simply because so many of the folks that they put down happen to be of other races. But it’s actually a class bias, not actually a racial one.
However, I do agree that the “they are the real racists, not me” line is at least as inaccurate as the original accusation. Which is to say, there are some individuals on both sides for whom race is the driver; but not all.
But racism is just a subset of xenophobia. Which is to say, a racist is xenophobic — he hates and fears “others”, where for him “others” means members of other races. But it is entirely possible to be a xenophobe on a basis of something other than race.
For example, there are those in this country who are very proud of how accepting they are of (rich, successful) members of other races. While being extremely harsh about those who are not. They get, inaccurately, accused of being racists, simply because so many of the folks that they put down happen to be of other races. But it’s actually a class bias, not actually a racial one.
However, I do agree that the “they are the real racists, not me” line is at least as inaccurate as the original accusation. Which is to say, there are some individuals on both sides for whom race is the driver; but not all.
But racism is just a subset of xenophobia. Which is to say, a racist is xenophobic — he hates and fears “others”, where for him “others” means members of other races. But it is entirely possible to be a xenophobe on a basis of something other than race.
For example, there are those in this country who are very proud of how accepting they are of (rich, successful) members of other races. While being extremely harsh about those who are not. They get, inaccurately, accused of being racists, simply because so many of the folks that they put down happen to be of other races. But it’s actually a class bias, not actually a racial one.
However, I do agree that the “they are the real racists, not me” line is at least as inaccurate as the original accusation. Which is to say, there are some individuals on both sides for whom race is the driver; but not all.
Not sure if I agree, it seems to me that the class bias is masking a deeper bias. The tell in this case is the invocation of a mixed race marriage and AA neighbors. And I’ve never heard anyone say ‘I’m not racist, I’m just xenophobic.’
It seems you are suggesting that the person who is racist has to acknowledge that s/he hates other races, otherwise, s/he’s not a racist. That would make the actual problem of racism exceedingly small, but I think we agree, it certainly isn’t.
Not sure if I agree, it seems to me that the class bias is masking a deeper bias. The tell in this case is the invocation of a mixed race marriage and AA neighbors. And I’ve never heard anyone say ‘I’m not racist, I’m just xenophobic.’
It seems you are suggesting that the person who is racist has to acknowledge that s/he hates other races, otherwise, s/he’s not a racist. That would make the actual problem of racism exceedingly small, but I think we agree, it certainly isn’t.
Not sure if I agree, it seems to me that the class bias is masking a deeper bias. The tell in this case is the invocation of a mixed race marriage and AA neighbors. And I’ve never heard anyone say ‘I’m not racist, I’m just xenophobic.’
It seems you are suggesting that the person who is racist has to acknowledge that s/he hates other races, otherwise, s/he’s not a racist. That would make the actual problem of racism exceedingly small, but I think we agree, it certainly isn’t.
” In fact, it was Brett that invoked his marriage and his African-American neighbors. It’s a move on a par with ‘my best friend is black/asian/gay’, so to paraphrase the bible, his own blog comments testify against him.”
I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it. In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?
I am, in fact, neither racist nor xenophobic. I don’t fear foreigners, let alone because they are “the other”. I merely am not mindlessly multicultural, being perfectly willing to render both positive AND negative judgement on other cultures.
Some other cultures have much to contribute to the US. Others will contribute negatively. I very much believe that, when it comes to immigrants, a nation “is what they eat”, and I don’t want the US to become Mexico.
Hong Kong? That wouldn’t be bad at all. But, please, not Mexico.
” In fact, it was Brett that invoked his marriage and his African-American neighbors. It’s a move on a par with ‘my best friend is black/asian/gay’, so to paraphrase the bible, his own blog comments testify against him.”
I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it. In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?
I am, in fact, neither racist nor xenophobic. I don’t fear foreigners, let alone because they are “the other”. I merely am not mindlessly multicultural, being perfectly willing to render both positive AND negative judgement on other cultures.
Some other cultures have much to contribute to the US. Others will contribute negatively. I very much believe that, when it comes to immigrants, a nation “is what they eat”, and I don’t want the US to become Mexico.
Hong Kong? That wouldn’t be bad at all. But, please, not Mexico.
” In fact, it was Brett that invoked his marriage and his African-American neighbors. It’s a move on a par with ‘my best friend is black/asian/gay’, so to paraphrase the bible, his own blog comments testify against him.”
I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it. In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?
I am, in fact, neither racist nor xenophobic. I don’t fear foreigners, let alone because they are “the other”. I merely am not mindlessly multicultural, being perfectly willing to render both positive AND negative judgement on other cultures.
Some other cultures have much to contribute to the US. Others will contribute negatively. I very much believe that, when it comes to immigrants, a nation “is what they eat”, and I don’t want the US to become Mexico.
Hong Kong? That wouldn’t be bad at all. But, please, not Mexico.
I guess I have the inverse of Brett’s view:
I think that the people from Latin America have a lot to contribute. On the other hand, I am absolutely clear that “Mexican food” is an oxymoron. [Comes of a) not being able to cope with hot spices, b) disliking corn, and c) being of the opinion that the only way to make avacados edible is to feed them to pigs and make pork out of them. At which point, there just isn’t much left of Mexican food.] 😉
I guess I have the inverse of Brett’s view:
I think that the people from Latin America have a lot to contribute. On the other hand, I am absolutely clear that “Mexican food” is an oxymoron. [Comes of a) not being able to cope with hot spices, b) disliking corn, and c) being of the opinion that the only way to make avacados edible is to feed them to pigs and make pork out of them. At which point, there just isn’t much left of Mexican food.] 😉
I guess I have the inverse of Brett’s view:
I think that the people from Latin America have a lot to contribute. On the other hand, I am absolutely clear that “Mexican food” is an oxymoron. [Comes of a) not being able to cope with hot spices, b) disliking corn, and c) being of the opinion that the only way to make avacados edible is to feed them to pigs and make pork out of them. At which point, there just isn’t much left of Mexican food.] 😉
Folks wish to exhibit their non-racist credentials are advised that saying “I have a X friends” will not serve to convince anybody.
Whether this is just, unjust, or just a fact of communication is beside the point. If you earnestly wish to communicate, learn.
Folks wish to exhibit their non-racist credentials are advised that saying “I have a X friends” will not serve to convince anybody.
Whether this is just, unjust, or just a fact of communication is beside the point. If you earnestly wish to communicate, learn.
Folks wish to exhibit their non-racist credentials are advised that saying “I have a X friends” will not serve to convince anybody.
Whether this is just, unjust, or just a fact of communication is beside the point. If you earnestly wish to communicate, learn.
the US is not going to become Mexico.
shall we all take a deep breath and move on?
in terms of immigration and changes to US culture, i’m curious about the wave of immigration around the turn of the 20th c. and the shift in the US from an agrarian to an urban population.
that actually was a significant shift.
the US is not going to become Mexico.
shall we all take a deep breath and move on?
in terms of immigration and changes to US culture, i’m curious about the wave of immigration around the turn of the 20th c. and the shift in the US from an agrarian to an urban population.
that actually was a significant shift.
the US is not going to become Mexico.
shall we all take a deep breath and move on?
in terms of immigration and changes to US culture, i’m curious about the wave of immigration around the turn of the 20th c. and the shift in the US from an agrarian to an urban population.
that actually was a significant shift.
in terms of immigration and changes to US culture, i’m curious about the wave of immigration around the turn of the 20th c. and the shift in the US from an agrarian to an urban population.
That is interesting to me, because my mother’s ancestors came over then, and my dad’s folks had been here since before the country began, and were farmers.
It’s pretty clear that social reform went hand in hand with urban factory work ethic. Maybe that’s why we started restricting immigration: too much social reform?
Now, of course, we have immigrants working at the farm, where punching in and out isn’t a thing. They’re invisible essentials to the economy, but completely unprotected. People who moan and complain about “illegal immigration” are perfectly happy to eat the food that people have picked, live in the houses that people have cleaned, etc. As long as they’re not causing “trouble” in terms of social reform (better wages and work conditions), and asking for basic human rights, it’s all good.
in terms of immigration and changes to US culture, i’m curious about the wave of immigration around the turn of the 20th c. and the shift in the US from an agrarian to an urban population.
That is interesting to me, because my mother’s ancestors came over then, and my dad’s folks had been here since before the country began, and were farmers.
It’s pretty clear that social reform went hand in hand with urban factory work ethic. Maybe that’s why we started restricting immigration: too much social reform?
Now, of course, we have immigrants working at the farm, where punching in and out isn’t a thing. They’re invisible essentials to the economy, but completely unprotected. People who moan and complain about “illegal immigration” are perfectly happy to eat the food that people have picked, live in the houses that people have cleaned, etc. As long as they’re not causing “trouble” in terms of social reform (better wages and work conditions), and asking for basic human rights, it’s all good.
in terms of immigration and changes to US culture, i’m curious about the wave of immigration around the turn of the 20th c. and the shift in the US from an agrarian to an urban population.
That is interesting to me, because my mother’s ancestors came over then, and my dad’s folks had been here since before the country began, and were farmers.
It’s pretty clear that social reform went hand in hand with urban factory work ethic. Maybe that’s why we started restricting immigration: too much social reform?
Now, of course, we have immigrants working at the farm, where punching in and out isn’t a thing. They’re invisible essentials to the economy, but completely unprotected. People who moan and complain about “illegal immigration” are perfectly happy to eat the food that people have picked, live in the houses that people have cleaned, etc. As long as they’re not causing “trouble” in terms of social reform (better wages and work conditions), and asking for basic human rights, it’s all good.
Don’t like avocados or corn? Wow. Certainly a more interesting point than Brett’s protestations.
When I first came to Japan, and introduced avocados to Japanese who had never had them, they thought it was like avocado was like raw tuna. A favorite restaurant has this appetizer of avocado with raw horse meat and soy sauce, which I love.
Corn here often gets put on pizzas, which I’ve never gotten used to.
Don’t like avocados or corn? Wow. Certainly a more interesting point than Brett’s protestations.
When I first came to Japan, and introduced avocados to Japanese who had never had them, they thought it was like avocado was like raw tuna. A favorite restaurant has this appetizer of avocado with raw horse meat and soy sauce, which I love.
Corn here often gets put on pizzas, which I’ve never gotten used to.
Don’t like avocados or corn? Wow. Certainly a more interesting point than Brett’s protestations.
When I first came to Japan, and introduced avocados to Japanese who had never had them, they thought it was like avocado was like raw tuna. A favorite restaurant has this appetizer of avocado with raw horse meat and soy sauce, which I love.
Corn here often gets put on pizzas, which I’ve never gotten used to.
A true abomination hereabouts is a variation of makisushi called a “California roll”: avacado and imitation crab meat. Shudder!
A true abomination hereabouts is a variation of makisushi called a “California roll”: avacado and imitation crab meat. Shudder!
A true abomination hereabouts is a variation of makisushi called a “California roll”: avacado and imitation crab meat. Shudder!
Yes, there are places like Chinatowns (and Japantowns) in some cities. But other than individuals who are themselves immigrants (or children of immigrants), the folks who live and work there** are as thoroughly American as anybody else — outside business hours. In short, mostly those areas remain visible primarily as tourist attractions, rather than as real cultural enclaves.
** I would note that, in my area, the folks working in Chinese restaurants are more likely to be Vietnamese or Cambodian than of actual Chinese ancestry. Preserves, I suppose, the “look and feel”, without having to pay what those who are not immigrants would demand.
…you don’t speak much Chinese, do you? This is very definitely not true of any Chinatown I have ever been in — even in places like the South Bay, the term “國內” (within the country) never refers to the United States.
And if we’re talking about restaurant employees, your point is invalid: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/cooka%C2%80%C2%99s-tale
Yes, there are places like Chinatowns (and Japantowns) in some cities. But other than individuals who are themselves immigrants (or children of immigrants), the folks who live and work there** are as thoroughly American as anybody else — outside business hours. In short, mostly those areas remain visible primarily as tourist attractions, rather than as real cultural enclaves.
** I would note that, in my area, the folks working in Chinese restaurants are more likely to be Vietnamese or Cambodian than of actual Chinese ancestry. Preserves, I suppose, the “look and feel”, without having to pay what those who are not immigrants would demand.
…you don’t speak much Chinese, do you? This is very definitely not true of any Chinatown I have ever been in — even in places like the South Bay, the term “國內” (within the country) never refers to the United States.
And if we’re talking about restaurant employees, your point is invalid: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/cooka%C2%80%C2%99s-tale
Yes, there are places like Chinatowns (and Japantowns) in some cities. But other than individuals who are themselves immigrants (or children of immigrants), the folks who live and work there** are as thoroughly American as anybody else — outside business hours. In short, mostly those areas remain visible primarily as tourist attractions, rather than as real cultural enclaves.
** I would note that, in my area, the folks working in Chinese restaurants are more likely to be Vietnamese or Cambodian than of actual Chinese ancestry. Preserves, I suppose, the “look and feel”, without having to pay what those who are not immigrants would demand.
…you don’t speak much Chinese, do you? This is very definitely not true of any Chinatown I have ever been in — even in places like the South Bay, the term “國內” (within the country) never refers to the United States.
And if we’re talking about restaurant employees, your point is invalid: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/cooka%C2%80%C2%99s-tale
On the other hand, I do speak a little Japanese. certainly enough to know that the employees in my local Japanese restaurants are not speaking it among themselves. Not to mention that they look blank when I try speaking Japanese to them. (And it isn’t just bad pronunciation on my part. My inlaws have no problem understanding me.)
As for Chinese, I do at least enough to recognize when the language being used is not a tonal language (which Chinese is). Even when I don’t recognize Spanish. 😉
On the other hand, I do speak a little Japanese. certainly enough to know that the employees in my local Japanese restaurants are not speaking it among themselves. Not to mention that they look blank when I try speaking Japanese to them. (And it isn’t just bad pronunciation on my part. My inlaws have no problem understanding me.)
As for Chinese, I do at least enough to recognize when the language being used is not a tonal language (which Chinese is). Even when I don’t recognize Spanish. 😉
On the other hand, I do speak a little Japanese. certainly enough to know that the employees in my local Japanese restaurants are not speaking it among themselves. Not to mention that they look blank when I try speaking Japanese to them. (And it isn’t just bad pronunciation on my part. My inlaws have no problem understanding me.)
As for Chinese, I do at least enough to recognize when the language being used is not a tonal language (which Chinese is). Even when I don’t recognize Spanish. 😉
A lot of Japanese restaurants, especially sushi restaurants, are run by Koreans.
http://www.mykoreanhusband.com/eating-sushi/
A lot of Japanese restaurants, especially sushi restaurants, are run by Koreans.
http://www.mykoreanhusband.com/eating-sushi/
A lot of Japanese restaurants, especially sushi restaurants, are run by Koreans.
http://www.mykoreanhusband.com/eating-sushi/
Lovecraft (the Cthulhu guy) was a rabid conservative, an outspoken racist and anti-semite with special prejudices against immigrants from Eastern Europe. He married a liberal Jewish businesswoman of Eastern European heritage. The marriage fell only apart because she was a big city girl and he a small town guy who could not stand New York and was ashamed that she was the breadwinner of the family (the divorce seems to have been on such friendly terms that they had to make up something to show ’cause’ to the officials).
There are also true Nazis that are on quite good terms with their Jewish neighbours, a fact that already puzzled the original Holocausters: many Germans were willing to believe the official antisemitic ideology while at the same defending the Jew next door (Hitler himself seems to have kept the Jewish family doctor safe, who had taken care of his mother*).
Humans have quite an ability to cope with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
*which pokes a hole into the hypothesis that he believed that the guy had killed her and that was the origin of his hatred for Jews
Lovecraft (the Cthulhu guy) was a rabid conservative, an outspoken racist and anti-semite with special prejudices against immigrants from Eastern Europe. He married a liberal Jewish businesswoman of Eastern European heritage. The marriage fell only apart because she was a big city girl and he a small town guy who could not stand New York and was ashamed that she was the breadwinner of the family (the divorce seems to have been on such friendly terms that they had to make up something to show ’cause’ to the officials).
There are also true Nazis that are on quite good terms with their Jewish neighbours, a fact that already puzzled the original Holocausters: many Germans were willing to believe the official antisemitic ideology while at the same defending the Jew next door (Hitler himself seems to have kept the Jewish family doctor safe, who had taken care of his mother*).
Humans have quite an ability to cope with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
*which pokes a hole into the hypothesis that he believed that the guy had killed her and that was the origin of his hatred for Jews
Lovecraft (the Cthulhu guy) was a rabid conservative, an outspoken racist and anti-semite with special prejudices against immigrants from Eastern Europe. He married a liberal Jewish businesswoman of Eastern European heritage. The marriage fell only apart because she was a big city girl and he a small town guy who could not stand New York and was ashamed that she was the breadwinner of the family (the divorce seems to have been on such friendly terms that they had to make up something to show ’cause’ to the officials).
There are also true Nazis that are on quite good terms with their Jewish neighbours, a fact that already puzzled the original Holocausters: many Germans were willing to believe the official antisemitic ideology while at the same defending the Jew next door (Hitler himself seems to have kept the Jewish family doctor safe, who had taken care of his mother*).
Humans have quite an ability to cope with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
*which pokes a hole into the hypothesis that he believed that the guy had killed her and that was the origin of his hatred for Jews
Btw, in Europe the modern anti-semitism (as opposed to the old-fashioned Christian anti-Judaism) arose to a significant degree from the increasing assimilation of Jews. The visible ‘caftan Jew’ was seen if not as harmless then at least as a controllable danger. The ‘danger’ was in the Jew that could not be spotted anymore, that looked and behaved like ‘normal’ people and thus was free to undermine society an pollute the gene pool.
If there is one thing the hater hates more than the ‘other’, it is the ‘other’ trying to become one of ‘us’ (and being successful with it). I assume a lot of the opposition to gay marriage can be traced to the same mindset. How can I properly hate you when you try to out-normal me?
Btw, in Europe the modern anti-semitism (as opposed to the old-fashioned Christian anti-Judaism) arose to a significant degree from the increasing assimilation of Jews. The visible ‘caftan Jew’ was seen if not as harmless then at least as a controllable danger. The ‘danger’ was in the Jew that could not be spotted anymore, that looked and behaved like ‘normal’ people and thus was free to undermine society an pollute the gene pool.
If there is one thing the hater hates more than the ‘other’, it is the ‘other’ trying to become one of ‘us’ (and being successful with it). I assume a lot of the opposition to gay marriage can be traced to the same mindset. How can I properly hate you when you try to out-normal me?
Btw, in Europe the modern anti-semitism (as opposed to the old-fashioned Christian anti-Judaism) arose to a significant degree from the increasing assimilation of Jews. The visible ‘caftan Jew’ was seen if not as harmless then at least as a controllable danger. The ‘danger’ was in the Jew that could not be spotted anymore, that looked and behaved like ‘normal’ people and thus was free to undermine society an pollute the gene pool.
If there is one thing the hater hates more than the ‘other’, it is the ‘other’ trying to become one of ‘us’ (and being successful with it). I assume a lot of the opposition to gay marriage can be traced to the same mindset. How can I properly hate you when you try to out-normal me?
gotta be scared of somethin.
gotta be scared of somethin.
gotta be scared of somethin.
Why is it, in modern parlance, that if somebody opposes something, they’ve got to be “scared” of it? I guess it’s some kind of rhetorical ploy, to try to get the person to change their mind in order to be thought brave.
I couldn’t have arrived at a reasoned judgement about the effects of immigration from different cultures on our own. No, I’ve got to be shivering in fear of the other.
Really, guys, it’s possible to arrive at different conclusions from your own without mental pathology.
Why is it, in modern parlance, that if somebody opposes something, they’ve got to be “scared” of it? I guess it’s some kind of rhetorical ploy, to try to get the person to change their mind in order to be thought brave.
I couldn’t have arrived at a reasoned judgement about the effects of immigration from different cultures on our own. No, I’ve got to be shivering in fear of the other.
Really, guys, it’s possible to arrive at different conclusions from your own without mental pathology.
Why is it, in modern parlance, that if somebody opposes something, they’ve got to be “scared” of it? I guess it’s some kind of rhetorical ploy, to try to get the person to change their mind in order to be thought brave.
I couldn’t have arrived at a reasoned judgement about the effects of immigration from different cultures on our own. No, I’ve got to be shivering in fear of the other.
Really, guys, it’s possible to arrive at different conclusions from your own without mental pathology.
Okay, so Brett isn’t “scared” of outsiders.
He’s a straight-up “hater”. Good of you to straighten that out, Brett.
As for Mexican culture in particular, to the extent that the ‘latin’ part carries over, it add something good. For example, the custom in latin cultures (Italy and Spain have this, Mexico too, I hear tell) of an evening stroll with family and friends around the town square. Connecting with neighbors, acquaintances, etc.
Americans don’t do this; they’re too busy glued to their TVs.
Okay, so Brett isn’t “scared” of outsiders.
He’s a straight-up “hater”. Good of you to straighten that out, Brett.
As for Mexican culture in particular, to the extent that the ‘latin’ part carries over, it add something good. For example, the custom in latin cultures (Italy and Spain have this, Mexico too, I hear tell) of an evening stroll with family and friends around the town square. Connecting with neighbors, acquaintances, etc.
Americans don’t do this; they’re too busy glued to their TVs.
Okay, so Brett isn’t “scared” of outsiders.
He’s a straight-up “hater”. Good of you to straighten that out, Brett.
As for Mexican culture in particular, to the extent that the ‘latin’ part carries over, it add something good. For example, the custom in latin cultures (Italy and Spain have this, Mexico too, I hear tell) of an evening stroll with family and friends around the town square. Connecting with neighbors, acquaintances, etc.
Americans don’t do this; they’re too busy glued to their TVs.
“I couldn’t have arrived at a reasoned judgement….”
Without discounting entirely the ‘corruption’ in say, 1890’s Sicily or Tsarist Russia.
There is one thing, and one thing only, that “makes it difficult to assimilate” this alleged “flood” of ‘mexicans. It is the color of their skin.
In that regard, I should think we should become more like them. Wouldn’t hurt.
“I couldn’t have arrived at a reasoned judgement….”
Without discounting entirely the ‘corruption’ in say, 1890’s Sicily or Tsarist Russia.
There is one thing, and one thing only, that “makes it difficult to assimilate” this alleged “flood” of ‘mexicans. It is the color of their skin.
In that regard, I should think we should become more like them. Wouldn’t hurt.
“I couldn’t have arrived at a reasoned judgement….”
Without discounting entirely the ‘corruption’ in say, 1890’s Sicily or Tsarist Russia.
There is one thing, and one thing only, that “makes it difficult to assimilate” this alleged “flood” of ‘mexicans. It is the color of their skin.
In that regard, I should think we should become more like them. Wouldn’t hurt.
You figure not being English literate doesn’t get in the way of assimilation?
You figure not being English literate doesn’t get in the way of assimilation?
You figure not being English literate doesn’t get in the way of assimilation?
This is very definitely not true of any Chinatown I have ever been in
But what language will their grandkids speak?
I guess it’s some kind of rhetorical ploy, to try to get the person to change their mind in order to be thought brave.
I always figured it was a euphemism, and more or less an act of generosity.
To simply be afraid of something is, perhaps, more sympathetic than just being a jerk.
A lot of the Southwest was not only Mexican in culture, it was actually Mexico until the middle of the 19th C. A lot of those brown Spanish speaking people who live there have been there far longer than English speaking Americans. And for “far longer”, please measure in centuries.
Many millions of Mexican, Central American, and South American people live here in the US now, and have for many many years. Some are citizens, some are documented permanent residents, some are here temporarily to work, or as students or tourists, and some are undocumented, aka illegal.
Per the census, “many millions” is about 54 million. Something like 17% of the population. The largest so-called minority group in the country. And I’m not sure if the census includes the undocumented population, or at least all of them.
I invite you to point to all of the ways in which their presence has measurably increased the level of corruption in American society.
I’ve already picked the low-hanging fruit – the exploitation of undocumented workers in several American industries. Exploiting workers who are outside the protection of the law seems like a perennially American custom, though, so I’m not sure we can blame Spanish-speaking immigrants for that.
The floor is yours. Show us how the presence of 54 million culturally Hispanic people has corrupted the nation.
If you can’t come up with anything, maybe it’s time to drop it.
It’s pretty clear that social reform went hand in hand with urban factory work ethic. Maybe that’s why we started restricting immigration: too much social reform?
A astute observation, and a very interesting question.
This is very definitely not true of any Chinatown I have ever been in
But what language will their grandkids speak?
I guess it’s some kind of rhetorical ploy, to try to get the person to change their mind in order to be thought brave.
I always figured it was a euphemism, and more or less an act of generosity.
To simply be afraid of something is, perhaps, more sympathetic than just being a jerk.
A lot of the Southwest was not only Mexican in culture, it was actually Mexico until the middle of the 19th C. A lot of those brown Spanish speaking people who live there have been there far longer than English speaking Americans. And for “far longer”, please measure in centuries.
Many millions of Mexican, Central American, and South American people live here in the US now, and have for many many years. Some are citizens, some are documented permanent residents, some are here temporarily to work, or as students or tourists, and some are undocumented, aka illegal.
Per the census, “many millions” is about 54 million. Something like 17% of the population. The largest so-called minority group in the country. And I’m not sure if the census includes the undocumented population, or at least all of them.
I invite you to point to all of the ways in which their presence has measurably increased the level of corruption in American society.
I’ve already picked the low-hanging fruit – the exploitation of undocumented workers in several American industries. Exploiting workers who are outside the protection of the law seems like a perennially American custom, though, so I’m not sure we can blame Spanish-speaking immigrants for that.
The floor is yours. Show us how the presence of 54 million culturally Hispanic people has corrupted the nation.
If you can’t come up with anything, maybe it’s time to drop it.
It’s pretty clear that social reform went hand in hand with urban factory work ethic. Maybe that’s why we started restricting immigration: too much social reform?
A astute observation, and a very interesting question.
This is very definitely not true of any Chinatown I have ever been in
But what language will their grandkids speak?
I guess it’s some kind of rhetorical ploy, to try to get the person to change their mind in order to be thought brave.
I always figured it was a euphemism, and more or less an act of generosity.
To simply be afraid of something is, perhaps, more sympathetic than just being a jerk.
A lot of the Southwest was not only Mexican in culture, it was actually Mexico until the middle of the 19th C. A lot of those brown Spanish speaking people who live there have been there far longer than English speaking Americans. And for “far longer”, please measure in centuries.
Many millions of Mexican, Central American, and South American people live here in the US now, and have for many many years. Some are citizens, some are documented permanent residents, some are here temporarily to work, or as students or tourists, and some are undocumented, aka illegal.
Per the census, “many millions” is about 54 million. Something like 17% of the population. The largest so-called minority group in the country. And I’m not sure if the census includes the undocumented population, or at least all of them.
I invite you to point to all of the ways in which their presence has measurably increased the level of corruption in American society.
I’ve already picked the low-hanging fruit – the exploitation of undocumented workers in several American industries. Exploiting workers who are outside the protection of the law seems like a perennially American custom, though, so I’m not sure we can blame Spanish-speaking immigrants for that.
The floor is yours. Show us how the presence of 54 million culturally Hispanic people has corrupted the nation.
If you can’t come up with anything, maybe it’s time to drop it.
It’s pretty clear that social reform went hand in hand with urban factory work ethic. Maybe that’s why we started restricting immigration: too much social reform?
A astute observation, and a very interesting question.
They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
“Cultural values” do a lot of heavy lifting in your arguments here, and on many other points. It’s a very hand-wavy phrase.
What are the cultural values held by Mexicans that lead to widespread corruption in Mexican society? How do they lead to corruption? Why would they have the same effect here?
In short, what the hell are you talking about?
They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
“Cultural values” do a lot of heavy lifting in your arguments here, and on many other points. It’s a very hand-wavy phrase.
What are the cultural values held by Mexicans that lead to widespread corruption in Mexican society? How do they lead to corruption? Why would they have the same effect here?
In short, what the hell are you talking about?
They just have to bring with them the cultural values whose consequences they’re fleeing.
“Cultural values” do a lot of heavy lifting in your arguments here, and on many other points. It’s a very hand-wavy phrase.
What are the cultural values held by Mexicans that lead to widespread corruption in Mexican society? How do they lead to corruption? Why would they have the same effect here?
In short, what the hell are you talking about?
You figure not being English literate doesn’t get in the way of assimilation?
Centuries of American history demonstrate that it does not.
Try again.
You figure not being English literate doesn’t get in the way of assimilation?
Centuries of American history demonstrate that it does not.
Try again.
You figure not being English literate doesn’t get in the way of assimilation?
Centuries of American history demonstrate that it does not.
Try again.
the very first time we restricted immigration, in the late 1800s, we did it because whites were afraid of the Chinese (THE YELLOW PERIL!!!), and then all the other Asians, too.
and it was the exact same mix of economic insecurity, xenophobia and racism that we hear about Hispanics today.
the very first time we restricted immigration, in the late 1800s, we did it because whites were afraid of the Chinese (THE YELLOW PERIL!!!), and then all the other Asians, too.
and it was the exact same mix of economic insecurity, xenophobia and racism that we hear about Hispanics today.
the very first time we restricted immigration, in the late 1800s, we did it because whites were afraid of the Chinese (THE YELLOW PERIL!!!), and then all the other Asians, too.
and it was the exact same mix of economic insecurity, xenophobia and racism that we hear about Hispanics today.
“I invite you to point to all of the ways in which their presence has measurably increased the level of corruption in American society.”
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents. (They’re NOT “undocumented”, as it happens. They tend to have forged documents.) A problem which would be much easier to solve, were it not that it has to be left unsolved to facilitate the illegal immigration.
A fair number of crimes are not prosecuted for the same reason. For instance. In a good deal of the country, if somebody is arrested for a crime, and discovered to be an illegal immigrant, they get released, to avoid deporting them.
Now, I suppose you could claim that both these problems could by solved by simply opening the border to unlimited legal immgration. But, that’s not feasible. No nation lets just anybody immigrate. There has to be some limit to immigration, we can’t absorb all the world’s poor.
“I invite you to point to all of the ways in which their presence has measurably increased the level of corruption in American society.”
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents. (They’re NOT “undocumented”, as it happens. They tend to have forged documents.) A problem which would be much easier to solve, were it not that it has to be left unsolved to facilitate the illegal immigration.
A fair number of crimes are not prosecuted for the same reason. For instance. In a good deal of the country, if somebody is arrested for a crime, and discovered to be an illegal immigrant, they get released, to avoid deporting them.
Now, I suppose you could claim that both these problems could by solved by simply opening the border to unlimited legal immgration. But, that’s not feasible. No nation lets just anybody immigrate. There has to be some limit to immigration, we can’t absorb all the world’s poor.
“I invite you to point to all of the ways in which their presence has measurably increased the level of corruption in American society.”
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents. (They’re NOT “undocumented”, as it happens. They tend to have forged documents.) A problem which would be much easier to solve, were it not that it has to be left unsolved to facilitate the illegal immigration.
A fair number of crimes are not prosecuted for the same reason. For instance. In a good deal of the country, if somebody is arrested for a crime, and discovered to be an illegal immigrant, they get released, to avoid deporting them.
Now, I suppose you could claim that both these problems could by solved by simply opening the border to unlimited legal immgration. But, that’s not feasible. No nation lets just anybody immigrate. There has to be some limit to immigration, we can’t absorb all the world’s poor.
This:
I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it.
and this:
In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?
are two different things.
The second is not evidence of racism and does suggest that whatever racism may affect your thinking (and it affects everyone’s to some extent or another) isn’t terribly strong. You are at least not so abjectly racist that you can tolerate being among people of other races on a daily basis and, presumably, conduct yourself normally.
The first is a matter of thinking that such a proclamation is a valid defense against charges of racism. It’s not that your having friends of whatever race makes you a racist. It’s that your thinking that saying so is some kind of defense means you don’t quite get it – that you don’t understand well enough what racism is to say you aren’t racist.
At least that’s how I’ve tended to understand it.
This:
I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it.
and this:
In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?
are two different things.
The second is not evidence of racism and does suggest that whatever racism may affect your thinking (and it affects everyone’s to some extent or another) isn’t terribly strong. You are at least not so abjectly racist that you can tolerate being among people of other races on a daily basis and, presumably, conduct yourself normally.
The first is a matter of thinking that such a proclamation is a valid defense against charges of racism. It’s not that your having friends of whatever race makes you a racist. It’s that your thinking that saying so is some kind of defense means you don’t quite get it – that you don’t understand well enough what racism is to say you aren’t racist.
At least that’s how I’ve tended to understand it.
This:
I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it.
and this:
In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?
are two different things.
The second is not evidence of racism and does suggest that whatever racism may affect your thinking (and it affects everyone’s to some extent or another) isn’t terribly strong. You are at least not so abjectly racist that you can tolerate being among people of other races on a daily basis and, presumably, conduct yourself normally.
The first is a matter of thinking that such a proclamation is a valid defense against charges of racism. It’s not that your having friends of whatever race makes you a racist. It’s that your thinking that saying so is some kind of defense means you don’t quite get it – that you don’t understand well enough what racism is to say you aren’t racist.
At least that’s how I’ve tended to understand it.
Jeb Bush’s wife is Mexican
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/columba-bushs-painful-unlikely-road-toward-the-white-house/2015/03/21/5918fe20-c7fd-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
Wonder how she would view the assertion that Mexico has nothing to offer the US.
Jeb Bush’s wife is Mexican
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/columba-bushs-painful-unlikely-road-toward-the-white-house/2015/03/21/5918fe20-c7fd-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
Wonder how she would view the assertion that Mexico has nothing to offer the US.
Jeb Bush’s wife is Mexican
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/columba-bushs-painful-unlikely-road-toward-the-white-house/2015/03/21/5918fe20-c7fd-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
Wonder how she would view the assertion that Mexico has nothing to offer the US.
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents.
That’s cultural?
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents.
That’s cultural?
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents.
That’s cultural?
Obviously my ancestors helped turn the US into a corrupt, incompetent oligarchy, coming as they did from Czarist Russia.
Obviously my ancestors helped turn the US into a corrupt, incompetent oligarchy, coming as they did from Czarist Russia.
Obviously my ancestors helped turn the US into a corrupt, incompetent oligarchy, coming as they did from Czarist Russia.
“That’s cultural?”
People walk over here from a country rife with corruption, and the first thing they do is violate our immigration laws, and the next thing they do is commit identity theft, and I’m supposed to assume it’s coincidence?
“That’s cultural?”
People walk over here from a country rife with corruption, and the first thing they do is violate our immigration laws, and the next thing they do is commit identity theft, and I’m supposed to assume it’s coincidence?
“That’s cultural?”
People walk over here from a country rife with corruption, and the first thing they do is violate our immigration laws, and the next thing they do is commit identity theft, and I’m supposed to assume it’s coincidence?
People walk over here
how many people are in your “People” ?
People walk over here
how many people are in your “People” ?
People walk over here
how many people are in your “People” ?
Now, I suppose you could claim that both these problems could by solved by simply opening the border to unlimited legal immgration.
No, I would say that the problem could be addressed by allowing more people to immigrate than we currently do.
From here, in 2013 we allowed not quite a million people to immigrate to the US.
Less than one-third of one percent of the population.
135K of those were from Mexico. What is that, four-hundredths of one percent of the population?
There’s no room to expand that?
As far as I can tell, the problems created by immigration from Mexico are basically due to the fact that more folks want to come than we want to allow.
So, issues like the ones you cite. Breaking the law so that they can live and work.
The folks that come in spite of that seem to be more than happy to work their @sses off. I mean, seriously so.
Here’s a joke: How many Mexicans does it take to… oh, never mind, they’re done!
They tend to be, FWIW, religious, highly family oriented, and culturally conservative.
To be honest, IMO the hostility toward immigration by Mexicans and Central and South Americans on the part of American conservatives seems like a huge own-goal. They’re locking out natural political allies.
In any case, I don’t see weird “cultural issues” that are going to lead to the widespread corruption of American culture.
What I see is a set of pragmatic issues that have to do with a very rich and a relatively poor country sharing a very long land border.
Those are real problems, but they’re not “cultural values” problems. And, the solution to them lies mostly not with Mexico or Mexicans, but with us.
Now, I suppose you could claim that both these problems could by solved by simply opening the border to unlimited legal immgration.
No, I would say that the problem could be addressed by allowing more people to immigrate than we currently do.
From here, in 2013 we allowed not quite a million people to immigrate to the US.
Less than one-third of one percent of the population.
135K of those were from Mexico. What is that, four-hundredths of one percent of the population?
There’s no room to expand that?
As far as I can tell, the problems created by immigration from Mexico are basically due to the fact that more folks want to come than we want to allow.
So, issues like the ones you cite. Breaking the law so that they can live and work.
The folks that come in spite of that seem to be more than happy to work their @sses off. I mean, seriously so.
Here’s a joke: How many Mexicans does it take to… oh, never mind, they’re done!
They tend to be, FWIW, religious, highly family oriented, and culturally conservative.
To be honest, IMO the hostility toward immigration by Mexicans and Central and South Americans on the part of American conservatives seems like a huge own-goal. They’re locking out natural political allies.
In any case, I don’t see weird “cultural issues” that are going to lead to the widespread corruption of American culture.
What I see is a set of pragmatic issues that have to do with a very rich and a relatively poor country sharing a very long land border.
Those are real problems, but they’re not “cultural values” problems. And, the solution to them lies mostly not with Mexico or Mexicans, but with us.
Now, I suppose you could claim that both these problems could by solved by simply opening the border to unlimited legal immgration.
No, I would say that the problem could be addressed by allowing more people to immigrate than we currently do.
From here, in 2013 we allowed not quite a million people to immigrate to the US.
Less than one-third of one percent of the population.
135K of those were from Mexico. What is that, four-hundredths of one percent of the population?
There’s no room to expand that?
As far as I can tell, the problems created by immigration from Mexico are basically due to the fact that more folks want to come than we want to allow.
So, issues like the ones you cite. Breaking the law so that they can live and work.
The folks that come in spite of that seem to be more than happy to work their @sses off. I mean, seriously so.
Here’s a joke: How many Mexicans does it take to… oh, never mind, they’re done!
They tend to be, FWIW, religious, highly family oriented, and culturally conservative.
To be honest, IMO the hostility toward immigration by Mexicans and Central and South Americans on the part of American conservatives seems like a huge own-goal. They’re locking out natural political allies.
In any case, I don’t see weird “cultural issues” that are going to lead to the widespread corruption of American culture.
What I see is a set of pragmatic issues that have to do with a very rich and a relatively poor country sharing a very long land border.
Those are real problems, but they’re not “cultural values” problems. And, the solution to them lies mostly not with Mexico or Mexicans, but with us.
…and I’m supposed to assume it’s coincidence?
So cultural and coincidence are the only options here? Do you think they’d commit identity theft if they weren’t desperate for work or if doing so weren’t necessary to get that work, just because it’s part of their culture? Are you also concerned that their desire to work will pollute our culture?
…and I’m supposed to assume it’s coincidence?
So cultural and coincidence are the only options here? Do you think they’d commit identity theft if they weren’t desperate for work or if doing so weren’t necessary to get that work, just because it’s part of their culture? Are you also concerned that their desire to work will pollute our culture?
…and I’m supposed to assume it’s coincidence?
So cultural and coincidence are the only options here? Do you think they’d commit identity theft if they weren’t desperate for work or if doing so weren’t necessary to get that work, just because it’s part of their culture? Are you also concerned that their desire to work will pollute our culture?
100% of illegal immigrants violate our immigration laws, by definition. It looks like maybe 75% of them commit identity theft. Increasingly popular is something called “total identity theft”, where they don’t just use ID with your SS#, or something like that, but try to comprehensively adopt your identity, to the point where it becomes difficult to prove that you’re not the one with faked documents.
100% of illegal immigrants violate our immigration laws, by definition. It looks like maybe 75% of them commit identity theft. Increasingly popular is something called “total identity theft”, where they don’t just use ID with your SS#, or something like that, but try to comprehensively adopt your identity, to the point where it becomes difficult to prove that you’re not the one with faked documents.
100% of illegal immigrants violate our immigration laws, by definition. It looks like maybe 75% of them commit identity theft. Increasingly popular is something called “total identity theft”, where they don’t just use ID with your SS#, or something like that, but try to comprehensively adopt your identity, to the point where it becomes difficult to prove that you’re not the one with faked documents.
100% of illegal immigrants violate our immigration laws, by definition
Yes, that’s right.
100% of people who hire those immigrants violate our laws, by definition.
Whose “culture” is corrupt?
Or are those immigrants “corrupting” the people who hire them by making their labor available for short money.
Some laws are stupid laws. Some policies are stupid policies. Stupid laws and stupid policies breed non-compliance.
The solution is not to invent some bizarre “cultural values” deficiency on the part of the people who are non-compliant.
Unless, of course, you simply want to be in the business of blaming all problems on the inherent criminality of Those Other People.
The solution is to change the stupid laws and policies.
100% of illegal immigrants violate our immigration laws, by definition
Yes, that’s right.
100% of people who hire those immigrants violate our laws, by definition.
Whose “culture” is corrupt?
Or are those immigrants “corrupting” the people who hire them by making their labor available for short money.
Some laws are stupid laws. Some policies are stupid policies. Stupid laws and stupid policies breed non-compliance.
The solution is not to invent some bizarre “cultural values” deficiency on the part of the people who are non-compliant.
Unless, of course, you simply want to be in the business of blaming all problems on the inherent criminality of Those Other People.
The solution is to change the stupid laws and policies.
100% of illegal immigrants violate our immigration laws, by definition
Yes, that’s right.
100% of people who hire those immigrants violate our laws, by definition.
Whose “culture” is corrupt?
Or are those immigrants “corrupting” the people who hire them by making their labor available for short money.
Some laws are stupid laws. Some policies are stupid policies. Stupid laws and stupid policies breed non-compliance.
The solution is not to invent some bizarre “cultural values” deficiency on the part of the people who are non-compliant.
Unless, of course, you simply want to be in the business of blaming all problems on the inherent criminality of Those Other People.
The solution is to change the stupid laws and policies.
do you have any evidence that “total identity theft” by immigrants is an actual trend and not just a handful of cases that Fox News has used to keep its audience at just the right level of fear ?
do you have any evidence that “total identity theft” by immigrants is an actual trend and not just a handful of cases that Fox News has used to keep its audience at just the right level of fear ?
do you have any evidence that “total identity theft” by immigrants is an actual trend and not just a handful of cases that Fox News has used to keep its audience at just the right level of fear ?
Back to the Amish, once more:
We had our kitchen cabinets and counters done by Amish (two different contractors).
From what I have heard, Amish and some other fairly closed-off religious groups are busily acquiring large chunks of contiguous land so as to more easily keep themselves separate. In order to do that, though, they have to do business with the outside world, using machines that sort of push the boundaries of their (to us) rather convoluted rules of living.
Overall: people I enjoyed working with, and would gladly work with again. We probably couldn’t talk music trivia, though.
Mexicans I have no opinion of at all, because I have only met a few who weren’t, in effect, Americans. But I have heard they are conspiring to sap our vital bodily fluids.
Back to the Amish, once more:
We had our kitchen cabinets and counters done by Amish (two different contractors).
From what I have heard, Amish and some other fairly closed-off religious groups are busily acquiring large chunks of contiguous land so as to more easily keep themselves separate. In order to do that, though, they have to do business with the outside world, using machines that sort of push the boundaries of their (to us) rather convoluted rules of living.
Overall: people I enjoyed working with, and would gladly work with again. We probably couldn’t talk music trivia, though.
Mexicans I have no opinion of at all, because I have only met a few who weren’t, in effect, Americans. But I have heard they are conspiring to sap our vital bodily fluids.
Back to the Amish, once more:
We had our kitchen cabinets and counters done by Amish (two different contractors).
From what I have heard, Amish and some other fairly closed-off religious groups are busily acquiring large chunks of contiguous land so as to more easily keep themselves separate. In order to do that, though, they have to do business with the outside world, using machines that sort of push the boundaries of their (to us) rather convoluted rules of living.
Overall: people I enjoyed working with, and would gladly work with again. We probably couldn’t talk music trivia, though.
Mexicans I have no opinion of at all, because I have only met a few who weren’t, in effect, Americans. But I have heard they are conspiring to sap our vital bodily fluids.
That’s long been my attitude as well: if there’s a law on the books that no one wants to enforce, it’s time to change the law. Why have laws that you will not or cannot enforce?
That’s long been my attitude as well: if there’s a law on the books that no one wants to enforce, it’s time to change the law. Why have laws that you will not or cannot enforce?
That’s long been my attitude as well: if there’s a law on the books that no one wants to enforce, it’s time to change the law. Why have laws that you will not or cannot enforce?
we could enforce the laws. it would take a lot more border agents and a lot more ICE agents and judges, and a lot more policing of employers (the dreaded IRS!), and maybe an overhaul of the SSN system. but nobody, especially “conservatives”, wants to pay for any of those things.
it’s much easier to just complain about the fact that the laws go unenforced than it is to tell people that enforcing these laws to the degree they say they want them enforced will require 85.7 fncktons of money. demagoguery is free.
we could enforce the laws. it would take a lot more border agents and a lot more ICE agents and judges, and a lot more policing of employers (the dreaded IRS!), and maybe an overhaul of the SSN system. but nobody, especially “conservatives”, wants to pay for any of those things.
it’s much easier to just complain about the fact that the laws go unenforced than it is to tell people that enforcing these laws to the degree they say they want them enforced will require 85.7 fncktons of money. demagoguery is free.
we could enforce the laws. it would take a lot more border agents and a lot more ICE agents and judges, and a lot more policing of employers (the dreaded IRS!), and maybe an overhaul of the SSN system. but nobody, especially “conservatives”, wants to pay for any of those things.
it’s much easier to just complain about the fact that the laws go unenforced than it is to tell people that enforcing these laws to the degree they say they want them enforced will require 85.7 fncktons of money. demagoguery is free.
100% of people who hire those immigrants violate our laws, by definition.
Whose “culture” is corrupt?
Or are those immigrants “corrupting” the people who hire them by making their labor available for short money.
Both cultures are corrupt, russell. But the corrupt Americans aren’t the victims of today’s immigrants. They are the victims of the historical influence from those portions of the United States you, yourself, said were once part of Mexico, and they are the victims of those people of Mexican descent whose families have been in America for longer than most American families.
It really all goes back to the Spanish, who corrupted Mexico first. Then the French got involved for a bit, making things even worse.
Look, it’s a long, complicated history, but the point is, whatever corruption there is in this country came from somewhere else.
100% of people who hire those immigrants violate our laws, by definition.
Whose “culture” is corrupt?
Or are those immigrants “corrupting” the people who hire them by making their labor available for short money.
Both cultures are corrupt, russell. But the corrupt Americans aren’t the victims of today’s immigrants. They are the victims of the historical influence from those portions of the United States you, yourself, said were once part of Mexico, and they are the victims of those people of Mexican descent whose families have been in America for longer than most American families.
It really all goes back to the Spanish, who corrupted Mexico first. Then the French got involved for a bit, making things even worse.
Look, it’s a long, complicated history, but the point is, whatever corruption there is in this country came from somewhere else.
100% of people who hire those immigrants violate our laws, by definition.
Whose “culture” is corrupt?
Or are those immigrants “corrupting” the people who hire them by making their labor available for short money.
Both cultures are corrupt, russell. But the corrupt Americans aren’t the victims of today’s immigrants. They are the victims of the historical influence from those portions of the United States you, yourself, said were once part of Mexico, and they are the victims of those people of Mexican descent whose families have been in America for longer than most American families.
It really all goes back to the Spanish, who corrupted Mexico first. Then the French got involved for a bit, making things even worse.
Look, it’s a long, complicated history, but the point is, whatever corruption there is in this country came from somewhere else.
“No, I would say that the problem could be addressed by allowing more people to immigrate than we currently do.”
No, I don’t think so.
At any tolerable level of legal immigration, there are going to be some basic criteria for who is allowed in. English literacy, because we are an English speaking country. Lack of a criminal record, because you don’t invite in criminals.
There will be people who don’t match these criteria, and just because they don’t match the critera doesn’t mean they don’t want in.
Illegal immigrants are not, generally speaking, people would could be legal immigrants. We’ve got an entirel planet full of highly educated, law abiding, English literate people, who want to come here. We could fill any remotely tolerable immgration quota with them.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in? Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
No, the people immigrating illegally are not potential legal immigrants, under any remotely sensible immigration policy.
“No, I would say that the problem could be addressed by allowing more people to immigrate than we currently do.”
No, I don’t think so.
At any tolerable level of legal immigration, there are going to be some basic criteria for who is allowed in. English literacy, because we are an English speaking country. Lack of a criminal record, because you don’t invite in criminals.
There will be people who don’t match these criteria, and just because they don’t match the critera doesn’t mean they don’t want in.
Illegal immigrants are not, generally speaking, people would could be legal immigrants. We’ve got an entirel planet full of highly educated, law abiding, English literate people, who want to come here. We could fill any remotely tolerable immgration quota with them.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in? Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
No, the people immigrating illegally are not potential legal immigrants, under any remotely sensible immigration policy.
“No, I would say that the problem could be addressed by allowing more people to immigrate than we currently do.”
No, I don’t think so.
At any tolerable level of legal immigration, there are going to be some basic criteria for who is allowed in. English literacy, because we are an English speaking country. Lack of a criminal record, because you don’t invite in criminals.
There will be people who don’t match these criteria, and just because they don’t match the critera doesn’t mean they don’t want in.
Illegal immigrants are not, generally speaking, people would could be legal immigrants. We’ve got an entirel planet full of highly educated, law abiding, English literate people, who want to come here. We could fill any remotely tolerable immgration quota with them.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in? Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
No, the people immigrating illegally are not potential legal immigrants, under any remotely sensible immigration policy.
Back to the Amish, once more
What I think is really hip about the Amish is that they have retained an understanding of how to make a living – often a really good living – out of relatively small land holdings, without taking on huge stupid amounts of debt.
IMO we should let the Amish set our agricultural policies, rather than lobbyists from Archer Daniels and Monsanto.
Just my two cents.
I think they can also point us to a useful solution to the whole immigration debate.
Instead of letting all of the beautiful productive arable land that nobody seems to be able to make a living off of by farming turn into yet another cluster of McMansions, we the American people should buy it up and land-bank it.
Then, lease it back to folks who want to farm it as small holdings.
And, since there aren’t that many native-born Americans who want to do work like that, offer it to would-be immigrants who have some background in agriculture.
That won’t just be Mexicans, it will also be a lot of Asian and African folks.
The land stays in productive use in perpetuity, more of your food is grown locally instead of being shipped from CA where they’re running out of water anyway, and we bring in new generations of hard-working people eager to come here and make new lives for themselves.
Public money makes the investment to buy up the land, and in turn it generates an income stream, to the public coffers, in perpetuity.
Folks who want to farm don’t need to come with the cash to buy land, they can lease it from the public land bank.
We do some of this – the land bank part – now in my county, and it works pretty well.
There are also a small number of immigrant families who do pretty well in my area by farming small holdings to sell produce at farmer’s markets. Probably not their total income stream, but many of us wear lots of hats these days.
That’s my proposal.
The nation needs more farms that grow stuff that people actually eat, and we need more farmers to make that work.
If nobody here wants to do it, let’s import some foreign talent. Those folks have already demonstrated the ability and the work ethic, give them their shot.
Back to the Amish, once more
What I think is really hip about the Amish is that they have retained an understanding of how to make a living – often a really good living – out of relatively small land holdings, without taking on huge stupid amounts of debt.
IMO we should let the Amish set our agricultural policies, rather than lobbyists from Archer Daniels and Monsanto.
Just my two cents.
I think they can also point us to a useful solution to the whole immigration debate.
Instead of letting all of the beautiful productive arable land that nobody seems to be able to make a living off of by farming turn into yet another cluster of McMansions, we the American people should buy it up and land-bank it.
Then, lease it back to folks who want to farm it as small holdings.
And, since there aren’t that many native-born Americans who want to do work like that, offer it to would-be immigrants who have some background in agriculture.
That won’t just be Mexicans, it will also be a lot of Asian and African folks.
The land stays in productive use in perpetuity, more of your food is grown locally instead of being shipped from CA where they’re running out of water anyway, and we bring in new generations of hard-working people eager to come here and make new lives for themselves.
Public money makes the investment to buy up the land, and in turn it generates an income stream, to the public coffers, in perpetuity.
Folks who want to farm don’t need to come with the cash to buy land, they can lease it from the public land bank.
We do some of this – the land bank part – now in my county, and it works pretty well.
There are also a small number of immigrant families who do pretty well in my area by farming small holdings to sell produce at farmer’s markets. Probably not their total income stream, but many of us wear lots of hats these days.
That’s my proposal.
The nation needs more farms that grow stuff that people actually eat, and we need more farmers to make that work.
If nobody here wants to do it, let’s import some foreign talent. Those folks have already demonstrated the ability and the work ethic, give them their shot.
Back to the Amish, once more
What I think is really hip about the Amish is that they have retained an understanding of how to make a living – often a really good living – out of relatively small land holdings, without taking on huge stupid amounts of debt.
IMO we should let the Amish set our agricultural policies, rather than lobbyists from Archer Daniels and Monsanto.
Just my two cents.
I think they can also point us to a useful solution to the whole immigration debate.
Instead of letting all of the beautiful productive arable land that nobody seems to be able to make a living off of by farming turn into yet another cluster of McMansions, we the American people should buy it up and land-bank it.
Then, lease it back to folks who want to farm it as small holdings.
And, since there aren’t that many native-born Americans who want to do work like that, offer it to would-be immigrants who have some background in agriculture.
That won’t just be Mexicans, it will also be a lot of Asian and African folks.
The land stays in productive use in perpetuity, more of your food is grown locally instead of being shipped from CA where they’re running out of water anyway, and we bring in new generations of hard-working people eager to come here and make new lives for themselves.
Public money makes the investment to buy up the land, and in turn it generates an income stream, to the public coffers, in perpetuity.
Folks who want to farm don’t need to come with the cash to buy land, they can lease it from the public land bank.
We do some of this – the land bank part – now in my county, and it works pretty well.
There are also a small number of immigrant families who do pretty well in my area by farming small holdings to sell produce at farmer’s markets. Probably not their total income stream, but many of us wear lots of hats these days.
That’s my proposal.
The nation needs more farms that grow stuff that people actually eat, and we need more farmers to make that work.
If nobody here wants to do it, let’s import some foreign talent. Those folks have already demonstrated the ability and the work ethic, give them their shot.
No, I don’t think so.
Yeah, well I do.
English literacy, because we are an English speaking country.
Bullshit.
English literacy as a requirement for citizenship, fine. For legal immigration, no.
There are only many millions of examples to demonstrate that it’s just not necessary.
Lack of a criminal record, because you don’t invite in criminals.
Fine with me.
There will be people who don’t match these criteria, and just because they don’t match the critera doesn’t mean they don’t want in.
So, we don’t let in everybody. We let in more than 135K.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in?
Because they want to come, and they work their behinds off.
Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
They’re already here, they’re already working. The only difference is that legal immigration makes all the problems you’re worried about go away.
No, I don’t think so.
Yeah, well I do.
English literacy, because we are an English speaking country.
Bullshit.
English literacy as a requirement for citizenship, fine. For legal immigration, no.
There are only many millions of examples to demonstrate that it’s just not necessary.
Lack of a criminal record, because you don’t invite in criminals.
Fine with me.
There will be people who don’t match these criteria, and just because they don’t match the critera doesn’t mean they don’t want in.
So, we don’t let in everybody. We let in more than 135K.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in?
Because they want to come, and they work their behinds off.
Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
They’re already here, they’re already working. The only difference is that legal immigration makes all the problems you’re worried about go away.
No, I don’t think so.
Yeah, well I do.
English literacy, because we are an English speaking country.
Bullshit.
English literacy as a requirement for citizenship, fine. For legal immigration, no.
There are only many millions of examples to demonstrate that it’s just not necessary.
Lack of a criminal record, because you don’t invite in criminals.
Fine with me.
There will be people who don’t match these criteria, and just because they don’t match the critera doesn’t mean they don’t want in.
So, we don’t let in everybody. We let in more than 135K.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in?
Because they want to come, and they work their behinds off.
Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
They’re already here, they’re already working. The only difference is that legal immigration makes all the problems you’re worried about go away.
“That’s long been my attitude as well: if there’s a law on the books that no one wants to enforce, it’s time to change the law.”
What about laws on the books that a huge number of people want enforced, but political elites find inconvenient? Why should those be changed? Because wealthy people who like cheap gardeners, and businessmen who like having cheap employees who don’t dare complain if they’re abused, have broken democracy on this topic, we should just give up on being a democracy, and let them have their way?
“That’s long been my attitude as well: if there’s a law on the books that no one wants to enforce, it’s time to change the law.”
What about laws on the books that a huge number of people want enforced, but political elites find inconvenient? Why should those be changed? Because wealthy people who like cheap gardeners, and businessmen who like having cheap employees who don’t dare complain if they’re abused, have broken democracy on this topic, we should just give up on being a democracy, and let them have their way?
“That’s long been my attitude as well: if there’s a law on the books that no one wants to enforce, it’s time to change the law.”
What about laws on the books that a huge number of people want enforced, but political elites find inconvenient? Why should those be changed? Because wealthy people who like cheap gardeners, and businessmen who like having cheap employees who don’t dare complain if they’re abused, have broken democracy on this topic, we should just give up on being a democracy, and let them have their way?
What about laws on the books that a huge number of people want enforced, but political elites find inconvenient?
What about laws on the books that can’t be enforced without becoming a freaking police state?
Not a problem, in your book?
What about laws on the books that a huge number of people want enforced, but political elites find inconvenient?
What about laws on the books that can’t be enforced without becoming a freaking police state?
Not a problem, in your book?
What about laws on the books that a huge number of people want enforced, but political elites find inconvenient?
What about laws on the books that can’t be enforced without becoming a freaking police state?
Not a problem, in your book?
in Europe the modern anti-semitism (as opposed to the old-fashioned Christian anti-Judaism)
Hartmut, it’s interesting. I had always understood that anti-Semitism was simply a sloppy way of saying “anti-Jews.” But it occurs to me that it may have actually been an accurate assessment of what was really going on in people’s minds. Considering the attitude in Europe towards the more recent Semitic immigrants — who, after all, are Muslim rather than Jewish.
I wonder. Was the label conscious? Or was it just accidently accurate?
in Europe the modern anti-semitism (as opposed to the old-fashioned Christian anti-Judaism)
Hartmut, it’s interesting. I had always understood that anti-Semitism was simply a sloppy way of saying “anti-Jews.” But it occurs to me that it may have actually been an accurate assessment of what was really going on in people’s minds. Considering the attitude in Europe towards the more recent Semitic immigrants — who, after all, are Muslim rather than Jewish.
I wonder. Was the label conscious? Or was it just accidently accurate?
in Europe the modern anti-semitism (as opposed to the old-fashioned Christian anti-Judaism)
Hartmut, it’s interesting. I had always understood that anti-Semitism was simply a sloppy way of saying “anti-Jews.” But it occurs to me that it may have actually been an accurate assessment of what was really going on in people’s minds. Considering the attitude in Europe towards the more recent Semitic immigrants — who, after all, are Muslim rather than Jewish.
I wonder. Was the label conscious? Or was it just accidently accurate?
I think this disagreement over whether attributing bigotry to fear is a kindness or a curse depends a lot on the mindset of the person hearing it. If you’re on the receiving end, and feel that your dislike is rational, being told you’re irrational and a coward is worse than being called a bigot, because it’s still calling you a bigot (which you are, but for good reasons) but it’s insulting your character too. If you’re on the giving end, you’re generally taking russell’s tack, although I’ve known some lovely people who very obviously are trying to make it about power and quite consciously try to make accusations of X-phobia a belittling thing that empowers the accuser at the accused’s expense.
Honestly, I personally tend to try to avoid the useless disagreement that too often arises from this misapprehension of meanings and motives by using alternative terminology. E.g., heterosexist or heteronormative in place of homophobia, or anti-X bigotry in place of culture-X-ophobia. Sure, it’s a petty quibble and a meaningless distraction to get upset over the word, but it’s just as petty to inflexibly use that term knowing what it’s going to sound like to a hypersensitive ear…
I think this disagreement over whether attributing bigotry to fear is a kindness or a curse depends a lot on the mindset of the person hearing it. If you’re on the receiving end, and feel that your dislike is rational, being told you’re irrational and a coward is worse than being called a bigot, because it’s still calling you a bigot (which you are, but for good reasons) but it’s insulting your character too. If you’re on the giving end, you’re generally taking russell’s tack, although I’ve known some lovely people who very obviously are trying to make it about power and quite consciously try to make accusations of X-phobia a belittling thing that empowers the accuser at the accused’s expense.
Honestly, I personally tend to try to avoid the useless disagreement that too often arises from this misapprehension of meanings and motives by using alternative terminology. E.g., heterosexist or heteronormative in place of homophobia, or anti-X bigotry in place of culture-X-ophobia. Sure, it’s a petty quibble and a meaningless distraction to get upset over the word, but it’s just as petty to inflexibly use that term knowing what it’s going to sound like to a hypersensitive ear…
I think this disagreement over whether attributing bigotry to fear is a kindness or a curse depends a lot on the mindset of the person hearing it. If you’re on the receiving end, and feel that your dislike is rational, being told you’re irrational and a coward is worse than being called a bigot, because it’s still calling you a bigot (which you are, but for good reasons) but it’s insulting your character too. If you’re on the giving end, you’re generally taking russell’s tack, although I’ve known some lovely people who very obviously are trying to make it about power and quite consciously try to make accusations of X-phobia a belittling thing that empowers the accuser at the accused’s expense.
Honestly, I personally tend to try to avoid the useless disagreement that too often arises from this misapprehension of meanings and motives by using alternative terminology. E.g., heterosexist or heteronormative in place of homophobia, or anti-X bigotry in place of culture-X-ophobia. Sure, it’s a petty quibble and a meaningless distraction to get upset over the word, but it’s just as petty to inflexibly use that term knowing what it’s going to sound like to a hypersensitive ear…
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents. (They’re NOT “undocumented”, as it happens. They tend to have forged documents.) A problem which would be much easier to solve, were it not that it has to be left unsolved to facilitate the illegal immigration.
It has been my observation that “identity theft” by illegal immigrants is pretty much entirely a matter of getting a valid Social Security Number. Nothing more. And that particular bit of identity theft has only one major impact on the person whose identity was stolen: more money is credited to their Social Security account than they personally paid in. Which means, at least for some of them, that they qualify for a higher Social Security payment when they finally start taking it.
What it does not involve is getting credit cards under the stolen identity, and then not paying them off. Not least because that would be a great way to come to the attention of the authorities and get deported.
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents. (They’re NOT “undocumented”, as it happens. They tend to have forged documents.) A problem which would be much easier to solve, were it not that it has to be left unsolved to facilitate the illegal immigration.
It has been my observation that “identity theft” by illegal immigrants is pretty much entirely a matter of getting a valid Social Security Number. Nothing more. And that particular bit of identity theft has only one major impact on the person whose identity was stolen: more money is credited to their Social Security account than they personally paid in. Which means, at least for some of them, that they qualify for a higher Social Security payment when they finally start taking it.
What it does not involve is getting credit cards under the stolen identity, and then not paying them off. Not least because that would be a great way to come to the attention of the authorities and get deported.
How about, identity theft? A good deal of the problem of identity theft is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for fake documents. (They’re NOT “undocumented”, as it happens. They tend to have forged documents.) A problem which would be much easier to solve, were it not that it has to be left unsolved to facilitate the illegal immigration.
It has been my observation that “identity theft” by illegal immigrants is pretty much entirely a matter of getting a valid Social Security Number. Nothing more. And that particular bit of identity theft has only one major impact on the person whose identity was stolen: more money is credited to their Social Security account than they personally paid in. Which means, at least for some of them, that they qualify for a higher Social Security payment when they finally start taking it.
What it does not involve is getting credit cards under the stolen identity, and then not paying them off. Not least because that would be a great way to come to the attention of the authorities and get deported.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in? Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
Let me put it to you this way.
Let’s say we find some magic wand that lets us Seal The Border, and we locate and deport every undocumented immigrant.
Who picks the lettuce?
Who works in the hospital laundry?
Who cleans the offices at night?
Who works back of house in the restaurant?
Who?
Do you want to do that work? A day picking lettuce would probably kill you.
A couple of years ago, the United Farm Workers held a “Take Our Jobs” campaign. It was an open invitation for anyone to go and do the work that immigrant labor – legal and illegal – does every day. They would find a job for you, train you as needed, you could go be a farm worker.
Steven Colbert showed up, as a sort of PSA, and I think one other person.
We would be letting “unskilled illiterate” workers in because they want to do valuable work that nobody else will do.
That’s why.
If they’re willing to risk their lives to come here and do hard, dangerous work that nobody else wants to do, for the least amount of money that we can get away with paying them, IMO they deserve the basic respect of letting them do so legally.
I don’t know your ethnic background, but it’s highly likely that that is how your people came here. It sure as hell is how mine did.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in? Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
Let me put it to you this way.
Let’s say we find some magic wand that lets us Seal The Border, and we locate and deport every undocumented immigrant.
Who picks the lettuce?
Who works in the hospital laundry?
Who cleans the offices at night?
Who works back of house in the restaurant?
Who?
Do you want to do that work? A day picking lettuce would probably kill you.
A couple of years ago, the United Farm Workers held a “Take Our Jobs” campaign. It was an open invitation for anyone to go and do the work that immigrant labor – legal and illegal – does every day. They would find a job for you, train you as needed, you could go be a farm worker.
Steven Colbert showed up, as a sort of PSA, and I think one other person.
We would be letting “unskilled illiterate” workers in because they want to do valuable work that nobody else will do.
That’s why.
If they’re willing to risk their lives to come here and do hard, dangerous work that nobody else wants to do, for the least amount of money that we can get away with paying them, IMO they deserve the basic respect of letting them do so legally.
I don’t know your ethnic background, but it’s highly likely that that is how your people came here. It sure as hell is how mine did.
So, why would be be letting English illiterate unskilled laborers in? Because the unemployment rate among unskilled Americans is practically zero?
Let me put it to you this way.
Let’s say we find some magic wand that lets us Seal The Border, and we locate and deport every undocumented immigrant.
Who picks the lettuce?
Who works in the hospital laundry?
Who cleans the offices at night?
Who works back of house in the restaurant?
Who?
Do you want to do that work? A day picking lettuce would probably kill you.
A couple of years ago, the United Farm Workers held a “Take Our Jobs” campaign. It was an open invitation for anyone to go and do the work that immigrant labor – legal and illegal – does every day. They would find a job for you, train you as needed, you could go be a farm worker.
Steven Colbert showed up, as a sort of PSA, and I think one other person.
We would be letting “unskilled illiterate” workers in because they want to do valuable work that nobody else will do.
That’s why.
If they’re willing to risk their lives to come here and do hard, dangerous work that nobody else wants to do, for the least amount of money that we can get away with paying them, IMO they deserve the basic respect of letting them do so legally.
I don’t know your ethnic background, but it’s highly likely that that is how your people came here. It sure as hell is how mine did.
One other thought on why “some of my best friends are race X!” as a defense doesn’t cut it. It’s sort of like “states’ rights.” Both were originally used entirely by racists. And, as a result, someone using them now is normally assumed (however unjustifiably) to also be a racist, utilizing the standard ploy. It may be unfair, but then life is like that.
Oh yes, and being married to a member of another race doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not a racist. It just means that you aren’t prejudiced against that particular race. For example, you can be married to someone whose ancestors were from East Asia, and have friends who are black — that doesn’t prove that you aren’t racist when it comes to, for example, Hispanics or South Asians.
It doesn’t prove that you are, of course. But it really isn’t a valid defense either.
One other thought on why “some of my best friends are race X!” as a defense doesn’t cut it. It’s sort of like “states’ rights.” Both were originally used entirely by racists. And, as a result, someone using them now is normally assumed (however unjustifiably) to also be a racist, utilizing the standard ploy. It may be unfair, but then life is like that.
Oh yes, and being married to a member of another race doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not a racist. It just means that you aren’t prejudiced against that particular race. For example, you can be married to someone whose ancestors were from East Asia, and have friends who are black — that doesn’t prove that you aren’t racist when it comes to, for example, Hispanics or South Asians.
It doesn’t prove that you are, of course. But it really isn’t a valid defense either.
One other thought on why “some of my best friends are race X!” as a defense doesn’t cut it. It’s sort of like “states’ rights.” Both were originally used entirely by racists. And, as a result, someone using them now is normally assumed (however unjustifiably) to also be a racist, utilizing the standard ploy. It may be unfair, but then life is like that.
Oh yes, and being married to a member of another race doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not a racist. It just means that you aren’t prejudiced against that particular race. For example, you can be married to someone whose ancestors were from East Asia, and have friends who are black — that doesn’t prove that you aren’t racist when it comes to, for example, Hispanics or South Asians.
It doesn’t prove that you are, of course. But it really isn’t a valid defense either.
It just means that you aren’t prejudiced against that particular race.
Not even that, depending on the nature of the relationship.
I wouldn’t even claim to be entirely free of prejudice against black people, despite having some amount of black ancestry.
It just doesn’t work that way. It’s not that simple.
It just means that you aren’t prejudiced against that particular race.
Not even that, depending on the nature of the relationship.
I wouldn’t even claim to be entirely free of prejudice against black people, despite having some amount of black ancestry.
It just doesn’t work that way. It’s not that simple.
It just means that you aren’t prejudiced against that particular race.
Not even that, depending on the nature of the relationship.
I wouldn’t even claim to be entirely free of prejudice against black people, despite having some amount of black ancestry.
It just doesn’t work that way. It’s not that simple.
Racism, like most social phenomena, is more complicated than it’s commonly held out to be. In racism’s case, it probably doesn’t help that a very common popular presentation of “racists” would be people who think “my race is better than every other race“, when honestly “race X is worse than my race” for some varying number of values of X >= 1 (and often specifically in manner Y for some number of Ys >=1, etc) is probably the more common manifestation of it, albeit still grossly oversimplified.
Racism, like most social phenomena, is more complicated than it’s commonly held out to be. In racism’s case, it probably doesn’t help that a very common popular presentation of “racists” would be people who think “my race is better than every other race“, when honestly “race X is worse than my race” for some varying number of values of X >= 1 (and often specifically in manner Y for some number of Ys >=1, etc) is probably the more common manifestation of it, albeit still grossly oversimplified.
Racism, like most social phenomena, is more complicated than it’s commonly held out to be. In racism’s case, it probably doesn’t help that a very common popular presentation of “racists” would be people who think “my race is better than every other race“, when honestly “race X is worse than my race” for some varying number of values of X >= 1 (and often specifically in manner Y for some number of Ys >=1, etc) is probably the more common manifestation of it, albeit still grossly oversimplified.
“Who picks the lettuce?
Who works in the hospital laundry?
Who cleans the offices at night?
Who works back of house in the restaurant?
Who?
Do you want to do that work? A day picking lettuce would probably kill you.”
It would probably shock you to find out that my early jobs as a teen were… picking crops. Alongside migrant workers. Radishes, turnups, cabbage. I’ve also been a janitor. My brother had a job with a landscaper, laying sod.
You’re writing as though having an underclass available for doing dirty jobs is just a natural part of existence, which no nation can get by without.
Partly those jobs would be automated, partly they’d pay better.
“Who picks the lettuce?
Who works in the hospital laundry?
Who cleans the offices at night?
Who works back of house in the restaurant?
Who?
Do you want to do that work? A day picking lettuce would probably kill you.”
It would probably shock you to find out that my early jobs as a teen were… picking crops. Alongside migrant workers. Radishes, turnups, cabbage. I’ve also been a janitor. My brother had a job with a landscaper, laying sod.
You’re writing as though having an underclass available for doing dirty jobs is just a natural part of existence, which no nation can get by without.
Partly those jobs would be automated, partly they’d pay better.
“Who picks the lettuce?
Who works in the hospital laundry?
Who cleans the offices at night?
Who works back of house in the restaurant?
Who?
Do you want to do that work? A day picking lettuce would probably kill you.”
It would probably shock you to find out that my early jobs as a teen were… picking crops. Alongside migrant workers. Radishes, turnups, cabbage. I’ve also been a janitor. My brother had a job with a landscaper, laying sod.
You’re writing as though having an underclass available for doing dirty jobs is just a natural part of existence, which no nation can get by without.
Partly those jobs would be automated, partly they’d pay better.
Partly those jobs would be automated, partly they’d pay better.
Yes, that would absolutely have to happen. No question. But what would be the result of that?
The cost of food would necessarily go up. Probably substantially. Which would have negative impacts across the rest of the economy. (And would be especially dmaging to those working at current minimum wage levels outside of agriculture.)
Maybe it would be a good thing if we spent more of our incomes on food. But it would certainly be a substantial restructuring of our economy.
Partly those jobs would be automated, partly they’d pay better.
Yes, that would absolutely have to happen. No question. But what would be the result of that?
The cost of food would necessarily go up. Probably substantially. Which would have negative impacts across the rest of the economy. (And would be especially dmaging to those working at current minimum wage levels outside of agriculture.)
Maybe it would be a good thing if we spent more of our incomes on food. But it would certainly be a substantial restructuring of our economy.
Partly those jobs would be automated, partly they’d pay better.
Yes, that would absolutely have to happen. No question. But what would be the result of that?
The cost of food would necessarily go up. Probably substantially. Which would have negative impacts across the rest of the economy. (And would be especially dmaging to those working at current minimum wage levels outside of agriculture.)
Maybe it would be a good thing if we spent more of our incomes on food. But it would certainly be a substantial restructuring of our economy.
Yay, it’s blue collar cred time!
I’ve also been a janitor, general warehouse stooge, done construction tearouts, I’ve laid sod and done other landscaping work, blah blah blah.
You’re not doing it now, are you? Somebody else is.
I’m fine with paying people more. More than fine, I advocate it. I’ll pay ten cents more for lettuce.
Automation is not going to make all of those jobs go away.
You asked why we would let unskilled laborers who are not English speaking into the country.
I reply (a) because they do valuable work that other folks don’t seem to want to do, and (b) they’re already here, doing it.
Yay, it’s blue collar cred time!
I’ve also been a janitor, general warehouse stooge, done construction tearouts, I’ve laid sod and done other landscaping work, blah blah blah.
You’re not doing it now, are you? Somebody else is.
I’m fine with paying people more. More than fine, I advocate it. I’ll pay ten cents more for lettuce.
Automation is not going to make all of those jobs go away.
You asked why we would let unskilled laborers who are not English speaking into the country.
I reply (a) because they do valuable work that other folks don’t seem to want to do, and (b) they’re already here, doing it.
Yay, it’s blue collar cred time!
I’ve also been a janitor, general warehouse stooge, done construction tearouts, I’ve laid sod and done other landscaping work, blah blah blah.
You’re not doing it now, are you? Somebody else is.
I’m fine with paying people more. More than fine, I advocate it. I’ll pay ten cents more for lettuce.
Automation is not going to make all of those jobs go away.
You asked why we would let unskilled laborers who are not English speaking into the country.
I reply (a) because they do valuable work that other folks don’t seem to want to do, and (b) they’re already here, doing it.
Here’s a bit of relevant anecdota. My grandmother, who was in many ways an admirable woman, was none the less an admitted racist. She mellowed in that regard as she got older, but she would use the n-word without a thought in her younger days. She grew up in Gloucester City, NJ, which was an unofficial sunset town just across the river from Philadelphia. When she grew up there, virtually everyone who lived in town was white (or could at least pass for white).
The next city to the north of Gloucester is Camden. You’ve probably all heard of it, if you’ve ever read the regularly published lists of “America’s Most Dangerous Cities.” As much as she wouldn’t hesitate to express her dislike of black people, she blamed the decline of Camden to “the Puerto Ricans Campbell’s Soup brought in.”
Her husband, my grandfather, was half Puerto Rican. His father came up from Puerto Rico, had a couple kids with my great grandmother, and then headed down to Baltimore for whatever reason. Now, he claimed that, though he was born in Puerto Rico, his parents were from Spain, making him a Spaniard by blood. I grew up being told I was, in part, Spanish – never Puerto Rican.
In short, that was pure horsesh1t, which I came to learn later in life. My great grandfather was as Puerto Rican as someone can be, of mixed European, African and Native American descent. According to all available evidence, his family goes back generations and generations on the island or Puerto Rico, maybe for hundreds of years.
I have to think my grandmother had some inkling of this. She was a smart and observant woman. She had in her possession as photograph of my great grandfather from which it is readily apparent that he was not of purely European ancestry. And my grandfather’s (without the great) tightly curled hair and dark complexion should have been enough to at least make her wonder.
She just denied it, or at least said he was half Spanish to anyone who asked, without going into it any further. She loved the man deeply, half-Puerto Rican that he was. That didn’t prevent her from being prejudiced against other Puerto Ricans.
Here’s a bit of relevant anecdota. My grandmother, who was in many ways an admirable woman, was none the less an admitted racist. She mellowed in that regard as she got older, but she would use the n-word without a thought in her younger days. She grew up in Gloucester City, NJ, which was an unofficial sunset town just across the river from Philadelphia. When she grew up there, virtually everyone who lived in town was white (or could at least pass for white).
The next city to the north of Gloucester is Camden. You’ve probably all heard of it, if you’ve ever read the regularly published lists of “America’s Most Dangerous Cities.” As much as she wouldn’t hesitate to express her dislike of black people, she blamed the decline of Camden to “the Puerto Ricans Campbell’s Soup brought in.”
Her husband, my grandfather, was half Puerto Rican. His father came up from Puerto Rico, had a couple kids with my great grandmother, and then headed down to Baltimore for whatever reason. Now, he claimed that, though he was born in Puerto Rico, his parents were from Spain, making him a Spaniard by blood. I grew up being told I was, in part, Spanish – never Puerto Rican.
In short, that was pure horsesh1t, which I came to learn later in life. My great grandfather was as Puerto Rican as someone can be, of mixed European, African and Native American descent. According to all available evidence, his family goes back generations and generations on the island or Puerto Rico, maybe for hundreds of years.
I have to think my grandmother had some inkling of this. She was a smart and observant woman. She had in her possession as photograph of my great grandfather from which it is readily apparent that he was not of purely European ancestry. And my grandfather’s (without the great) tightly curled hair and dark complexion should have been enough to at least make her wonder.
She just denied it, or at least said he was half Spanish to anyone who asked, without going into it any further. She loved the man deeply, half-Puerto Rican that he was. That didn’t prevent her from being prejudiced against other Puerto Ricans.
Here’s a bit of relevant anecdota. My grandmother, who was in many ways an admirable woman, was none the less an admitted racist. She mellowed in that regard as she got older, but she would use the n-word without a thought in her younger days. She grew up in Gloucester City, NJ, which was an unofficial sunset town just across the river from Philadelphia. When she grew up there, virtually everyone who lived in town was white (or could at least pass for white).
The next city to the north of Gloucester is Camden. You’ve probably all heard of it, if you’ve ever read the regularly published lists of “America’s Most Dangerous Cities.” As much as she wouldn’t hesitate to express her dislike of black people, she blamed the decline of Camden to “the Puerto Ricans Campbell’s Soup brought in.”
Her husband, my grandfather, was half Puerto Rican. His father came up from Puerto Rico, had a couple kids with my great grandmother, and then headed down to Baltimore for whatever reason. Now, he claimed that, though he was born in Puerto Rico, his parents were from Spain, making him a Spaniard by blood. I grew up being told I was, in part, Spanish – never Puerto Rican.
In short, that was pure horsesh1t, which I came to learn later in life. My great grandfather was as Puerto Rican as someone can be, of mixed European, African and Native American descent. According to all available evidence, his family goes back generations and generations on the island or Puerto Rico, maybe for hundreds of years.
I have to think my grandmother had some inkling of this. She was a smart and observant woman. She had in her possession as photograph of my great grandfather from which it is readily apparent that he was not of purely European ancestry. And my grandfather’s (without the great) tightly curled hair and dark complexion should have been enough to at least make her wonder.
She just denied it, or at least said he was half Spanish to anyone who asked, without going into it any further. She loved the man deeply, half-Puerto Rican that he was. That didn’t prevent her from being prejudiced against other Puerto Ricans.
The cost of food would necessarily go up. Probably substantially.
From here:
The cost of food would necessarily go up. Probably substantially.
From here:
The cost of food would necessarily go up. Probably substantially.
From here:
Russell, just out of curiosity, if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture? Yes, the farm owners would have to pass it along. But obviously it would impact retail sales not at all.
And yet, if memory serves, the response to Cesar Chavez’ attempts to organize the farm workers was hysterical. Why not simply pass the added expense along and avoid the pain (and expense) for fighting it?
Russell, just out of curiosity, if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture? Yes, the farm owners would have to pass it along. But obviously it would impact retail sales not at all.
And yet, if memory serves, the response to Cesar Chavez’ attempts to organize the farm workers was hysterical. Why not simply pass the added expense along and avoid the pain (and expense) for fighting it?
Russell, just out of curiosity, if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture? Yes, the farm owners would have to pass it along. But obviously it would impact retail sales not at all.
And yet, if memory serves, the response to Cesar Chavez’ attempts to organize the farm workers was hysterical. Why not simply pass the added expense along and avoid the pain (and expense) for fighting it?
Brett: “I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it. In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?”
Wrong again. The point is that when somebody has probably a hundred pages of documentation on his racist beliefs (on ObWings alone), unverifiable claims don’t count for much.
Brett: “I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it. In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?”
Wrong again. The point is that when somebody has probably a hundred pages of documentation on his racist beliefs (on ObWings alone), unverifiable claims don’t count for much.
Brett: “I’ve always been impressed with how unfalsifiable it makes accusations of racism, to consider “But I have “X” friends!” to somehow be confirmation of racism, rather than evidence against it. In what sane world is being married to someone of a different race, having friends of different races, and having voluntarily located one’s self in a mixed race neighborhood, not evidence that one is not a racist, but instead the opposite?”
Wrong again. The point is that when somebody has probably a hundred pages of documentation on his racist beliefs (on ObWings alone), unverifiable claims don’t count for much.
I don’t have racist beliefs. I have beliefs which liberals like to call “racist”.
But liberals call everything they dislike “racist” these days.
Let’s have a nice, clear definition of “racist”, and see if I qualify.
I define “racism” as the belief that people can rightly be treated as instances of a race, rather than as individuals in their own right. Treating people according to the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character.
What’s your definition?
I don’t have racist beliefs. I have beliefs which liberals like to call “racist”.
But liberals call everything they dislike “racist” these days.
Let’s have a nice, clear definition of “racist”, and see if I qualify.
I define “racism” as the belief that people can rightly be treated as instances of a race, rather than as individuals in their own right. Treating people according to the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character.
What’s your definition?
I don’t have racist beliefs. I have beliefs which liberals like to call “racist”.
But liberals call everything they dislike “racist” these days.
Let’s have a nice, clear definition of “racist”, and see if I qualify.
I define “racism” as the belief that people can rightly be treated as instances of a race, rather than as individuals in their own right. Treating people according to the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character.
What’s your definition?
Brett, that’s actually a fair definition.
So what do you call it when you call for treating people as instances of a national culture, rather than as individuals?
Brett, that’s actually a fair definition.
So what do you call it when you call for treating people as instances of a national culture, rather than as individuals?
Brett, that’s actually a fair definition.
So what do you call it when you call for treating people as instances of a national culture, rather than as individuals?
if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture?
I have no idea.
if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture?
I have no idea.
if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture?
I have no idea.
“Nationalism”, not “racism”. “Mexico” not being a race, you might have noticed.
What I advocate is an immigration policy which allows fairly high levels of legal immigration, based on the usual factors of English literacy, education level, lack of a criminal record. And I advocate that we not weight immigration unduely in favor of a particular nation just because people can walk from there to here.
I’m in favor of immigration. But I do not believe that the current illegal immigrants would be admitted under any reasonable policy of legal immgration, as the US does not have a shortage of illiterate low skill workers.
I’d like us to have such a shortage, it would help the poor.
“Nationalism”, not “racism”. “Mexico” not being a race, you might have noticed.
What I advocate is an immigration policy which allows fairly high levels of legal immigration, based on the usual factors of English literacy, education level, lack of a criminal record. And I advocate that we not weight immigration unduely in favor of a particular nation just because people can walk from there to here.
I’m in favor of immigration. But I do not believe that the current illegal immigrants would be admitted under any reasonable policy of legal immgration, as the US does not have a shortage of illiterate low skill workers.
I’d like us to have such a shortage, it would help the poor.
“Nationalism”, not “racism”. “Mexico” not being a race, you might have noticed.
What I advocate is an immigration policy which allows fairly high levels of legal immigration, based on the usual factors of English literacy, education level, lack of a criminal record. And I advocate that we not weight immigration unduely in favor of a particular nation just because people can walk from there to here.
I’m in favor of immigration. But I do not believe that the current illegal immigrants would be admitted under any reasonable policy of legal immgration, as the US does not have a shortage of illiterate low skill workers.
I’d like us to have such a shortage, it would help the poor.
“if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture?”
Because agricultural wages are not a large part of the cost of retail food doesn’t mean that increased agricultural wages wouldn’t have a significant impact on the farmers who’d have to pay them. At the retail level it would be small compared to shipping, processing, costs of running grocery stores…
But the farmers, who get only a small portion of your food budget, would feel it.
The easy availablity of cheap labor has suppressed agricultural automation in the US. Cut off the supply of illegal immigrant labor, and partly we’d automat, and partly we’d raise wages, making agricultural labor more attractive to Americans.
“if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture?”
Because agricultural wages are not a large part of the cost of retail food doesn’t mean that increased agricultural wages wouldn’t have a significant impact on the farmers who’d have to pay them. At the retail level it would be small compared to shipping, processing, costs of running grocery stores…
But the farmers, who get only a small portion of your food budget, would feel it.
The easy availablity of cheap labor has suppressed agricultural automation in the US. Cut off the supply of illegal immigrant labor, and partly we’d automat, and partly we’d raise wages, making agricultural labor more attractive to Americans.
“if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture?”
Because agricultural wages are not a large part of the cost of retail food doesn’t mean that increased agricultural wages wouldn’t have a significant impact on the farmers who’d have to pay them. At the retail level it would be small compared to shipping, processing, costs of running grocery stores…
But the farmers, who get only a small portion of your food budget, would feel it.
The easy availablity of cheap labor has suppressed agricultural automation in the US. Cut off the supply of illegal immigrant labor, and partly we’d automat, and partly we’d raise wages, making agricultural labor more attractive to Americans.
Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.
Also, I’m not so sure that agricultural automation is as straightforward as you seem to suggest. At minimum, we would need to make substantial improvements in sensors and in robotics in order to have something which could a) locate ripe items (especially with fruit), and b) harvest it without damage. Not saying it couldn’t be done. But it would definitely be a serious engineering challenge; not something which could be rolled out in a couple of years.
Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.
Also, I’m not so sure that agricultural automation is as straightforward as you seem to suggest. At minimum, we would need to make substantial improvements in sensors and in robotics in order to have something which could a) locate ripe items (especially with fruit), and b) harvest it without damage. Not saying it couldn’t be done. But it would definitely be a serious engineering challenge; not something which could be rolled out in a couple of years.
Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.
Also, I’m not so sure that agricultural automation is as straightforward as you seem to suggest. At minimum, we would need to make substantial improvements in sensors and in robotics in order to have something which could a) locate ripe items (especially with fruit), and b) harvest it without damage. Not saying it couldn’t be done. But it would definitely be a serious engineering challenge; not something which could be rolled out in a couple of years.
the US does not have a shortage of illiterate low skill workers.
Leaving “illiterate” to the side, you are correct, we do not have a shortage of low skill workers.
That’s because of all of the undocumented workers who are here.
Also, I’m not so sure that agricultural automation is as straightforward as you seem to suggest
Brett likes robots.
I blame sci-fi. 🙂
the US does not have a shortage of illiterate low skill workers.
Leaving “illiterate” to the side, you are correct, we do not have a shortage of low skill workers.
That’s because of all of the undocumented workers who are here.
Also, I’m not so sure that agricultural automation is as straightforward as you seem to suggest
Brett likes robots.
I blame sci-fi. 🙂
the US does not have a shortage of illiterate low skill workers.
Leaving “illiterate” to the side, you are correct, we do not have a shortage of low skill workers.
That’s because of all of the undocumented workers who are here.
Also, I’m not so sure that agricultural automation is as straightforward as you seem to suggest
Brett likes robots.
I blame sci-fi. 🙂
Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.
You beat me to it, wj. (Can’t have it both ways, right?)
Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.
You beat me to it, wj. (Can’t have it both ways, right?)
Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.
You beat me to it, wj. (Can’t have it both ways, right?)
To wander slightly (further; this was intended as an Open Thread, but I messed up on the title) from the topic.
Brett, you’ve mentioned that you, too, are an engineer. By any chance do you work in sensor technology? The kind of thing that is the real bottlenect to agricultural automation — even though you may not be anywhere near that particular sub-field.
Thanks
To wander slightly (further; this was intended as an Open Thread, but I messed up on the title) from the topic.
Brett, you’ve mentioned that you, too, are an engineer. By any chance do you work in sensor technology? The kind of thing that is the real bottlenect to agricultural automation — even though you may not be anywhere near that particular sub-field.
Thanks
To wander slightly (further; this was intended as an Open Thread, but I messed up on the title) from the topic.
Brett, you’ve mentioned that you, too, are an engineer. By any chance do you work in sensor technology? The kind of thing that is the real bottlenect to agricultural automation — even though you may not be anywhere near that particular sub-field.
Thanks
At minimum, we would need to make substantial improvements in sensors and in robotics in order to have something which could a) locate ripe items (especially with fruit), and b) harvest it without damage.
If past precedent is at all relevant, this is not what we would do.
Instead, we would engineer new varieties of produce that would play nicely with automated husbandry.
It would likely taste like cardboard, but at least the robots would be happy.
At minimum, we would need to make substantial improvements in sensors and in robotics in order to have something which could a) locate ripe items (especially with fruit), and b) harvest it without damage.
If past precedent is at all relevant, this is not what we would do.
Instead, we would engineer new varieties of produce that would play nicely with automated husbandry.
It would likely taste like cardboard, but at least the robots would be happy.
At minimum, we would need to make substantial improvements in sensors and in robotics in order to have something which could a) locate ripe items (especially with fruit), and b) harvest it without damage.
If past precedent is at all relevant, this is not what we would do.
Instead, we would engineer new varieties of produce that would play nicely with automated husbandry.
It would likely taste like cardboard, but at least the robots would be happy.
Someone, was it Russell, asked what is it about Mexico that fosters a culture of corruption.
Two words: family values.
As in nearly every other third world country. And second world country. And in every first world country not too awfully long ago.
I’d like to introduce you to my 78 brothers-in-law who work for me. Me auntie runs the government office. Talk to the hand with the baksheesh.
Further, I know this will cut close to home for someone, and I have a special place in my heart for the Philippines, having lived there for nearly three years, but you wanna see corruption as we define it, live there.
The point being that Filipinos, and Mexicans, and Latvians, and Malaysians, and Chinese, and the rest of us came here in part to escape corruption, or to at least upgrade to U.S. style corruption, which is much more lucrative.
Someone, was it Russell, asked what is it about Mexico that fosters a culture of corruption.
Two words: family values.
As in nearly every other third world country. And second world country. And in every first world country not too awfully long ago.
I’d like to introduce you to my 78 brothers-in-law who work for me. Me auntie runs the government office. Talk to the hand with the baksheesh.
Further, I know this will cut close to home for someone, and I have a special place in my heart for the Philippines, having lived there for nearly three years, but you wanna see corruption as we define it, live there.
The point being that Filipinos, and Mexicans, and Latvians, and Malaysians, and Chinese, and the rest of us came here in part to escape corruption, or to at least upgrade to U.S. style corruption, which is much more lucrative.
Someone, was it Russell, asked what is it about Mexico that fosters a culture of corruption.
Two words: family values.
As in nearly every other third world country. And second world country. And in every first world country not too awfully long ago.
I’d like to introduce you to my 78 brothers-in-law who work for me. Me auntie runs the government office. Talk to the hand with the baksheesh.
Further, I know this will cut close to home for someone, and I have a special place in my heart for the Philippines, having lived there for nearly three years, but you wanna see corruption as we define it, live there.
The point being that Filipinos, and Mexicans, and Latvians, and Malaysians, and Chinese, and the rest of us came here in part to escape corruption, or to at least upgrade to U.S. style corruption, which is much more lucrative.
“Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.”
Ever take an econ class? You never get to pass on ALL of your increased costs, unless you’re a monopoly provider. You get to pass on some of them, sure, but some you have to swallow.
I am a tooling engineer, but I follow progress in robotics. Robotic agricultural automation is going gangbusters. In OTHER countries.
“Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.”
Ever take an econ class? You never get to pass on ALL of your increased costs, unless you’re a monopoly provider. You get to pass on some of them, sure, but some you have to swallow.
I am a tooling engineer, but I follow progress in robotics. Robotic agricultural automation is going gangbusters. In OTHER countries.
“Why would the farmers feel it? If they raised their prices to accomodate it (which they obviously would, in order for the increase to filter through to the consumers), the impact on them would be minimal.”
Ever take an econ class? You never get to pass on ALL of your increased costs, unless you’re a monopoly provider. You get to pass on some of them, sure, but some you have to swallow.
I am a tooling engineer, but I follow progress in robotics. Robotic agricultural automation is going gangbusters. In OTHER countries.
“Further, I know this will cut close to home for someone, and I have a special place in my heart for the Philippines, having lived there for nearly three years, but you wanna see corruption as we define it, live there.”
My wife describes her native country as “A nation of thieves”. I follow the news. No surprise. I have a great deal of affection for the Philippines, not so much in the way of illusions.
I’m rather sick in the heart, watching my own country’s growing resemblance to their style of government.
“Further, I know this will cut close to home for someone, and I have a special place in my heart for the Philippines, having lived there for nearly three years, but you wanna see corruption as we define it, live there.”
My wife describes her native country as “A nation of thieves”. I follow the news. No surprise. I have a great deal of affection for the Philippines, not so much in the way of illusions.
I’m rather sick in the heart, watching my own country’s growing resemblance to their style of government.
“Further, I know this will cut close to home for someone, and I have a special place in my heart for the Philippines, having lived there for nearly three years, but you wanna see corruption as we define it, live there.”
My wife describes her native country as “A nation of thieves”. I follow the news. No surprise. I have a great deal of affection for the Philippines, not so much in the way of illusions.
I’m rather sick in the heart, watching my own country’s growing resemblance to their style of government.
I’ve spent time in Egypt where corruption is indeed a high art. But what people don’t realize is how could it not be? An Egyptian policeman is given a salary that will literally not be enough to provide food for himself, let alone his family, let alone his rent, transportation, etc. So of course, he’s going to shake down people for bribes. What is the alternative?
Places where corruption is endemic are places where there is no money, and so society warps and distorts in response.
I’ve spent time in Egypt where corruption is indeed a high art. But what people don’t realize is how could it not be? An Egyptian policeman is given a salary that will literally not be enough to provide food for himself, let alone his family, let alone his rent, transportation, etc. So of course, he’s going to shake down people for bribes. What is the alternative?
Places where corruption is endemic are places where there is no money, and so society warps and distorts in response.
I’ve spent time in Egypt where corruption is indeed a high art. But what people don’t realize is how could it not be? An Egyptian policeman is given a salary that will literally not be enough to provide food for himself, let alone his family, let alone his rent, transportation, etc. So of course, he’s going to shake down people for bribes. What is the alternative?
Places where corruption is endemic are places where there is no money, and so society warps and distorts in response.
“Places where corruption is endemic are places where there is no money, and so society warps and distorts in response.”
But they are also places where people find excuses to tolerate corruption, poo-poo complaints about it.
Emanual Rahm’s Chicago has been “disappearing” people into holding facilities that are not officially admitted to exist, so that they can be interrogated without counsel being able to find them. The media there knew, they found excuses not to report on it. It’s still hardly reported on.
All around us corruption is growing. And I think illegal immigration, and the dirty deals needed to enable it, are part of that. Corrupt nations need peons, not citizens. Why NOT import them, if they’re available nearby?
There are people who like the way Mexico is, and want us to become Mexico. Importing Mexicans is just one way they go about it.
“Places where corruption is endemic are places where there is no money, and so society warps and distorts in response.”
But they are also places where people find excuses to tolerate corruption, poo-poo complaints about it.
Emanual Rahm’s Chicago has been “disappearing” people into holding facilities that are not officially admitted to exist, so that they can be interrogated without counsel being able to find them. The media there knew, they found excuses not to report on it. It’s still hardly reported on.
All around us corruption is growing. And I think illegal immigration, and the dirty deals needed to enable it, are part of that. Corrupt nations need peons, not citizens. Why NOT import them, if they’re available nearby?
There are people who like the way Mexico is, and want us to become Mexico. Importing Mexicans is just one way they go about it.
“Places where corruption is endemic are places where there is no money, and so society warps and distorts in response.”
But they are also places where people find excuses to tolerate corruption, poo-poo complaints about it.
Emanual Rahm’s Chicago has been “disappearing” people into holding facilities that are not officially admitted to exist, so that they can be interrogated without counsel being able to find them. The media there knew, they found excuses not to report on it. It’s still hardly reported on.
All around us corruption is growing. And I think illegal immigration, and the dirty deals needed to enable it, are part of that. Corrupt nations need peons, not citizens. Why NOT import them, if they’re available nearby?
There are people who like the way Mexico is, and want us to become Mexico. Importing Mexicans is just one way they go about it.
why is it always the brink of doom in the conservative mind?
why is it always the brink of doom in the conservative mind?
why is it always the brink of doom in the conservative mind?
Why isn’t it, in the liberal mind?
It’s always the brink of doom, people forget that only because other people don’t, and work tirelessly to stave it off.
Why isn’t it, in the liberal mind?
It’s always the brink of doom, people forget that only because other people don’t, and work tirelessly to stave it off.
Why isn’t it, in the liberal mind?
It’s always the brink of doom, people forget that only because other people don’t, and work tirelessly to stave it off.
My wife describes her native country as “A nation of thieves”.
It seems to me that your wife makes an excellent example of someone who does NOT reflect the culture of the country that she comes from. Right?
So why would others who come here do so? Might not they, too, be trying in part to get away from the corruption which characterizes their native country?
My wife describes her native country as “A nation of thieves”.
It seems to me that your wife makes an excellent example of someone who does NOT reflect the culture of the country that she comes from. Right?
So why would others who come here do so? Might not they, too, be trying in part to get away from the corruption which characterizes their native country?
My wife describes her native country as “A nation of thieves”.
It seems to me that your wife makes an excellent example of someone who does NOT reflect the culture of the country that she comes from. Right?
So why would others who come here do so? Might not they, too, be trying in part to get away from the corruption which characterizes their native country?
It’s always the brink of doom
actually, it isn’t.
it’s not always 1938, or 9/10, or Dec 6th 1941. ISIS is not going to take over the US; al-Q, either; nor are we all going to get ebola; nor are we going to become Mexico; nor are there hordes of criminals lurking outside your bedroom window; nor is Obama going to rack up trillions in debt, or bankrupt the healthcare industry, or suspend the next elections, or institute Sharia law.
conservatism really does appears to be nothing more than screaming an endless parade of imaginary apocalyptic fears.
It’s always the brink of doom
actually, it isn’t.
it’s not always 1938, or 9/10, or Dec 6th 1941. ISIS is not going to take over the US; al-Q, either; nor are we all going to get ebola; nor are we going to become Mexico; nor are there hordes of criminals lurking outside your bedroom window; nor is Obama going to rack up trillions in debt, or bankrupt the healthcare industry, or suspend the next elections, or institute Sharia law.
conservatism really does appears to be nothing more than screaming an endless parade of imaginary apocalyptic fears.
It’s always the brink of doom
actually, it isn’t.
it’s not always 1938, or 9/10, or Dec 6th 1941. ISIS is not going to take over the US; al-Q, either; nor are we all going to get ebola; nor are we going to become Mexico; nor are there hordes of criminals lurking outside your bedroom window; nor is Obama going to rack up trillions in debt, or bankrupt the healthcare industry, or suspend the next elections, or institute Sharia law.
conservatism really does appears to be nothing more than screaming an endless parade of imaginary apocalyptic fears.
Cleek, certainly there are lots of folks, who say they are conservatives, who are screaming that it’s the end of the world. Or, at least, the end of the world as we know (and like) it. But they aren’t really all conservatives by any means — just the loudest ones.
Similarly, there are lots of liberals making similar complaints that X must be done . . . or else disaster will follow. Not as many, admittedly, as when I was in school in the late 1960s. But not an insignificant number either.
Perhaps we can agree that the doom-sayers on both sides have a terrible track record. Which is not to say that they have not, occasionally, been correct. “Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.” 😉
Cleek, certainly there are lots of folks, who say they are conservatives, who are screaming that it’s the end of the world. Or, at least, the end of the world as we know (and like) it. But they aren’t really all conservatives by any means — just the loudest ones.
Similarly, there are lots of liberals making similar complaints that X must be done . . . or else disaster will follow. Not as many, admittedly, as when I was in school in the late 1960s. But not an insignificant number either.
Perhaps we can agree that the doom-sayers on both sides have a terrible track record. Which is not to say that they have not, occasionally, been correct. “Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.” 😉
Cleek, certainly there are lots of folks, who say they are conservatives, who are screaming that it’s the end of the world. Or, at least, the end of the world as we know (and like) it. But they aren’t really all conservatives by any means — just the loudest ones.
Similarly, there are lots of liberals making similar complaints that X must be done . . . or else disaster will follow. Not as many, admittedly, as when I was in school in the late 1960s. But not an insignificant number either.
Perhaps we can agree that the doom-sayers on both sides have a terrible track record. Which is not to say that they have not, occasionally, been correct. “Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.” 😉
“It seems to me that your wife makes an excellent example of someone who does NOT reflect the culture of the country that she comes from. Right?
So why would others who come here do so? Might not they, too, be trying in part to get away from the corruption which characterizes their native country?”
For starters, she came here legally. She didn’t pass through that giant filter we have on our Southern border, that only lets through people who have contempt for our laws.
I make three points:
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
2. Legal immigration would not admit the same people as currently illegally immigrate.
so,
3 Even were we to open up legal immgration to the plausible max, we would have a problem with illegal immigration in the absence of enforcement.
“It seems to me that your wife makes an excellent example of someone who does NOT reflect the culture of the country that she comes from. Right?
So why would others who come here do so? Might not they, too, be trying in part to get away from the corruption which characterizes their native country?”
For starters, she came here legally. She didn’t pass through that giant filter we have on our Southern border, that only lets through people who have contempt for our laws.
I make three points:
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
2. Legal immigration would not admit the same people as currently illegally immigrate.
so,
3 Even were we to open up legal immgration to the plausible max, we would have a problem with illegal immigration in the absence of enforcement.
“It seems to me that your wife makes an excellent example of someone who does NOT reflect the culture of the country that she comes from. Right?
So why would others who come here do so? Might not they, too, be trying in part to get away from the corruption which characterizes their native country?”
For starters, she came here legally. She didn’t pass through that giant filter we have on our Southern border, that only lets through people who have contempt for our laws.
I make three points:
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
2. Legal immigration would not admit the same people as currently illegally immigrate.
so,
3 Even were we to open up legal immgration to the plausible max, we would have a problem with illegal immigration in the absence of enforcement.
That seems rather at odds with your argument that a major problem was that they were coming from countries with endemic corruption.
That seems rather at odds with your argument that a major problem was that they were coming from countries with endemic corruption.
That seems rather at odds with your argument that a major problem was that they were coming from countries with endemic corruption.
Corrupt nations need peons, not citizens.
I think there is some truth to that, although I think it lends itself more to the solution russell outlined (greatly increased legal immigration, etc).
I have friends in visa hell, or purgatory, or whatever you want to call it. Smart, well educated individuals who have been in the US for years, have worked, paid taxes, have friends/relationships, etc. Their life is *here*.
But getting their green card (let alone citizenship) is next to impossible. And until that happens, they have zero bargaining at their jobs because at any point if they are let go…they have to get out of the country and go ‘home’, when their only home is in the US. So, they accept shitty wages and poor working environments, because losing their job would massively disrupt their life.
And of course, a crop of people working for less who are locked into their current jobs, does wonders to depress the negotiating power of everybody else (e.g. citizens).
And my experience is in STEM academia. I can only imagine what that means for unskilled labor.
Legalize the labor supply, you dramatically increase the ability of the laborers to negotiate for higher wages. A lot of big corporate interests lose out in that proposition.
In short, I think we have a broken system, because nobody with political influence wants to fix it. Why increase the number of immigrants, when the illegal ones will work for less? Why increase the number of green cards, when H1Bs will work for less?
We can, apparently, absorb far more immigrants than we legally admit, judging by the number of illegal immigrants. Perhaps we should recognize that, and instead of attempting to reduce immigration to infeasible levels, work to prevent the perpetuation of a worker underclass.
Corrupt nations need peons, not citizens.
I think there is some truth to that, although I think it lends itself more to the solution russell outlined (greatly increased legal immigration, etc).
I have friends in visa hell, or purgatory, or whatever you want to call it. Smart, well educated individuals who have been in the US for years, have worked, paid taxes, have friends/relationships, etc. Their life is *here*.
But getting their green card (let alone citizenship) is next to impossible. And until that happens, they have zero bargaining at their jobs because at any point if they are let go…they have to get out of the country and go ‘home’, when their only home is in the US. So, they accept shitty wages and poor working environments, because losing their job would massively disrupt their life.
And of course, a crop of people working for less who are locked into their current jobs, does wonders to depress the negotiating power of everybody else (e.g. citizens).
And my experience is in STEM academia. I can only imagine what that means for unskilled labor.
Legalize the labor supply, you dramatically increase the ability of the laborers to negotiate for higher wages. A lot of big corporate interests lose out in that proposition.
In short, I think we have a broken system, because nobody with political influence wants to fix it. Why increase the number of immigrants, when the illegal ones will work for less? Why increase the number of green cards, when H1Bs will work for less?
We can, apparently, absorb far more immigrants than we legally admit, judging by the number of illegal immigrants. Perhaps we should recognize that, and instead of attempting to reduce immigration to infeasible levels, work to prevent the perpetuation of a worker underclass.
Corrupt nations need peons, not citizens.
I think there is some truth to that, although I think it lends itself more to the solution russell outlined (greatly increased legal immigration, etc).
I have friends in visa hell, or purgatory, or whatever you want to call it. Smart, well educated individuals who have been in the US for years, have worked, paid taxes, have friends/relationships, etc. Their life is *here*.
But getting their green card (let alone citizenship) is next to impossible. And until that happens, they have zero bargaining at their jobs because at any point if they are let go…they have to get out of the country and go ‘home’, when their only home is in the US. So, they accept shitty wages and poor working environments, because losing their job would massively disrupt their life.
And of course, a crop of people working for less who are locked into their current jobs, does wonders to depress the negotiating power of everybody else (e.g. citizens).
And my experience is in STEM academia. I can only imagine what that means for unskilled labor.
Legalize the labor supply, you dramatically increase the ability of the laborers to negotiate for higher wages. A lot of big corporate interests lose out in that proposition.
In short, I think we have a broken system, because nobody with political influence wants to fix it. Why increase the number of immigrants, when the illegal ones will work for less? Why increase the number of green cards, when H1Bs will work for less?
We can, apparently, absorb far more immigrants than we legally admit, judging by the number of illegal immigrants. Perhaps we should recognize that, and instead of attempting to reduce immigration to infeasible levels, work to prevent the perpetuation of a worker underclass.
Also, regarding the phenomenon of Mexican/Latin American immigrants, perhaps unwinding the massively expensive and unsuccessful war on drugs would have the side benefit of reducing the the power/influence of drug gangs in those regions?
I think nothing will slow immigration as much as NOT funneling a lot of money to illegal and violent organizations destabilizing countries such as Mexico.
Also, regarding the phenomenon of Mexican/Latin American immigrants, perhaps unwinding the massively expensive and unsuccessful war on drugs would have the side benefit of reducing the the power/influence of drug gangs in those regions?
I think nothing will slow immigration as much as NOT funneling a lot of money to illegal and violent organizations destabilizing countries such as Mexico.
Also, regarding the phenomenon of Mexican/Latin American immigrants, perhaps unwinding the massively expensive and unsuccessful war on drugs would have the side benefit of reducing the the power/influence of drug gangs in those regions?
I think nothing will slow immigration as much as NOT funneling a lot of money to illegal and violent organizations destabilizing countries such as Mexico.
“That seems rather at odds with your argument that a major problem was that they were coming from countries with endemic corruption.”
They’re coming from countries with endemic corruption, AND we’re selecting the ones who are corrupt, by blocking legal immigration, and encouraging illegal. Even corrupt countries have honest people in them. Our current policies keep them there.
“But getting their green card (let alone citizenship) is next to impossible.”
I sympathize with them. They’re also victims of the push to keep illegal immgration going. The political elites, who perhaps really do think opposition to illegal immigration is xenophobia, punish legal immigrants, as an attempted sop to a public that wants illegal immigration stopped.
“Perhaps we should recognize that, and instead of attempting to reduce immigration to infeasible levels, work to prevent the perpetuation of a worker underclass.”
That’s what I advocate: Cracking down on illegal immigration, and increasing legal immigration. Once again, they’re not the same people, so you can’t stop illegal immigration by increasing the legal.
I don’t oppose immigration, I want it. But I want the best immigrants for the US, not the ones most willing to violate our laws.
“That seems rather at odds with your argument that a major problem was that they were coming from countries with endemic corruption.”
They’re coming from countries with endemic corruption, AND we’re selecting the ones who are corrupt, by blocking legal immigration, and encouraging illegal. Even corrupt countries have honest people in them. Our current policies keep them there.
“But getting their green card (let alone citizenship) is next to impossible.”
I sympathize with them. They’re also victims of the push to keep illegal immgration going. The political elites, who perhaps really do think opposition to illegal immigration is xenophobia, punish legal immigrants, as an attempted sop to a public that wants illegal immigration stopped.
“Perhaps we should recognize that, and instead of attempting to reduce immigration to infeasible levels, work to prevent the perpetuation of a worker underclass.”
That’s what I advocate: Cracking down on illegal immigration, and increasing legal immigration. Once again, they’re not the same people, so you can’t stop illegal immigration by increasing the legal.
I don’t oppose immigration, I want it. But I want the best immigrants for the US, not the ones most willing to violate our laws.
“That seems rather at odds with your argument that a major problem was that they were coming from countries with endemic corruption.”
They’re coming from countries with endemic corruption, AND we’re selecting the ones who are corrupt, by blocking legal immigration, and encouraging illegal. Even corrupt countries have honest people in them. Our current policies keep them there.
“But getting their green card (let alone citizenship) is next to impossible.”
I sympathize with them. They’re also victims of the push to keep illegal immgration going. The political elites, who perhaps really do think opposition to illegal immigration is xenophobia, punish legal immigrants, as an attempted sop to a public that wants illegal immigration stopped.
“Perhaps we should recognize that, and instead of attempting to reduce immigration to infeasible levels, work to prevent the perpetuation of a worker underclass.”
That’s what I advocate: Cracking down on illegal immigration, and increasing legal immigration. Once again, they’re not the same people, so you can’t stop illegal immigration by increasing the legal.
I don’t oppose immigration, I want it. But I want the best immigrants for the US, not the ones most willing to violate our laws.
IMO your (1) and (2) are crap, but your (3) is plausible.
So you tell me:
The border is over 1950 miles long. As the crow flies, that is about the distance from NYC to Salt Lake City. Not as the crow files, it’s within 100 miles of the distance by highway from Chicago to Los Angeles.
350 million people cross that border *legally* every year. It is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world, just counting *legal* crossings.
There are 53 million *legal citizens* of Hispanic heritage in the US, and a very large number of them – tens of millions – live in the states that border Mexico. Spanish-speaking people have been living in that area, on either side of the current border, since the 16th C.
So, you want the immigration laws as they stand enforced, so that no undocumented Mexicans or, presumably, other folks from south of the border can come illegally into the US.
Tell me how you are going to do that.
Tell me what it is going to cost, tell me what level of police and/or immigration agency presence it’s going to require across almost 2,000 miles of border, tell me what kinds of defensive physical structures it is going to take, tell me how you are going to tell undocumented immigrants apart from citizens and legal residents who look and talk exactly like their undocumented counterparts, and if you can’t tell me how you’re going to tell them apart tell me how much harassment Hispanic citizens are going to have to put up with to implement your plan.
How does it work, what does it cost, what new problems does it introduce in the process of solving the one you want solved.
IMO your (1) and (2) are crap, but your (3) is plausible.
So you tell me:
The border is over 1950 miles long. As the crow flies, that is about the distance from NYC to Salt Lake City. Not as the crow files, it’s within 100 miles of the distance by highway from Chicago to Los Angeles.
350 million people cross that border *legally* every year. It is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world, just counting *legal* crossings.
There are 53 million *legal citizens* of Hispanic heritage in the US, and a very large number of them – tens of millions – live in the states that border Mexico. Spanish-speaking people have been living in that area, on either side of the current border, since the 16th C.
So, you want the immigration laws as they stand enforced, so that no undocumented Mexicans or, presumably, other folks from south of the border can come illegally into the US.
Tell me how you are going to do that.
Tell me what it is going to cost, tell me what level of police and/or immigration agency presence it’s going to require across almost 2,000 miles of border, tell me what kinds of defensive physical structures it is going to take, tell me how you are going to tell undocumented immigrants apart from citizens and legal residents who look and talk exactly like their undocumented counterparts, and if you can’t tell me how you’re going to tell them apart tell me how much harassment Hispanic citizens are going to have to put up with to implement your plan.
How does it work, what does it cost, what new problems does it introduce in the process of solving the one you want solved.
IMO your (1) and (2) are crap, but your (3) is plausible.
So you tell me:
The border is over 1950 miles long. As the crow flies, that is about the distance from NYC to Salt Lake City. Not as the crow files, it’s within 100 miles of the distance by highway from Chicago to Los Angeles.
350 million people cross that border *legally* every year. It is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world, just counting *legal* crossings.
There are 53 million *legal citizens* of Hispanic heritage in the US, and a very large number of them – tens of millions – live in the states that border Mexico. Spanish-speaking people have been living in that area, on either side of the current border, since the 16th C.
So, you want the immigration laws as they stand enforced, so that no undocumented Mexicans or, presumably, other folks from south of the border can come illegally into the US.
Tell me how you are going to do that.
Tell me what it is going to cost, tell me what level of police and/or immigration agency presence it’s going to require across almost 2,000 miles of border, tell me what kinds of defensive physical structures it is going to take, tell me how you are going to tell undocumented immigrants apart from citizens and legal residents who look and talk exactly like their undocumented counterparts, and if you can’t tell me how you’re going to tell them apart tell me how much harassment Hispanic citizens are going to have to put up with to implement your plan.
How does it work, what does it cost, what new problems does it introduce in the process of solving the one you want solved.
The US-Mexico border is, as you say, about 2k miles long.
The high tech security fence Israel put up to stop Palestinian terrorists cost, it is estimated, about $1 million per mile.
So, $2 billion for the same fence along the US-Mexico border.
Sounds like a lot? The 2015 defense budget is between $550 and $650 billion, depending on whether Congress or the President get their way.
So, it’s about one day of defense spending.
See, the thing about being a big country, is that the border, though big, is still small compared to the size of the country.
That would be the physical approach. But, really, most of them are coming for some combination of jobs, and arranging for their children to become Americans without having to be nationalized. (A lot of pregnant Mexicans cross the border each year for that reason.)
End birthright citizenship for people whose parents weren’t here legally, do a better job of preventing illegals from getting jobs, end the massive incentives being provided to encourage illegal immgration, and it would mostly end on it’s own.
The US-Mexico border is, as you say, about 2k miles long.
The high tech security fence Israel put up to stop Palestinian terrorists cost, it is estimated, about $1 million per mile.
So, $2 billion for the same fence along the US-Mexico border.
Sounds like a lot? The 2015 defense budget is between $550 and $650 billion, depending on whether Congress or the President get their way.
So, it’s about one day of defense spending.
See, the thing about being a big country, is that the border, though big, is still small compared to the size of the country.
That would be the physical approach. But, really, most of them are coming for some combination of jobs, and arranging for their children to become Americans without having to be nationalized. (A lot of pregnant Mexicans cross the border each year for that reason.)
End birthright citizenship for people whose parents weren’t here legally, do a better job of preventing illegals from getting jobs, end the massive incentives being provided to encourage illegal immgration, and it would mostly end on it’s own.
The US-Mexico border is, as you say, about 2k miles long.
The high tech security fence Israel put up to stop Palestinian terrorists cost, it is estimated, about $1 million per mile.
So, $2 billion for the same fence along the US-Mexico border.
Sounds like a lot? The 2015 defense budget is between $550 and $650 billion, depending on whether Congress or the President get their way.
So, it’s about one day of defense spending.
See, the thing about being a big country, is that the border, though big, is still small compared to the size of the country.
That would be the physical approach. But, really, most of them are coming for some combination of jobs, and arranging for their children to become Americans without having to be nationalized. (A lot of pregnant Mexicans cross the border each year for that reason.)
End birthright citizenship for people whose parents weren’t here legally, do a better job of preventing illegals from getting jobs, end the massive incentives being provided to encourage illegal immgration, and it would mostly end on it’s own.
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
Brett, do you speed? I really hope you don’t, because I’m not sure how I’d feel about carrying on a conversation with a thief and a murderer.
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
Brett, do you speed? I really hope you don’t, because I’m not sure how I’d feel about carrying on a conversation with a thief and a murderer.
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
Brett, do you speed? I really hope you don’t, because I’m not sure how I’d feel about carrying on a conversation with a thief and a murderer.
ignore my comments in this thread and just read thompson’s 2:54 and 2:58.
Regarding this:
not the ones most willing to violate our laws.
You’re also talking about the ones most motivated to come, the ones who are literally willing to risk death to get here.
And your solution apparently is to just start enforcing our laws, so the undesirable immigrants can’t come in.
As a practical matter they *are not enforceable*, any more than 100 other stupid, ill-conceived laws and policies are enforceable.
So, it’s a nice thought perhaps, but it’s sort of beside the point.
ignore my comments in this thread and just read thompson’s 2:54 and 2:58.
Regarding this:
not the ones most willing to violate our laws.
You’re also talking about the ones most motivated to come, the ones who are literally willing to risk death to get here.
And your solution apparently is to just start enforcing our laws, so the undesirable immigrants can’t come in.
As a practical matter they *are not enforceable*, any more than 100 other stupid, ill-conceived laws and policies are enforceable.
So, it’s a nice thought perhaps, but it’s sort of beside the point.
ignore my comments in this thread and just read thompson’s 2:54 and 2:58.
Regarding this:
not the ones most willing to violate our laws.
You’re also talking about the ones most motivated to come, the ones who are literally willing to risk death to get here.
And your solution apparently is to just start enforcing our laws, so the undesirable immigrants can’t come in.
As a practical matter they *are not enforceable*, any more than 100 other stupid, ill-conceived laws and policies are enforceable.
So, it’s a nice thought perhaps, but it’s sort of beside the point.
Ever take an econ class? You never get to pass on ALL of your increased costs, unless you’re a monopoly provider.
At the micro level of the firm, you cannot “pass on” any price increases. Under conditions of the standard pure competition model you are merely a price taker of all inputs purchased.
Given the nature of the work (short term and intermittent employment, etc.), there is no guarantee that higher wages would keep labor in the fields. Given imports, there is no guarantee that a lot of growers would not go under.
Free market economics also posits the free flow of labor as well as capital. Conservatives appear to be against this, but they will never cease their mansplaining to the liberal hoi poloi about “real economics”.
Ever take an econ class? You never get to pass on ALL of your increased costs, unless you’re a monopoly provider.
At the micro level of the firm, you cannot “pass on” any price increases. Under conditions of the standard pure competition model you are merely a price taker of all inputs purchased.
Given the nature of the work (short term and intermittent employment, etc.), there is no guarantee that higher wages would keep labor in the fields. Given imports, there is no guarantee that a lot of growers would not go under.
Free market economics also posits the free flow of labor as well as capital. Conservatives appear to be against this, but they will never cease their mansplaining to the liberal hoi poloi about “real economics”.
Ever take an econ class? You never get to pass on ALL of your increased costs, unless you’re a monopoly provider.
At the micro level of the firm, you cannot “pass on” any price increases. Under conditions of the standard pure competition model you are merely a price taker of all inputs purchased.
Given the nature of the work (short term and intermittent employment, etc.), there is no guarantee that higher wages would keep labor in the fields. Given imports, there is no guarantee that a lot of growers would not go under.
Free market economics also posits the free flow of labor as well as capital. Conservatives appear to be against this, but they will never cease their mansplaining to the liberal hoi poloi about “real economics”.
What would it cost?
A good question! The Iraeli border fence cost $6 1/2 million per mile to construct. Then there are operating expenses.
What would it cost?
A good question! The Iraeli border fence cost $6 1/2 million per mile to construct. Then there are operating expenses.
What would it cost?
A good question! The Iraeli border fence cost $6 1/2 million per mile to construct. Then there are operating expenses.
So, $2 billion for the same fence along the US-Mexico border.
I’ve seen $1.6M to $2.3M per mile.
Still well within our reach, financially.
What are the possible downsides of building a 2,000 mile long physical security barrier across our entire southern boundary?
So, $2 billion for the same fence along the US-Mexico border.
I’ve seen $1.6M to $2.3M per mile.
Still well within our reach, financially.
What are the possible downsides of building a 2,000 mile long physical security barrier across our entire southern boundary?
So, $2 billion for the same fence along the US-Mexico border.
I’ve seen $1.6M to $2.3M per mile.
Still well within our reach, financially.
What are the possible downsides of building a 2,000 mile long physical security barrier across our entire southern boundary?
Do we get to factor reduced law enforcment costs? Because there will be some savings on that end, illegal immigrants are rather less law abiding than natives or legal immigrants. Even though ‘catch and release’ policies somewhat disguise this, they are disproportionately represented in the prison population.
Do we get to factor reduced law enforcment costs? Because there will be some savings on that end, illegal immigrants are rather less law abiding than natives or legal immigrants. Even though ‘catch and release’ policies somewhat disguise this, they are disproportionately represented in the prison population.
Do we get to factor reduced law enforcment costs? Because there will be some savings on that end, illegal immigrants are rather less law abiding than natives or legal immigrants. Even though ‘catch and release’ policies somewhat disguise this, they are disproportionately represented in the prison population.
a 2000 mile version of the Israeli prison wall… because Mexicans want to pick our fncking fruit for us.
conservatism is lunacy.
a 2000 mile version of the Israeli prison wall… because Mexicans want to pick our fncking fruit for us.
conservatism is lunacy.
a 2000 mile version of the Israeli prison wall… because Mexicans want to pick our fncking fruit for us.
conservatism is lunacy.
“What are the possible downsides of building a 2,000 mile long physical security barrier across our entire southern boundary?”
There would have to be numerous border crossings, which would have to be manned.
It wouldn’t be pretty.
Maybe simpler to just hire unemployed people to stand shoulder to shoulder along the border.
“What are the possible downsides of building a 2,000 mile long physical security barrier across our entire southern boundary?”
There would have to be numerous border crossings, which would have to be manned.
It wouldn’t be pretty.
Maybe simpler to just hire unemployed people to stand shoulder to shoulder along the border.
“What are the possible downsides of building a 2,000 mile long physical security barrier across our entire southern boundary?”
There would have to be numerous border crossings, which would have to be manned.
It wouldn’t be pretty.
Maybe simpler to just hire unemployed people to stand shoulder to shoulder along the border.
A 2000 mile long wall, because politicians want to elect a new people to replace us.
(And do try to remember that neither the West Bank nor Gaza are internal to Israel. It isn’t just Israel walling the Palestinians in.)
Don’t think we’d actually need a physical wall, if we just replaced the politicians, though. Stop warping so many policies to enable the illegal immigration, and it would drop to tolerable levels on it’s own.
A 2000 mile long wall, because politicians want to elect a new people to replace us.
(And do try to remember that neither the West Bank nor Gaza are internal to Israel. It isn’t just Israel walling the Palestinians in.)
Don’t think we’d actually need a physical wall, if we just replaced the politicians, though. Stop warping so many policies to enable the illegal immigration, and it would drop to tolerable levels on it’s own.
A 2000 mile long wall, because politicians want to elect a new people to replace us.
(And do try to remember that neither the West Bank nor Gaza are internal to Israel. It isn’t just Israel walling the Palestinians in.)
Don’t think we’d actually need a physical wall, if we just replaced the politicians, though. Stop warping so many policies to enable the illegal immigration, and it would drop to tolerable levels on it’s own.
oops. My cost/mi. was in Israeli currency. Carry on.
they are disproportionately represented in the prison population.
Is there some other racial group that shares that attribute? I wonder.
oops. My cost/mi. was in Israeli currency. Carry on.
they are disproportionately represented in the prison population.
Is there some other racial group that shares that attribute? I wonder.
oops. My cost/mi. was in Israeli currency. Carry on.
they are disproportionately represented in the prison population.
Is there some other racial group that shares that attribute? I wonder.
Do we get to factor reduced law enforcment costs?
Sure.
Note that, for most of its length, the Israeli / Palestinian “wall” is chain link fence.
So, law enforcement reduction may not be quite as great as you might think.
But, sure.
There would have to be numerous border crossings, which would have to be manned.
Those already exist. Nothing new there.
Can’t think of any other downsides?
Do we get to factor reduced law enforcment costs?
Sure.
Note that, for most of its length, the Israeli / Palestinian “wall” is chain link fence.
So, law enforcement reduction may not be quite as great as you might think.
But, sure.
There would have to be numerous border crossings, which would have to be manned.
Those already exist. Nothing new there.
Can’t think of any other downsides?
Do we get to factor reduced law enforcment costs?
Sure.
Note that, for most of its length, the Israeli / Palestinian “wall” is chain link fence.
So, law enforcement reduction may not be quite as great as you might think.
But, sure.
There would have to be numerous border crossings, which would have to be manned.
Those already exist. Nothing new there.
Can’t think of any other downsides?
wj: “Russell, just out of curiosity, if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture? Yes, the farm owners would have to pass it along. But obviously it would impact retail sales not at all.
And yet, if memory serves, the response to Cesar Chavez’ attempts to organize the farm workers was hysterical. Why not simply pass the added expense along and avoid the pain (and expense) for fighting it?”
As noted, because they’d have to eat some of those increased costs.
Also (IMHO) because this was a rebellion against those wielding power, and those wielding power never like that.
wj: “Russell, just out of curiosity, if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture? Yes, the farm owners would have to pass it along. But obviously it would impact retail sales not at all.
And yet, if memory serves, the response to Cesar Chavez’ attempts to organize the farm workers was hysterical. Why not simply pass the added expense along and avoid the pain (and expense) for fighting it?”
As noted, because they’d have to eat some of those increased costs.
Also (IMHO) because this was a rebellion against those wielding power, and those wielding power never like that.
wj: “Russell, just out of curiosity, if the impact of such a big increase in farm wages would be so tiny, why is there such resistance to it in agriculture? Yes, the farm owners would have to pass it along. But obviously it would impact retail sales not at all.
And yet, if memory serves, the response to Cesar Chavez’ attempts to organize the farm workers was hysterical. Why not simply pass the added expense along and avoid the pain (and expense) for fighting it?”
As noted, because they’d have to eat some of those increased costs.
Also (IMHO) because this was a rebellion against those wielding power, and those wielding power never like that.
Two problems with the fence the Mexican border approach:
First, last I looked we actually had more people here illegally who had actually entered entirely legally. And then stayed when their visas expired. Totally unaddressable with a fence.
Second, the Canadian border. Lots longer — even if you don’t count the border with Alaska. And even those who cannot get a visa to enter the US directly have a shot at getting one to enter Canada. And then walk across that border.
In short, isolation via border security is simply inadequate. So either we figure out something else (and I have no idea what might be workable there, at least that doesn’t involve a massive police state to track everybody who comes here at all), or we decide that the whole “first enforce the laws against coming here” trope is simply a way to avoid making any changes in the immigration laws.
Two problems with the fence the Mexican border approach:
First, last I looked we actually had more people here illegally who had actually entered entirely legally. And then stayed when their visas expired. Totally unaddressable with a fence.
Second, the Canadian border. Lots longer — even if you don’t count the border with Alaska. And even those who cannot get a visa to enter the US directly have a shot at getting one to enter Canada. And then walk across that border.
In short, isolation via border security is simply inadequate. So either we figure out something else (and I have no idea what might be workable there, at least that doesn’t involve a massive police state to track everybody who comes here at all), or we decide that the whole “first enforce the laws against coming here” trope is simply a way to avoid making any changes in the immigration laws.
Two problems with the fence the Mexican border approach:
First, last I looked we actually had more people here illegally who had actually entered entirely legally. And then stayed when their visas expired. Totally unaddressable with a fence.
Second, the Canadian border. Lots longer — even if you don’t count the border with Alaska. And even those who cannot get a visa to enter the US directly have a shot at getting one to enter Canada. And then walk across that border.
In short, isolation via border security is simply inadequate. So either we figure out something else (and I have no idea what might be workable there, at least that doesn’t involve a massive police state to track everybody who comes here at all), or we decide that the whole “first enforce the laws against coming here” trope is simply a way to avoid making any changes in the immigration laws.
one small practical problem to be considered is that a large potion of our southern boarder is in the middle of the Rio Grand
one small practical problem to be considered is that a large potion of our southern boarder is in the middle of the Rio Grand
one small practical problem to be considered is that a large potion of our southern boarder is in the middle of the Rio Grand
Cracking down on illegal immigration
do a better job of preventing illegals from getting jobs
So, I’d like to second russell’s concerns about cost of enforcement. And it’s not just the concern about the cost of a border fence. It’s going to require more agents on the border, because, as noted, there is a substantial amount of legal traffic there every day. But its not just the economics of it.
How, exactly, do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment? Biometrics that get registered to a national database? Making it illegal to pay in cash? To possess cash? Sending SWAT teams to clear out the day laborers at Home Depot?
Or, to rephrase my question, how do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment in a fashion that isn’t massively invasive and requires giving government new powers of investigation?
Forgive my skepticism, but I’m imagining a restaurant that pays a couple of (illegal) dish washers in cash. What investigative powers would the government need to sniff that out, how many regulations would be needed to prevent that, and how many agents would we have to hire off the public purse to enforce this?
What about cleaning crews? Do we need a new government department of cleaning service licensing and severe fines for anybody that hires an unlicensed cleaner?
It is almost impossible to effectively regulate a black market or a gray market. Especially with while limiting government power and size. The best way to do so is to construct a parallel white market. If people want to come here and work, let them. Open up enough legal channels to do so, that the risks of illegal immigration become prohibitive.
Cracking down on illegal immigration
do a better job of preventing illegals from getting jobs
So, I’d like to second russell’s concerns about cost of enforcement. And it’s not just the concern about the cost of a border fence. It’s going to require more agents on the border, because, as noted, there is a substantial amount of legal traffic there every day. But its not just the economics of it.
How, exactly, do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment? Biometrics that get registered to a national database? Making it illegal to pay in cash? To possess cash? Sending SWAT teams to clear out the day laborers at Home Depot?
Or, to rephrase my question, how do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment in a fashion that isn’t massively invasive and requires giving government new powers of investigation?
Forgive my skepticism, but I’m imagining a restaurant that pays a couple of (illegal) dish washers in cash. What investigative powers would the government need to sniff that out, how many regulations would be needed to prevent that, and how many agents would we have to hire off the public purse to enforce this?
What about cleaning crews? Do we need a new government department of cleaning service licensing and severe fines for anybody that hires an unlicensed cleaner?
It is almost impossible to effectively regulate a black market or a gray market. Especially with while limiting government power and size. The best way to do so is to construct a parallel white market. If people want to come here and work, let them. Open up enough legal channels to do so, that the risks of illegal immigration become prohibitive.
Cracking down on illegal immigration
do a better job of preventing illegals from getting jobs
So, I’d like to second russell’s concerns about cost of enforcement. And it’s not just the concern about the cost of a border fence. It’s going to require more agents on the border, because, as noted, there is a substantial amount of legal traffic there every day. But its not just the economics of it.
How, exactly, do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment? Biometrics that get registered to a national database? Making it illegal to pay in cash? To possess cash? Sending SWAT teams to clear out the day laborers at Home Depot?
Or, to rephrase my question, how do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment in a fashion that isn’t massively invasive and requires giving government new powers of investigation?
Forgive my skepticism, but I’m imagining a restaurant that pays a couple of (illegal) dish washers in cash. What investigative powers would the government need to sniff that out, how many regulations would be needed to prevent that, and how many agents would we have to hire off the public purse to enforce this?
What about cleaning crews? Do we need a new government department of cleaning service licensing and severe fines for anybody that hires an unlicensed cleaner?
It is almost impossible to effectively regulate a black market or a gray market. Especially with while limiting government power and size. The best way to do so is to construct a parallel white market. If people want to come here and work, let them. Open up enough legal channels to do so, that the risks of illegal immigration become prohibitive.
Don’t think we’d actually need a physical wall, if we just replaced the politicians, though
OK, so no wall after all. Just replace all of our elected officials.
Because they want to elect new people to replace us.
Is this turning into one of those “we were just outside of Barstow…” things?
Don’t think we’d actually need a physical wall, if we just replaced the politicians, though
OK, so no wall after all. Just replace all of our elected officials.
Because they want to elect new people to replace us.
Is this turning into one of those “we were just outside of Barstow…” things?
Don’t think we’d actually need a physical wall, if we just replaced the politicians, though
OK, so no wall after all. Just replace all of our elected officials.
Because they want to elect new people to replace us.
Is this turning into one of those “we were just outside of Barstow…” things?
one small practical problem to be considered is that a large potion of our southern boarder is in the middle of the Rio Grand
Jeff, haven’t I read that the Rio Grande is has gotten to the point where much of its length is actually dry some of the year, due to overuse? Which should make installing a fence feasible….
one small practical problem to be considered is that a large potion of our southern boarder is in the middle of the Rio Grand
Jeff, haven’t I read that the Rio Grande is has gotten to the point where much of its length is actually dry some of the year, due to overuse? Which should make installing a fence feasible….
one small practical problem to be considered is that a large potion of our southern boarder is in the middle of the Rio Grand
Jeff, haven’t I read that the Rio Grande is has gotten to the point where much of its length is actually dry some of the year, due to overuse? Which should make installing a fence feasible….
remember conservatives, a fence that keeps Them out also keeps you in. makes it easy for the govt to round you up when it’s time to take you to your FEMA camp.
remember conservatives, a fence that keeps Them out also keeps you in. makes it easy for the govt to round you up when it’s time to take you to your FEMA camp.
remember conservatives, a fence that keeps Them out also keeps you in. makes it easy for the govt to round you up when it’s time to take you to your FEMA camp.
If people want to come here and work, let them.
Absolutely. This should apply to doctors, lawyers, and accountants as well as agricultural workers and day laborers.
It is not necessarily “too many uneducated people” that explains low wages in some sectors (well, too many actually)of the economy. It is public policies that tilt power in the labor market toward employers.
If people want to come here and work, let them.
Absolutely. This should apply to doctors, lawyers, and accountants as well as agricultural workers and day laborers.
It is not necessarily “too many uneducated people” that explains low wages in some sectors (well, too many actually)of the economy. It is public policies that tilt power in the labor market toward employers.
If people want to come here and work, let them.
Absolutely. This should apply to doctors, lawyers, and accountants as well as agricultural workers and day laborers.
It is not necessarily “too many uneducated people” that explains low wages in some sectors (well, too many actually)of the economy. It is public policies that tilt power in the labor market toward employers.
And I wonder what a continent-spanning impenetrable fence would do to wildlife.
And I wonder what a continent-spanning impenetrable fence would do to wildlife.
And I wonder what a continent-spanning impenetrable fence would do to wildlife.
Hartmut, it’s interesting. I had always understood that anti-Semitism was simply a sloppy way of saying “anti-Jews.” But it occurs to me that it may have actually been an accurate assessment of what was really going on in people’s minds. Considering the attitude in Europe towards the more recent Semitic immigrants — who, after all, are Muslim rather than Jewish.
I wonder. Was the label conscious? Or was it just accidently accurate?
I do not have the study at hand I read but from what I remember the term anti-semitism was deliberately chosen to be distinct from anti-Judaism. The latter was (in theory*) just against the religion the former against the people. Plus it sounded more scientific and that was an important part for the proponents of the new racial definition of Jew. It was not aimed at the other semites (Arabs etc.). Anti-Judaists wanted to convert Jews to their branch of Christianity, anti-semites were totally opposed to that. What makes it even more complicated is that some similar phenomenon already existed in the church of late antiquity, most prominently St.John Chrysostome, that objected to the baptism of Jews because in their opinion Jews were accursed by G*d as a people and thus damned to hell from conception with no hope of salvation. So, it was a spiritual not biological reasoning applied to a group that happened to be related by blood too**. It never became official church doctrine. The anti-semites were not interested in salvation or lack thereof of Jews but their own salvation from ‘blood contamination’ by Jews (understood as a race). Later the blood part was even taken literally and Jewishness treated as a disease that could be transmitted by blood contact*** (so a blood transfusion from a Jew would turn the receiver into another carrier of the Jewish disease). We know what came out of it in the end.
*cf. Spain for the prejudice against New Christians (converted Jews and their descendants) by Old Christians (people with no Jews (and probably Muslisms) in their (official) family tree). Similar distrust of converts could be found in most European countries. They were under general suspicion of being at best opportunists and likely still practicing the old faith in secret.
**It could as well have been ‘anyone who has an ancestor suffering from leprosy at date X’ or ‘anyone within X miles of Golgotha on the original Good Friday and their descendants’
***and sex of course. Sleep with a Jew and you get infected.
Hartmut, it’s interesting. I had always understood that anti-Semitism was simply a sloppy way of saying “anti-Jews.” But it occurs to me that it may have actually been an accurate assessment of what was really going on in people’s minds. Considering the attitude in Europe towards the more recent Semitic immigrants — who, after all, are Muslim rather than Jewish.
I wonder. Was the label conscious? Or was it just accidently accurate?
I do not have the study at hand I read but from what I remember the term anti-semitism was deliberately chosen to be distinct from anti-Judaism. The latter was (in theory*) just against the religion the former against the people. Plus it sounded more scientific and that was an important part for the proponents of the new racial definition of Jew. It was not aimed at the other semites (Arabs etc.). Anti-Judaists wanted to convert Jews to their branch of Christianity, anti-semites were totally opposed to that. What makes it even more complicated is that some similar phenomenon already existed in the church of late antiquity, most prominently St.John Chrysostome, that objected to the baptism of Jews because in their opinion Jews were accursed by G*d as a people and thus damned to hell from conception with no hope of salvation. So, it was a spiritual not biological reasoning applied to a group that happened to be related by blood too**. It never became official church doctrine. The anti-semites were not interested in salvation or lack thereof of Jews but their own salvation from ‘blood contamination’ by Jews (understood as a race). Later the blood part was even taken literally and Jewishness treated as a disease that could be transmitted by blood contact*** (so a blood transfusion from a Jew would turn the receiver into another carrier of the Jewish disease). We know what came out of it in the end.
*cf. Spain for the prejudice against New Christians (converted Jews and their descendants) by Old Christians (people with no Jews (and probably Muslisms) in their (official) family tree). Similar distrust of converts could be found in most European countries. They were under general suspicion of being at best opportunists and likely still practicing the old faith in secret.
**It could as well have been ‘anyone who has an ancestor suffering from leprosy at date X’ or ‘anyone within X miles of Golgotha on the original Good Friday and their descendants’
***and sex of course. Sleep with a Jew and you get infected.
Hartmut, it’s interesting. I had always understood that anti-Semitism was simply a sloppy way of saying “anti-Jews.” But it occurs to me that it may have actually been an accurate assessment of what was really going on in people’s minds. Considering the attitude in Europe towards the more recent Semitic immigrants — who, after all, are Muslim rather than Jewish.
I wonder. Was the label conscious? Or was it just accidently accurate?
I do not have the study at hand I read but from what I remember the term anti-semitism was deliberately chosen to be distinct from anti-Judaism. The latter was (in theory*) just against the religion the former against the people. Plus it sounded more scientific and that was an important part for the proponents of the new racial definition of Jew. It was not aimed at the other semites (Arabs etc.). Anti-Judaists wanted to convert Jews to their branch of Christianity, anti-semites were totally opposed to that. What makes it even more complicated is that some similar phenomenon already existed in the church of late antiquity, most prominently St.John Chrysostome, that objected to the baptism of Jews because in their opinion Jews were accursed by G*d as a people and thus damned to hell from conception with no hope of salvation. So, it was a spiritual not biological reasoning applied to a group that happened to be related by blood too**. It never became official church doctrine. The anti-semites were not interested in salvation or lack thereof of Jews but their own salvation from ‘blood contamination’ by Jews (understood as a race). Later the blood part was even taken literally and Jewishness treated as a disease that could be transmitted by blood contact*** (so a blood transfusion from a Jew would turn the receiver into another carrier of the Jewish disease). We know what came out of it in the end.
*cf. Spain for the prejudice against New Christians (converted Jews and their descendants) by Old Christians (people with no Jews (and probably Muslisms) in their (official) family tree). Similar distrust of converts could be found in most European countries. They were under general suspicion of being at best opportunists and likely still practicing the old faith in secret.
**It could as well have been ‘anyone who has an ancestor suffering from leprosy at date X’ or ‘anyone within X miles of Golgotha on the original Good Friday and their descendants’
***and sex of course. Sleep with a Jew and you get infected.
an ode to assimilation
taco bell
an ode to assimilation
taco bell
an ode to assimilation
taco bell
Some of us immigrated to the US through a Port of Entry; most of us immigrated through the Maternity Ward.
The former needed a visa — i.e. government permission — to immigrate. The latter, not. Is this a wise immigration policy?
Consider that immigrants through the maternity ward are invariably illiterate, unskilled, and utterly dependent on society’s limited resources. I mean, even illegal immigrants bring a pair of hands to work, as well as a mouth to feed, into The Economy.
We take it for granted that the nation stands ever ready to assimilate these maternity-ward immigrants into Our Culture and never worry that they will remake it into theirs. Aren’t we nuts to imagine they won’t?
–TP
Some of us immigrated to the US through a Port of Entry; most of us immigrated through the Maternity Ward.
The former needed a visa — i.e. government permission — to immigrate. The latter, not. Is this a wise immigration policy?
Consider that immigrants through the maternity ward are invariably illiterate, unskilled, and utterly dependent on society’s limited resources. I mean, even illegal immigrants bring a pair of hands to work, as well as a mouth to feed, into The Economy.
We take it for granted that the nation stands ever ready to assimilate these maternity-ward immigrants into Our Culture and never worry that they will remake it into theirs. Aren’t we nuts to imagine they won’t?
–TP
Some of us immigrated to the US through a Port of Entry; most of us immigrated through the Maternity Ward.
The former needed a visa — i.e. government permission — to immigrate. The latter, not. Is this a wise immigration policy?
Consider that immigrants through the maternity ward are invariably illiterate, unskilled, and utterly dependent on society’s limited resources. I mean, even illegal immigrants bring a pair of hands to work, as well as a mouth to feed, into The Economy.
We take it for granted that the nation stands ever ready to assimilate these maternity-ward immigrants into Our Culture and never worry that they will remake it into theirs. Aren’t we nuts to imagine they won’t?
–TP
an ode to assimilation
taco bell
If illegal immigration is the price we pay for Doritos Locos Tacos, I for one say its worth it.
an ode to assimilation
taco bell
If illegal immigration is the price we pay for Doritos Locos Tacos, I for one say its worth it.
an ode to assimilation
taco bell
If illegal immigration is the price we pay for Doritos Locos Tacos, I for one say its worth it.
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
Whereas Mrs Bellmore represents a perfectly random opinion and thereby should be taken as writ. I’m sure there were no factors that might be related to her reflecting her husband’s views.
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
Whereas Mrs Bellmore represents a perfectly random opinion and thereby should be taken as writ. I’m sure there were no factors that might be related to her reflecting her husband’s views.
1. Illegal immigration selects for immigrants who are contemptuous of our laws.
Whereas Mrs Bellmore represents a perfectly random opinion and thereby should be taken as writ. I’m sure there were no factors that might be related to her reflecting her husband’s views.
“Or, to rephrase my question, how do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment in a fashion that isn’t massively invasive and requires giving government new powers of investigation?”
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants. It would be large enough that taking the bounty would be preferable to taking the job. It would include a six month exemption from deportation, so that illegal immigrants might even specialize in hunting down employers of illegal immigrants.
This would pretty effectively break the ties of trust between illegal immigrants and those who hire them, making illegal immigrants largely unemployable.
Secondly, I would direct the various government bureaucracies to stop facilitating illegal employment, and instead expose it. If an 11 or 111 year old is found by the SS administration to be employed as a landscaper, it would not be deliberately ignored, but investigated. If the same SS# were used to take jobs implausibly far apart at the same time, it would be investigated.
We have the tools, or can easily have them, to dramatically reduce illegal immigration. It is policy to not use them, because, whatever the law says, it is our current government’s policy to facilitate, not prevent, violations of our immigration laws.
“Or, to rephrase my question, how do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment in a fashion that isn’t massively invasive and requires giving government new powers of investigation?”
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants. It would be large enough that taking the bounty would be preferable to taking the job. It would include a six month exemption from deportation, so that illegal immigrants might even specialize in hunting down employers of illegal immigrants.
This would pretty effectively break the ties of trust between illegal immigrants and those who hire them, making illegal immigrants largely unemployable.
Secondly, I would direct the various government bureaucracies to stop facilitating illegal employment, and instead expose it. If an 11 or 111 year old is found by the SS administration to be employed as a landscaper, it would not be deliberately ignored, but investigated. If the same SS# were used to take jobs implausibly far apart at the same time, it would be investigated.
We have the tools, or can easily have them, to dramatically reduce illegal immigration. It is policy to not use them, because, whatever the law says, it is our current government’s policy to facilitate, not prevent, violations of our immigration laws.
“Or, to rephrase my question, how do you plan on cracking down on illegal employment in a fashion that isn’t massively invasive and requires giving government new powers of investigation?”
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants. It would be large enough that taking the bounty would be preferable to taking the job. It would include a six month exemption from deportation, so that illegal immigrants might even specialize in hunting down employers of illegal immigrants.
This would pretty effectively break the ties of trust between illegal immigrants and those who hire them, making illegal immigrants largely unemployable.
Secondly, I would direct the various government bureaucracies to stop facilitating illegal employment, and instead expose it. If an 11 or 111 year old is found by the SS administration to be employed as a landscaper, it would not be deliberately ignored, but investigated. If the same SS# were used to take jobs implausibly far apart at the same time, it would be investigated.
We have the tools, or can easily have them, to dramatically reduce illegal immigration. It is policy to not use them, because, whatever the law says, it is our current government’s policy to facilitate, not prevent, violations of our immigration laws.
“I would institute …”
Would ja now?
Goodbye limited government, hello KGB.
Or you gonna run this paperless, no bureaucracy, tax less, bounty operation out of your home office?.
And these sleuthy corrupt, moustache-twirling illegals, what are they now naive innocents caught in your clever web? Are they all of a sudden gormless Cantinflas’s?
Juan Valdez: hey, Chico, da plane, da plane. Gringos say I get six month reprieve if I turn you in. Mucho pesos and gift cards which I’ll sew into my drug-laden calves. Tell you what, you turn me in too, we take the money and the six month siesta and we ring the Taco Bell before doing it again.
Chico: bro, you clever boots. The man thinks we’re idiots, but he no comprende we been running from Mexican constabulary for years. If he really wanted to get rid of us, he’d make the landscapers, and kitchens, and construction companies pay us at least minimum wage and Obamacare and the employers would have a fit and go out of business before that. At least that’s what these Republican gringos SAY would happen, but they’re a few beans short of a burrito, too.
Meanwhile we buy guns, the automatic ones, and when the time comes I don’t know how 12 million armed commancheros are going to berun out of here.
What do they think, their housewives are going to work like drought horses for the sheet they pay us? Loco, bro.
“I would institute …”
Would ja now?
Goodbye limited government, hello KGB.
Or you gonna run this paperless, no bureaucracy, tax less, bounty operation out of your home office?.
And these sleuthy corrupt, moustache-twirling illegals, what are they now naive innocents caught in your clever web? Are they all of a sudden gormless Cantinflas’s?
Juan Valdez: hey, Chico, da plane, da plane. Gringos say I get six month reprieve if I turn you in. Mucho pesos and gift cards which I’ll sew into my drug-laden calves. Tell you what, you turn me in too, we take the money and the six month siesta and we ring the Taco Bell before doing it again.
Chico: bro, you clever boots. The man thinks we’re idiots, but he no comprende we been running from Mexican constabulary for years. If he really wanted to get rid of us, he’d make the landscapers, and kitchens, and construction companies pay us at least minimum wage and Obamacare and the employers would have a fit and go out of business before that. At least that’s what these Republican gringos SAY would happen, but they’re a few beans short of a burrito, too.
Meanwhile we buy guns, the automatic ones, and when the time comes I don’t know how 12 million armed commancheros are going to berun out of here.
What do they think, their housewives are going to work like drought horses for the sheet they pay us? Loco, bro.
“I would institute …”
Would ja now?
Goodbye limited government, hello KGB.
Or you gonna run this paperless, no bureaucracy, tax less, bounty operation out of your home office?.
And these sleuthy corrupt, moustache-twirling illegals, what are they now naive innocents caught in your clever web? Are they all of a sudden gormless Cantinflas’s?
Juan Valdez: hey, Chico, da plane, da plane. Gringos say I get six month reprieve if I turn you in. Mucho pesos and gift cards which I’ll sew into my drug-laden calves. Tell you what, you turn me in too, we take the money and the six month siesta and we ring the Taco Bell before doing it again.
Chico: bro, you clever boots. The man thinks we’re idiots, but he no comprende we been running from Mexican constabulary for years. If he really wanted to get rid of us, he’d make the landscapers, and kitchens, and construction companies pay us at least minimum wage and Obamacare and the employers would have a fit and go out of business before that. At least that’s what these Republican gringos SAY would happen, but they’re a few beans short of a burrito, too.
Meanwhile we buy guns, the automatic ones, and when the time comes I don’t know how 12 million armed commancheros are going to berun out of here.
What do they think, their housewives are going to work like drought horses for the sheet they pay us? Loco, bro.
Draught, OK, not drought.
The above movie characters would be played by Eli Wallach, the Eastern European who played every Spanish/Mexican looking character for decades
Draught, OK, not drought.
The above movie characters would be played by Eli Wallach, the Eastern European who played every Spanish/Mexican looking character for decades
Draught, OK, not drought.
The above movie characters would be played by Eli Wallach, the Eastern European who played every Spanish/Mexican looking character for decades
So, paying people who inform on criminals is creating the KGB?
I think the morality of paying people who inform on criminals is a function of the morality of the law they have violated, that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the practice.
Naturally, if you think immigration laws are wrongful themselves, you’re going to object to ANY mechanism for enforcing them. But the question wasn’t whether I could come up with a way to effectively enforce immgration laws that open borders advocates would like. It was whether I could come up with a way that would work.
So, paying people who inform on criminals is creating the KGB?
I think the morality of paying people who inform on criminals is a function of the morality of the law they have violated, that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the practice.
Naturally, if you think immigration laws are wrongful themselves, you’re going to object to ANY mechanism for enforcing them. But the question wasn’t whether I could come up with a way to effectively enforce immgration laws that open borders advocates would like. It was whether I could come up with a way that would work.
So, paying people who inform on criminals is creating the KGB?
I think the morality of paying people who inform on criminals is a function of the morality of the law they have violated, that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the practice.
Naturally, if you think immigration laws are wrongful themselves, you’re going to object to ANY mechanism for enforcing them. But the question wasn’t whether I could come up with a way to effectively enforce immgration laws that open borders advocates would like. It was whether I could come up with a way that would work.
I’d guess that Brett’s “bounty and temporary amnesty” for undocumented immigrants that rat out employers could be instantly implemented by executive order.
It would be interesting to see Brett’s reaction if Obama did just that.
I’d guess that Brett’s “bounty and temporary amnesty” for undocumented immigrants that rat out employers could be instantly implemented by executive order.
It would be interesting to see Brett’s reaction if Obama did just that.
I’d guess that Brett’s “bounty and temporary amnesty” for undocumented immigrants that rat out employers could be instantly implemented by executive order.
It would be interesting to see Brett’s reaction if Obama did just that.
Brett: “”Nationalism”, not “racism”. “Mexico” not being a race, you might have noticed.”
Wrong, since you feel that ‘values’ seem to stick with people. You’re just trying to excuse your racism by saying that you’re not racist, but [insert bad arguments here].
Brett: “”Nationalism”, not “racism”. “Mexico” not being a race, you might have noticed.”
Wrong, since you feel that ‘values’ seem to stick with people. You’re just trying to excuse your racism by saying that you’re not racist, but [insert bad arguments here].
Brett: “”Nationalism”, not “racism”. “Mexico” not being a race, you might have noticed.”
Wrong, since you feel that ‘values’ seem to stick with people. You’re just trying to excuse your racism by saying that you’re not racist, but [insert bad arguments here].
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants. It would be large enough that taking the bounty would be preferable to taking the job. It would include a six month exemption from deportation, so that illegal immigrants might even specialize in hunting down employers of illegal immigrants.
Holy crap.
I think I liked the fence better.
In any case, no-one can accuse you of a mindless consistency in your views.
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants. It would be large enough that taking the bounty would be preferable to taking the job. It would include a six month exemption from deportation, so that illegal immigrants might even specialize in hunting down employers of illegal immigrants.
Holy crap.
I think I liked the fence better.
In any case, no-one can accuse you of a mindless consistency in your views.
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants. It would be large enough that taking the bounty would be preferable to taking the job. It would include a six month exemption from deportation, so that illegal immigrants might even specialize in hunting down employers of illegal immigrants.
Holy crap.
I think I liked the fence better.
In any case, no-one can accuse you of a mindless consistency in your views.
It was whether I could come up with a way that would work.
Yes, and I have substantial doubts. First off, creating a system of the population informing on the population to the government isn’t exactly gold-standard anti-authoritarianism, but, let’s talk efficacy.
We already have a system of paying CIs to inform on drug dealers. And, shockingly, we still have a massive illegal drug trade. Why do you think that a system of bounties would be any better in immigration? Why do you think ‘bonds of trust’ would be so easily broken in one illegal enterprise when decades of experience suggests it isn’t in another?
Second, how would this bounty work? Are we taking the guy’s (who has money and a deportation reprieve to motivate him) word on it? Or are we going to outfit him with a wire and have a guy in a van recording the interaction? Because one of those wouldn’t hold up in court, and the other one would be involve a lot of expensive federal agents recording random conversations, which I am less than thrilled with.
If the same SS# were used to take jobs implausibly far apart at the same time, it would be investigated.
I have met construction workers who work jobs near both the northern and southern borders of CA at the same time. Is that plausible or implausible to a government bureaucrat? My uncle is a welder who was certified to work on reactors. He traveled all over the country and internationally. Is that plausible? How about a migrant worker named Ramirez? How many job sites is he allowed to work at in a month before it’s ‘implausible’?
How many false positives will we need to accept to get the false negative rate down? How many investigators will be hired, and how many law-abiding citizens will be hassled and forced to produce documentation about their lives?
You’ve proposed a feel-good solution (or at least as feel-good as a Stasi-esque system of informing on your neighbors can be) similar to the CIs that we employ, which have done little, if anything, to stop illegal drug trade. You have offered no explanation as to why this would be different. Further, you’ve proposed a bureaucratic system of checking the plausibility of people’s work history, with zero discussion of how many more agents would be hired, and what the false positive rate would be.
In short, I am underwhelmed by your proposal.
It was whether I could come up with a way that would work.
Yes, and I have substantial doubts. First off, creating a system of the population informing on the population to the government isn’t exactly gold-standard anti-authoritarianism, but, let’s talk efficacy.
We already have a system of paying CIs to inform on drug dealers. And, shockingly, we still have a massive illegal drug trade. Why do you think that a system of bounties would be any better in immigration? Why do you think ‘bonds of trust’ would be so easily broken in one illegal enterprise when decades of experience suggests it isn’t in another?
Second, how would this bounty work? Are we taking the guy’s (who has money and a deportation reprieve to motivate him) word on it? Or are we going to outfit him with a wire and have a guy in a van recording the interaction? Because one of those wouldn’t hold up in court, and the other one would be involve a lot of expensive federal agents recording random conversations, which I am less than thrilled with.
If the same SS# were used to take jobs implausibly far apart at the same time, it would be investigated.
I have met construction workers who work jobs near both the northern and southern borders of CA at the same time. Is that plausible or implausible to a government bureaucrat? My uncle is a welder who was certified to work on reactors. He traveled all over the country and internationally. Is that plausible? How about a migrant worker named Ramirez? How many job sites is he allowed to work at in a month before it’s ‘implausible’?
How many false positives will we need to accept to get the false negative rate down? How many investigators will be hired, and how many law-abiding citizens will be hassled and forced to produce documentation about their lives?
You’ve proposed a feel-good solution (or at least as feel-good as a Stasi-esque system of informing on your neighbors can be) similar to the CIs that we employ, which have done little, if anything, to stop illegal drug trade. You have offered no explanation as to why this would be different. Further, you’ve proposed a bureaucratic system of checking the plausibility of people’s work history, with zero discussion of how many more agents would be hired, and what the false positive rate would be.
In short, I am underwhelmed by your proposal.
It was whether I could come up with a way that would work.
Yes, and I have substantial doubts. First off, creating a system of the population informing on the population to the government isn’t exactly gold-standard anti-authoritarianism, but, let’s talk efficacy.
We already have a system of paying CIs to inform on drug dealers. And, shockingly, we still have a massive illegal drug trade. Why do you think that a system of bounties would be any better in immigration? Why do you think ‘bonds of trust’ would be so easily broken in one illegal enterprise when decades of experience suggests it isn’t in another?
Second, how would this bounty work? Are we taking the guy’s (who has money and a deportation reprieve to motivate him) word on it? Or are we going to outfit him with a wire and have a guy in a van recording the interaction? Because one of those wouldn’t hold up in court, and the other one would be involve a lot of expensive federal agents recording random conversations, which I am less than thrilled with.
If the same SS# were used to take jobs implausibly far apart at the same time, it would be investigated.
I have met construction workers who work jobs near both the northern and southern borders of CA at the same time. Is that plausible or implausible to a government bureaucrat? My uncle is a welder who was certified to work on reactors. He traveled all over the country and internationally. Is that plausible? How about a migrant worker named Ramirez? How many job sites is he allowed to work at in a month before it’s ‘implausible’?
How many false positives will we need to accept to get the false negative rate down? How many investigators will be hired, and how many law-abiding citizens will be hassled and forced to produce documentation about their lives?
You’ve proposed a feel-good solution (or at least as feel-good as a Stasi-esque system of informing on your neighbors can be) similar to the CIs that we employ, which have done little, if anything, to stop illegal drug trade. You have offered no explanation as to why this would be different. Further, you’ve proposed a bureaucratic system of checking the plausibility of people’s work history, with zero discussion of how many more agents would be hired, and what the false positive rate would be.
In short, I am underwhelmed by your proposal.
You know, we could just issue more visas.
You know, we could just issue more visas.
You know, we could just issue more visas.
If a civil offense is ipso facto evidence of a generalized contempt for the Law, then our business class stands condemned, as they sue or are sued constantly.
Thus a fence around Wall Street may not be such a bad idea.
If a civil offense is ipso facto evidence of a generalized contempt for the Law, then our business class stands condemned, as they sue or are sued constantly.
Thus a fence around Wall Street may not be such a bad idea.
If a civil offense is ipso facto evidence of a generalized contempt for the Law, then our business class stands condemned, as they sue or are sued constantly.
Thus a fence around Wall Street may not be such a bad idea.
All this in reaction to Buchananesque cultural paranoia.
All this in reaction to Buchananesque cultural paranoia.
All this in reaction to Buchananesque cultural paranoia.
You know, we could just issue more visas.
Hm, that almost sounds sensible. It’ll never pass.
You know, we could just issue more visas.
Hm, that almost sounds sensible. It’ll never pass.
You know, we could just issue more visas.
Hm, that almost sounds sensible. It’ll never pass.
“You know, we could just issue more visas.”
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to. Or, at the very least, the overlap is small.
For perfectly rational reasons, we don’t issue immigration visas to people who aren’t literate in English, or have criminal records, unless there’s a VERY strong case for making an exception in their particular instance. We’re an English speaking country, we have no particular reason to want to increase the number of people who can’t speak with everybody else.
And there’s a huge excess of people, English literate, highly educated, law abiding, who’d like to come here, from all over the world. Do you think that, were we to increase the number of visas available, we’d be giving most of them to English illiterates with dubious backgrounds, from one particular 3rd world country, just because it’s right next to us?
No, we would not. So you’d get more legal immigrants, ant just as many illegal as before, unless there was a crackdown on illegal immgration.
“You know, we could just issue more visas.”
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to. Or, at the very least, the overlap is small.
For perfectly rational reasons, we don’t issue immigration visas to people who aren’t literate in English, or have criminal records, unless there’s a VERY strong case for making an exception in their particular instance. We’re an English speaking country, we have no particular reason to want to increase the number of people who can’t speak with everybody else.
And there’s a huge excess of people, English literate, highly educated, law abiding, who’d like to come here, from all over the world. Do you think that, were we to increase the number of visas available, we’d be giving most of them to English illiterates with dubious backgrounds, from one particular 3rd world country, just because it’s right next to us?
No, we would not. So you’d get more legal immigrants, ant just as many illegal as before, unless there was a crackdown on illegal immgration.
“You know, we could just issue more visas.”
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to. Or, at the very least, the overlap is small.
For perfectly rational reasons, we don’t issue immigration visas to people who aren’t literate in English, or have criminal records, unless there’s a VERY strong case for making an exception in their particular instance. We’re an English speaking country, we have no particular reason to want to increase the number of people who can’t speak with everybody else.
And there’s a huge excess of people, English literate, highly educated, law abiding, who’d like to come here, from all over the world. Do you think that, were we to increase the number of visas available, we’d be giving most of them to English illiterates with dubious backgrounds, from one particular 3rd world country, just because it’s right next to us?
No, we would not. So you’d get more legal immigrants, ant just as many illegal as before, unless there was a crackdown on illegal immgration.
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to.
the problem is that nobody’s buying your explanation. the fact that people are breaking laws to come here because there is work for them to do here isn’t the mark of moral degeneracy and corruption you insist it must be. it’s economics, not criminology.
and yes, we could issue more work visas.
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to.
the problem is that nobody’s buying your explanation. the fact that people are breaking laws to come here because there is work for them to do here isn’t the mark of moral degeneracy and corruption you insist it must be. it’s economics, not criminology.
and yes, we could issue more work visas.
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to.
the problem is that nobody’s buying your explanation. the fact that people are breaking laws to come here because there is work for them to do here isn’t the mark of moral degeneracy and corruption you insist it must be. it’s economics, not criminology.
and yes, we could issue more work visas.
Most kidding aside, I could make a principled case (you don’t like those ones, I have others), that an immigration policy that drains the rest of the world of the best and the brightest while keeping the rest out to rot in their countries of origin is one sure way of guaranteeing a world of tin-pot dictators, massive corruption and social unrest, and endless aggression for resources.
The best and the brightest, even if trained here, can return and stay in their own countries and institute reform or band their intelligence together and overthrow their oppressive governments.
One example: why train foreign doctors at John Hopkins and then let them work here, when they could be using their talents to serve their people and countries. We saw what a lack of trained medical personnel and infrastructure can do in the event of catastrophic events, such as the Ebola outbreaks.
Or, we can cherry pick the huddled best and brightest exclusively and let the rest fight it out among themselves in their homelands with the massive amounts of weaponry we supply them.
Nice world.
Speaking of a corrupt band of criminal immigrants, look at the awful mayhem that became Australia. It’s dog eat dog to this day …… NOT.
Most kidding aside, I could make a principled case (you don’t like those ones, I have others), that an immigration policy that drains the rest of the world of the best and the brightest while keeping the rest out to rot in their countries of origin is one sure way of guaranteeing a world of tin-pot dictators, massive corruption and social unrest, and endless aggression for resources.
The best and the brightest, even if trained here, can return and stay in their own countries and institute reform or band their intelligence together and overthrow their oppressive governments.
One example: why train foreign doctors at John Hopkins and then let them work here, when they could be using their talents to serve their people and countries. We saw what a lack of trained medical personnel and infrastructure can do in the event of catastrophic events, such as the Ebola outbreaks.
Or, we can cherry pick the huddled best and brightest exclusively and let the rest fight it out among themselves in their homelands with the massive amounts of weaponry we supply them.
Nice world.
Speaking of a corrupt band of criminal immigrants, look at the awful mayhem that became Australia. It’s dog eat dog to this day …… NOT.
Most kidding aside, I could make a principled case (you don’t like those ones, I have others), that an immigration policy that drains the rest of the world of the best and the brightest while keeping the rest out to rot in their countries of origin is one sure way of guaranteeing a world of tin-pot dictators, massive corruption and social unrest, and endless aggression for resources.
The best and the brightest, even if trained here, can return and stay in their own countries and institute reform or band their intelligence together and overthrow their oppressive governments.
One example: why train foreign doctors at John Hopkins and then let them work here, when they could be using their talents to serve their people and countries. We saw what a lack of trained medical personnel and infrastructure can do in the event of catastrophic events, such as the Ebola outbreaks.
Or, we can cherry pick the huddled best and brightest exclusively and let the rest fight it out among themselves in their homelands with the massive amounts of weaponry we supply them.
Nice world.
Speaking of a corrupt band of criminal immigrants, look at the awful mayhem that became Australia. It’s dog eat dog to this day …… NOT.
Yes, yes, of course we could issue millions of work visas for people from other countries to come here and provide unskilled labor, at the same time that American citizens lacking skills are suffering from massive unemployment.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans? Why, it’s almost as though you don’t care how bad things become for poor Americans, as long as your grocery bill doesn’t go up a few percent, and nannies don’t get harder to find.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do at the same pay as illegal immigrants. Don’t supply illegal immigrants to those employers, and they will be, perforce, required to hire Americans, at higher wages.
Really, just how much do you hate poor Americans, anyway? So much that we have to import people from other countries, just to keep them unemployed?
Yes, yes, of course we could issue millions of work visas for people from other countries to come here and provide unskilled labor, at the same time that American citizens lacking skills are suffering from massive unemployment.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans? Why, it’s almost as though you don’t care how bad things become for poor Americans, as long as your grocery bill doesn’t go up a few percent, and nannies don’t get harder to find.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do at the same pay as illegal immigrants. Don’t supply illegal immigrants to those employers, and they will be, perforce, required to hire Americans, at higher wages.
Really, just how much do you hate poor Americans, anyway? So much that we have to import people from other countries, just to keep them unemployed?
Yes, yes, of course we could issue millions of work visas for people from other countries to come here and provide unskilled labor, at the same time that American citizens lacking skills are suffering from massive unemployment.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans? Why, it’s almost as though you don’t care how bad things become for poor Americans, as long as your grocery bill doesn’t go up a few percent, and nannies don’t get harder to find.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do at the same pay as illegal immigrants. Don’t supply illegal immigrants to those employers, and they will be, perforce, required to hire Americans, at higher wages.
Really, just how much do you hate poor Americans, anyway? So much that we have to import people from other countries, just to keep them unemployed?
“In short, I am underwhelmed by your proposal.”
Posted by: thompson
I don’t have the source handy, but I’ve read that the current E-VERIFY system has ~10% false negative rate, meaning that 10% of people who can legally work in this country are barred by that system. The reason, of course, is that the burden of proof is on the person involved.
“In short, I am underwhelmed by your proposal.”
Posted by: thompson
I don’t have the source handy, but I’ve read that the current E-VERIFY system has ~10% false negative rate, meaning that 10% of people who can legally work in this country are barred by that system. The reason, of course, is that the burden of proof is on the person involved.
“In short, I am underwhelmed by your proposal.”
Posted by: thompson
I don’t have the source handy, but I’ve read that the current E-VERIFY system has ~10% false negative rate, meaning that 10% of people who can legally work in this country are barred by that system. The reason, of course, is that the burden of proof is on the person involved.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans?
that’s your imagination again.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do.
ORLY?
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans?
that’s your imagination again.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do.
ORLY?
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans?
that’s your imagination again.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do.
ORLY?
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to.
Assert != explain.
And, sometimes explanations are wrong.
The kinds of folks who currently make up the illegal immigrant populate are not the kind of people *YOU* would issue visas to.
I’d be fine with it.
You, personally, would prefer to only issue visas to skilled people who are fluent in English.
That is not an unreasonable preference, but it’s just a preference.
If, in fact, we increased the number of visas, and only granted them to skilled workers, then you might be correct. Unskilled people might still come illegally.
So, increasing the number of visas would not, in that case, solve the problem you seem to want to solve.
My suggestion is to increase the number of visas to people coming from this hemisphere, without requiring any particular level of education or English fluency for legal resident status.
English is a requirement for *citizenship*, and I’m fine with that. Legal residence is not citizenship.
I make the suggestion that I do because (a) lots of those people demonstrably want to come here, and (b) they have also already demonstrated that they are willing to work their @sses off at jobs that are useful and necessary.
They create value, tons of it, each and every day. Letting them do so with legal status won’t change that in any way.
The language thing is certainly an issue, but it’s one we have addressed before, with far fewer resources than we bring to the table now, so my guess is that it could be addressed.
That’s my preference. It’s as reasonable as yours, and it addresses the problem we’re actually trying to address, without building 2,000 miles of fence and without creating a freaking Stasi of illegal residents.
Turning the country into a freaking police state to keep them out seems like an own-goal, to me.
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to.
Assert != explain.
And, sometimes explanations are wrong.
The kinds of folks who currently make up the illegal immigrant populate are not the kind of people *YOU* would issue visas to.
I’d be fine with it.
You, personally, would prefer to only issue visas to skilled people who are fluent in English.
That is not an unreasonable preference, but it’s just a preference.
If, in fact, we increased the number of visas, and only granted them to skilled workers, then you might be correct. Unskilled people might still come illegally.
So, increasing the number of visas would not, in that case, solve the problem you seem to want to solve.
My suggestion is to increase the number of visas to people coming from this hemisphere, without requiring any particular level of education or English fluency for legal resident status.
English is a requirement for *citizenship*, and I’m fine with that. Legal residence is not citizenship.
I make the suggestion that I do because (a) lots of those people demonstrably want to come here, and (b) they have also already demonstrated that they are willing to work their @sses off at jobs that are useful and necessary.
They create value, tons of it, each and every day. Letting them do so with legal status won’t change that in any way.
The language thing is certainly an issue, but it’s one we have addressed before, with far fewer resources than we bring to the table now, so my guess is that it could be addressed.
That’s my preference. It’s as reasonable as yours, and it addresses the problem we’re actually trying to address, without building 2,000 miles of fence and without creating a freaking Stasi of illegal residents.
Turning the country into a freaking police state to keep them out seems like an own-goal, to me.
No, you can’t, as I’ve explained. Illegal immgrants are not the same people who you’d issue visas to.
Assert != explain.
And, sometimes explanations are wrong.
The kinds of folks who currently make up the illegal immigrant populate are not the kind of people *YOU* would issue visas to.
I’d be fine with it.
You, personally, would prefer to only issue visas to skilled people who are fluent in English.
That is not an unreasonable preference, but it’s just a preference.
If, in fact, we increased the number of visas, and only granted them to skilled workers, then you might be correct. Unskilled people might still come illegally.
So, increasing the number of visas would not, in that case, solve the problem you seem to want to solve.
My suggestion is to increase the number of visas to people coming from this hemisphere, without requiring any particular level of education or English fluency for legal resident status.
English is a requirement for *citizenship*, and I’m fine with that. Legal residence is not citizenship.
I make the suggestion that I do because (a) lots of those people demonstrably want to come here, and (b) they have also already demonstrated that they are willing to work their @sses off at jobs that are useful and necessary.
They create value, tons of it, each and every day. Letting them do so with legal status won’t change that in any way.
The language thing is certainly an issue, but it’s one we have addressed before, with far fewer resources than we bring to the table now, so my guess is that it could be addressed.
That’s my preference. It’s as reasonable as yours, and it addresses the problem we’re actually trying to address, without building 2,000 miles of fence and without creating a freaking Stasi of illegal residents.
Turning the country into a freaking police state to keep them out seems like an own-goal, to me.
Just because a market doesn’t adjust instantly, doesn’t mean it won’t eventually adjust.
Or maybe you think there’s something genetic about Mexicans, that just makes them better at picking crops? Caucasians can’t learn to do it?
Racist.
Just because a market doesn’t adjust instantly, doesn’t mean it won’t eventually adjust.
Or maybe you think there’s something genetic about Mexicans, that just makes them better at picking crops? Caucasians can’t learn to do it?
Racist.
Just because a market doesn’t adjust instantly, doesn’t mean it won’t eventually adjust.
Or maybe you think there’s something genetic about Mexicans, that just makes them better at picking crops? Caucasians can’t learn to do it?
Racist.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans? Why, it’s almost as though you don’t care how bad things become for poor Americans, as long as your grocery bill doesn’t go up a few percent, and nannies don’t get harder to find.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do at the same pay as illegal immigrants. Don’t supply illegal immigrants to those employers, and they will be, perforce, required to hire Americans, at higher wages.
These are actually good points.
The fact that illegal immigrants undercut the wages of legal residents and citizens is in no small part due to the fact that *they are illegal*.
You can address that by expanding the already intrusive federal immigration regime to include a physical barrier two-thirds the length of the continent, a system of paid informants, and a regime of punitive fines and criminal penalties for their employers (mostly small businesses, BTW).
Or, you can legalize their status, in which case using them to undermine the wage base is more or less eliminated.
It’s true, good jobs for unskilled people are hard to come by, but that’s surely due to factors above and beyond the mere presence of illegal labor.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans? Why, it’s almost as though you don’t care how bad things become for poor Americans, as long as your grocery bill doesn’t go up a few percent, and nannies don’t get harder to find.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do at the same pay as illegal immigrants. Don’t supply illegal immigrants to those employers, and they will be, perforce, required to hire Americans, at higher wages.
These are actually good points.
The fact that illegal immigrants undercut the wages of legal residents and citizens is in no small part due to the fact that *they are illegal*.
You can address that by expanding the already intrusive federal immigration regime to include a physical barrier two-thirds the length of the continent, a system of paid informants, and a regime of punitive fines and criminal penalties for their employers (mostly small businesses, BTW).
Or, you can legalize their status, in which case using them to undermine the wage base is more or less eliminated.
It’s true, good jobs for unskilled people are hard to come by, but that’s surely due to factors above and beyond the mere presence of illegal labor.
But why is there such urgency about driving down the wages and employment levels of the poorest Americans? Why, it’s almost as though you don’t care how bad things become for poor Americans, as long as your grocery bill doesn’t go up a few percent, and nannies don’t get harder to find.
There aren’t jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do at the same pay as illegal immigrants. Don’t supply illegal immigrants to those employers, and they will be, perforce, required to hire Americans, at higher wages.
These are actually good points.
The fact that illegal immigrants undercut the wages of legal residents and citizens is in no small part due to the fact that *they are illegal*.
You can address that by expanding the already intrusive federal immigration regime to include a physical barrier two-thirds the length of the continent, a system of paid informants, and a regime of punitive fines and criminal penalties for their employers (mostly small businesses, BTW).
Or, you can legalize their status, in which case using them to undermine the wage base is more or less eliminated.
It’s true, good jobs for unskilled people are hard to come by, but that’s surely due to factors above and beyond the mere presence of illegal labor.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants.
Aren’t bounties the approach we used in Afghanistan? The one which ended us up with half of the folks at Gitmo being people who had, in fact, absolutely nothing to do with terrorism . . . just had the misfortune to have someone who had it in for them.
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants.
Aren’t bounties the approach we used in Afghanistan? The one which ended us up with half of the folks at Gitmo being people who had, in fact, absolutely nothing to do with terrorism . . . just had the misfortune to have someone who had it in for them.
I would institute a system of bounties for anybody who exposes an employer who is hiring illegal immigrants.
Aren’t bounties the approach we used in Afghanistan? The one which ended us up with half of the folks at Gitmo being people who had, in fact, absolutely nothing to do with terrorism . . . just had the misfortune to have someone who had it in for them.
Most kidding aside, I could make a principled case
I take it as a personal gold star that I started a discussion that got the Count to the point of making a completely serious and on-point post! 😉
Most kidding aside, I could make a principled case
I take it as a personal gold star that I started a discussion that got the Count to the point of making a completely serious and on-point post! 😉
Most kidding aside, I could make a principled case
I take it as a personal gold star that I started a discussion that got the Count to the point of making a completely serious and on-point post! 😉
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
Slarti, obviously what they are doing instead is lounging on their couches, living the good life and collecting welfare. But the fact that we would have to eliminate the welfare system in order to get the crops in is a feature of eliminating unskilled immigration, not a bug. Indeed, it might be the real goal for some people.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
Slarti, obviously what they are doing instead is lounging on their couches, living the good life and collecting welfare. But the fact that we would have to eliminate the welfare system in order to get the crops in is a feature of eliminating unskilled immigration, not a bug. Indeed, it might be the real goal for some people.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
Slarti, obviously what they are doing instead is lounging on their couches, living the good life and collecting welfare. But the fact that we would have to eliminate the welfare system in order to get the crops in is a feature of eliminating unskilled immigration, not a bug. Indeed, it might be the real goal for some people.
I find the “immigrants reduce wages for unskilled unemployed Americans” to have some persuasive power.
However, you can’ t afford the avocados I pick, the hotel beds I change, the Macaroni Grill pasta entrees I sling, and you wouldn’t believe what I charge to move that landscape boulder a little to the left to feng shui your yard.
Because unskilled me Ned’s to stay off Medicaid, food stamps, and whatever the base complaint of the week is.
Skip the Stasi network of informers, and instead mandate (don’t deny you enjoy a good mandate or three) that all human beings on American soil, regardless of immigration status, earn a substantial minimum wage across the board and receive subsidized healthcare benefits and then we’ll find what jobs American born labor will take and which employers will just close down their businesses and/or move operations abroad.
What is it in this supposedly exceptional American character that so many of us underpay decent human beings to nanny our kids, change our elderly parents’ diapers, flip our omelots, and build our houses to code.
Maybe we’re just a bunch of ripoff sociopaths, but we use the excuse that we just try to get away with what the market (that cruel motherf&cker) will bear.
We must be incentivized and dis incentivized like a bunch of behavioralist drooling Pavlovian dogs.
What is so exceptional about that?
With that said, I do look forward to the terminally ill Americans about to be murdered by Republicans after Obamacare is deepsixed shampooing my crotch in exchange for desperate wages on their way to their eternal rest.
When all around you are sadists, become the best sadist you can.
I find the “immigrants reduce wages for unskilled unemployed Americans” to have some persuasive power.
However, you can’ t afford the avocados I pick, the hotel beds I change, the Macaroni Grill pasta entrees I sling, and you wouldn’t believe what I charge to move that landscape boulder a little to the left to feng shui your yard.
Because unskilled me Ned’s to stay off Medicaid, food stamps, and whatever the base complaint of the week is.
Skip the Stasi network of informers, and instead mandate (don’t deny you enjoy a good mandate or three) that all human beings on American soil, regardless of immigration status, earn a substantial minimum wage across the board and receive subsidized healthcare benefits and then we’ll find what jobs American born labor will take and which employers will just close down their businesses and/or move operations abroad.
What is it in this supposedly exceptional American character that so many of us underpay decent human beings to nanny our kids, change our elderly parents’ diapers, flip our omelots, and build our houses to code.
Maybe we’re just a bunch of ripoff sociopaths, but we use the excuse that we just try to get away with what the market (that cruel motherf&cker) will bear.
We must be incentivized and dis incentivized like a bunch of behavioralist drooling Pavlovian dogs.
What is so exceptional about that?
With that said, I do look forward to the terminally ill Americans about to be murdered by Republicans after Obamacare is deepsixed shampooing my crotch in exchange for desperate wages on their way to their eternal rest.
When all around you are sadists, become the best sadist you can.
I find the “immigrants reduce wages for unskilled unemployed Americans” to have some persuasive power.
However, you can’ t afford the avocados I pick, the hotel beds I change, the Macaroni Grill pasta entrees I sling, and you wouldn’t believe what I charge to move that landscape boulder a little to the left to feng shui your yard.
Because unskilled me Ned’s to stay off Medicaid, food stamps, and whatever the base complaint of the week is.
Skip the Stasi network of informers, and instead mandate (don’t deny you enjoy a good mandate or three) that all human beings on American soil, regardless of immigration status, earn a substantial minimum wage across the board and receive subsidized healthcare benefits and then we’ll find what jobs American born labor will take and which employers will just close down their businesses and/or move operations abroad.
What is it in this supposedly exceptional American character that so many of us underpay decent human beings to nanny our kids, change our elderly parents’ diapers, flip our omelots, and build our houses to code.
Maybe we’re just a bunch of ripoff sociopaths, but we use the excuse that we just try to get away with what the market (that cruel motherf&cker) will bear.
We must be incentivized and dis incentivized like a bunch of behavioralist drooling Pavlovian dogs.
What is so exceptional about that?
With that said, I do look forward to the terminally ill Americans about to be murdered by Republicans after Obamacare is deepsixed shampooing my crotch in exchange for desperate wages on their way to their eternal rest.
When all around you are sadists, become the best sadist you can.
“Ned’s?”
This automated freebie auto spell drives me nuts. “Needs”
What do I have to pay the rest of you to sit in a proofreading sweatshop and edit my commentary.
Healthcare too you say. Sorry, that would reduce my productivity and cause inflation.
The emergency room is open 24 hours.
“Ned’s?”
This automated freebie auto spell drives me nuts. “Needs”
What do I have to pay the rest of you to sit in a proofreading sweatshop and edit my commentary.
Healthcare too you say. Sorry, that would reduce my productivity and cause inflation.
The emergency room is open 24 hours.
“Ned’s?”
This automated freebie auto spell drives me nuts. “Needs”
What do I have to pay the rest of you to sit in a proofreading sweatshop and edit my commentary.
Healthcare too you say. Sorry, that would reduce my productivity and cause inflation.
The emergency room is open 24 hours.
“But the fact that we would have to eliminate the welfare system in order to get the crops in is a feature of eliminating unskilled immigration, not a bug.”
That’s true, in as much as the welfare system consists of taking one person’s property, and giving it to another person, which is generally a bad thing. If you can replace welfare with jobs, it’s a twofer. One person not being robbed, and another person becoming self-reliant instead of a parasite.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats. That’s why Obama had good things to say about mandatory voting: He’s annoyed that his employees are cashing their paychecks, and then failing to show up for work.
“But the fact that we would have to eliminate the welfare system in order to get the crops in is a feature of eliminating unskilled immigration, not a bug.”
That’s true, in as much as the welfare system consists of taking one person’s property, and giving it to another person, which is generally a bad thing. If you can replace welfare with jobs, it’s a twofer. One person not being robbed, and another person becoming self-reliant instead of a parasite.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats. That’s why Obama had good things to say about mandatory voting: He’s annoyed that his employees are cashing their paychecks, and then failing to show up for work.
“But the fact that we would have to eliminate the welfare system in order to get the crops in is a feature of eliminating unskilled immigration, not a bug.”
That’s true, in as much as the welfare system consists of taking one person’s property, and giving it to another person, which is generally a bad thing. If you can replace welfare with jobs, it’s a twofer. One person not being robbed, and another person becoming self-reliant instead of a parasite.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats. That’s why Obama had good things to say about mandatory voting: He’s annoyed that his employees are cashing their paychecks, and then failing to show up for work.
I also favor an international mandate to equalize wages and benefits across the globe to bring all into equal balance with U.S. levels to prevent our employers from taking the easy way out and colonizing foreign labor pools at 10 percent of the cost of my labor in order to keep penny-pinching Americans from scavenging the world’s productivity at will for bargain basement prices.
Reducing real wages and inflation is the goal of every American businessman, banker, government official, economist because ….. Productivity. If you read the business press, which I do avidly, you’ll see that the know-it-alls are getting mightily worried that the federal reserve is behind the curve is raising the price of money because, holy crap, finally the wages of the bottom 92 percent are beginning to nudge upward.
We can’t have that, can we. Case in point — Larry Kudlow — libertarian/republican economic maven and tv talker nw worrying that productivity may suffer as we see wages rise. His? No. He gets paid more every year for saying the same effing thing ad nauseam night and day, but holy Jesus productivity and corporate a profits are going to suffer if anyone else manages to get a 25 cent per hour wage increase and maybe maternity leave.
Next thing you know hamburgers flippers will get soft and all full of themselves and their employers and shareholders will have to pay their nannies a little more and the entire enterprise of cheap labor funding stock buybacks (golly, we just don’t know what to do with our excess cash flow, as their employees go without dental work) will head down the toilet.
We need Stasi informers, but not for the reason Brett thinks.
I also favor an international mandate to equalize wages and benefits across the globe to bring all into equal balance with U.S. levels to prevent our employers from taking the easy way out and colonizing foreign labor pools at 10 percent of the cost of my labor in order to keep penny-pinching Americans from scavenging the world’s productivity at will for bargain basement prices.
Reducing real wages and inflation is the goal of every American businessman, banker, government official, economist because ….. Productivity. If you read the business press, which I do avidly, you’ll see that the know-it-alls are getting mightily worried that the federal reserve is behind the curve is raising the price of money because, holy crap, finally the wages of the bottom 92 percent are beginning to nudge upward.
We can’t have that, can we. Case in point — Larry Kudlow — libertarian/republican economic maven and tv talker nw worrying that productivity may suffer as we see wages rise. His? No. He gets paid more every year for saying the same effing thing ad nauseam night and day, but holy Jesus productivity and corporate a profits are going to suffer if anyone else manages to get a 25 cent per hour wage increase and maybe maternity leave.
Next thing you know hamburgers flippers will get soft and all full of themselves and their employers and shareholders will have to pay their nannies a little more and the entire enterprise of cheap labor funding stock buybacks (golly, we just don’t know what to do with our excess cash flow, as their employees go without dental work) will head down the toilet.
We need Stasi informers, but not for the reason Brett thinks.
I also favor an international mandate to equalize wages and benefits across the globe to bring all into equal balance with U.S. levels to prevent our employers from taking the easy way out and colonizing foreign labor pools at 10 percent of the cost of my labor in order to keep penny-pinching Americans from scavenging the world’s productivity at will for bargain basement prices.
Reducing real wages and inflation is the goal of every American businessman, banker, government official, economist because ….. Productivity. If you read the business press, which I do avidly, you’ll see that the know-it-alls are getting mightily worried that the federal reserve is behind the curve is raising the price of money because, holy crap, finally the wages of the bottom 92 percent are beginning to nudge upward.
We can’t have that, can we. Case in point — Larry Kudlow — libertarian/republican economic maven and tv talker nw worrying that productivity may suffer as we see wages rise. His? No. He gets paid more every year for saying the same effing thing ad nauseam night and day, but holy Jesus productivity and corporate a profits are going to suffer if anyone else manages to get a 25 cent per hour wage increase and maybe maternity leave.
Next thing you know hamburgers flippers will get soft and all full of themselves and their employers and shareholders will have to pay their nannies a little more and the entire enterprise of cheap labor funding stock buybacks (golly, we just don’t know what to do with our excess cash flow, as their employees go without dental work) will head down the toilet.
We need Stasi informers, but not for the reason Brett thinks.
…just because it’s right next to us?
That Mexico is right next to us is actually important. It’s not “just.” The border is just an imaginary line, if that’s how we’re phrasing things.
…just because it’s right next to us?
That Mexico is right next to us is actually important. It’s not “just.” The border is just an imaginary line, if that’s how we’re phrasing things.
…just because it’s right next to us?
That Mexico is right next to us is actually important. It’s not “just.” The border is just an imaginary line, if that’s how we’re phrasing things.
That’s true, in as much as the welfare system consists of taking one person’s property, and giving it to another person, which is generally a bad thing.
Sounds like those red states taking federal tax money from us Northeasterners.
That’s true, in as much as the welfare system consists of taking one person’s property, and giving it to another person, which is generally a bad thing.
Sounds like those red states taking federal tax money from us Northeasterners.
That’s true, in as much as the welfare system consists of taking one person’s property, and giving it to another person, which is generally a bad thing.
Sounds like those red states taking federal tax money from us Northeasterners.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats.
Do you have any studies which show
a) what percentage of people on welfare are actually registered to vote, and
b) of those, what percentage vote for Democrats?
Or is it just an assumption — because, in your mind, it would be in their self-interest to do so?
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats.
Do you have any studies which show
a) what percentage of people on welfare are actually registered to vote, and
b) of those, what percentage vote for Democrats?
Or is it just an assumption — because, in your mind, it would be in their self-interest to do so?
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats.
Do you have any studies which show
a) what percentage of people on welfare are actually registered to vote, and
b) of those, what percentage vote for Democrats?
Or is it just an assumption — because, in your mind, it would be in their self-interest to do so?
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
Obviously, they do. What that is, is addressed all too briefly in the article, i.e., picking crops is a skill-not just any kid or college student looking to pick up a few bucks can do it; immigrants free up native labor to do other things with other skill sets.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
Obviously, they do. What that is, is addressed all too briefly in the article, i.e., picking crops is a skill-not just any kid or college student looking to pick up a few bucks can do it; immigrants free up native labor to do other things with other skill sets.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
Obviously, they do. What that is, is addressed all too briefly in the article, i.e., picking crops is a skill-not just any kid or college student looking to pick up a few bucks can do it; immigrants free up native labor to do other things with other skill sets.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats.
That explains the farm vote! Not.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats.
That explains the farm vote! Not.
Of course, people on welfare actually do have a job: Voting for Democrats.
That explains the farm vote! Not.
Sure, they are freed up. But are they actually doing anything?
See, I don’t really have any fixed ideas about what people are doing besides the manual labor, or why. I am instead a bit curious. Starting out low on the pay scale for low skill and working one’s way up in skill and pay over time is not exactly a new idea in our workforce, but the article cleek linked to regards picking skill development, the way I read it, as a nearly insurmountable obstacle.
It makes no sense to me.
Growing up to be a skilled picker may not be everyone’s American Dream, but neither is growing up to be perpetually unemployed.
Sure, they are freed up. But are they actually doing anything?
See, I don’t really have any fixed ideas about what people are doing besides the manual labor, or why. I am instead a bit curious. Starting out low on the pay scale for low skill and working one’s way up in skill and pay over time is not exactly a new idea in our workforce, but the article cleek linked to regards picking skill development, the way I read it, as a nearly insurmountable obstacle.
It makes no sense to me.
Growing up to be a skilled picker may not be everyone’s American Dream, but neither is growing up to be perpetually unemployed.
Sure, they are freed up. But are they actually doing anything?
See, I don’t really have any fixed ideas about what people are doing besides the manual labor, or why. I am instead a bit curious. Starting out low on the pay scale for low skill and working one’s way up in skill and pay over time is not exactly a new idea in our workforce, but the article cleek linked to regards picking skill development, the way I read it, as a nearly insurmountable obstacle.
It makes no sense to me.
Growing up to be a skilled picker may not be everyone’s American Dream, but neither is growing up to be perpetually unemployed.
Racist
but remember, Brett is not a troll.
Racist
but remember, Brett is not a troll.
Racist
but remember, Brett is not a troll.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
bobbyp beat me to it.
Yes, agricultural labor is not all unskilled. Most of it is probably not unskilled. You won’t necessarily be able to plug any random person into a given job and have a good result.
It’s also typically seasonal, and also often itinerant. That is, for some kinds of crops the work moves along with the progress of the season.
So, for various reasons, it is likely not just a simple matter of “send the illegals back home and let Americans do it”.
There are lots of kinds of work that generally get lumped under the heading of “unskilled” that are actually more demanding, in a variety of ways, than folks generally realize.
Human labor is actually not as fungible as some folks would have it.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
bobbyp beat me to it.
Yes, agricultural labor is not all unskilled. Most of it is probably not unskilled. You won’t necessarily be able to plug any random person into a given job and have a good result.
It’s also typically seasonal, and also often itinerant. That is, for some kinds of crops the work moves along with the progress of the season.
So, for various reasons, it is likely not just a simple matter of “send the illegals back home and let Americans do it”.
There are lots of kinds of work that generally get lumped under the heading of “unskilled” that are actually more demanding, in a variety of ways, than folks generally realize.
Human labor is actually not as fungible as some folks would have it.
The article doesn’t talk about what Americans who won’t do that kind of job are doing, instead. They have other choices?
bobbyp beat me to it.
Yes, agricultural labor is not all unskilled. Most of it is probably not unskilled. You won’t necessarily be able to plug any random person into a given job and have a good result.
It’s also typically seasonal, and also often itinerant. That is, for some kinds of crops the work moves along with the progress of the season.
So, for various reasons, it is likely not just a simple matter of “send the illegals back home and let Americans do it”.
There are lots of kinds of work that generally get lumped under the heading of “unskilled” that are actually more demanding, in a variety of ways, than folks generally realize.
Human labor is actually not as fungible as some folks would have it.
Cleek: I was under the impression that accusing people who advocate policies that you believe hurt minorities of racism was standard practice. Am I wrong about that?
Cleek: I was under the impression that accusing people who advocate policies that you believe hurt minorities of racism was standard practice. Am I wrong about that?
Cleek: I was under the impression that accusing people who advocate policies that you believe hurt minorities of racism was standard practice. Am I wrong about that?
I actually wasn’t going there, russell. I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level. Maybe the time required to develop those skills exceeds the patience of Americans. I just don’t know the answer; looking to see if others have any better ideas.
I actually wasn’t going there, russell. I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level. Maybe the time required to develop those skills exceeds the patience of Americans. I just don’t know the answer; looking to see if others have any better ideas.
I actually wasn’t going there, russell. I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level. Maybe the time required to develop those skills exceeds the patience of Americans. I just don’t know the answer; looking to see if others have any better ideas.
I was under the impression that accusing people who advocate policies that you believe hurt minorities of racism was standard practice.
i’m done feeding you.
I was under the impression that accusing people who advocate policies that you believe hurt minorities of racism was standard practice.
i’m done feeding you.
I was under the impression that accusing people who advocate policies that you believe hurt minorities of racism was standard practice.
i’m done feeding you.
Repeating the error of others probably isn’t your best rhetorical move.
Repeating the error of others probably isn’t your best rhetorical move.
Repeating the error of others probably isn’t your best rhetorical move.
“Repeating the error of others probably isn’t your best rhetorical move.”
Eventually the goose, after being repeatedly doused with “racist” sauce, decides the gander deserves a taste of it. I am sick up to here with being called a racist any time I say something a liberal doesn’t agree with.
“I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.”
Speaking as somebody who has actually done that sort of work, along side migrant workers…
You typically learn to do that sort of thing as a minor, (I was, when I did it.) and the (piece rate) pay is horrible until you get good at it. Whole families work together, with the children learning on the job.
We tolerate child labor of the illegal immigrant sort. As a society we have become very hostile to allowing the children of people here legally to work on a farm. To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
Essentially, it’s illegal for Americans to pick up this skill.
“Repeating the error of others probably isn’t your best rhetorical move.”
Eventually the goose, after being repeatedly doused with “racist” sauce, decides the gander deserves a taste of it. I am sick up to here with being called a racist any time I say something a liberal doesn’t agree with.
“I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.”
Speaking as somebody who has actually done that sort of work, along side migrant workers…
You typically learn to do that sort of thing as a minor, (I was, when I did it.) and the (piece rate) pay is horrible until you get good at it. Whole families work together, with the children learning on the job.
We tolerate child labor of the illegal immigrant sort. As a society we have become very hostile to allowing the children of people here legally to work on a farm. To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
Essentially, it’s illegal for Americans to pick up this skill.
“Repeating the error of others probably isn’t your best rhetorical move.”
Eventually the goose, after being repeatedly doused with “racist” sauce, decides the gander deserves a taste of it. I am sick up to here with being called a racist any time I say something a liberal doesn’t agree with.
“I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.”
Speaking as somebody who has actually done that sort of work, along side migrant workers…
You typically learn to do that sort of thing as a minor, (I was, when I did it.) and the (piece rate) pay is horrible until you get good at it. Whole families work together, with the children learning on the job.
We tolerate child labor of the illegal immigrant sort. As a society we have become very hostile to allowing the children of people here legally to work on a farm. To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
Essentially, it’s illegal for Americans to pick up this skill.
If it’s currently essentially illegal for Americans to pick up these skills, shouldn’t we address that FIRST? That way, we at least have some people who can fill in when we eliminate the illegals who are doing it.
If it’s currently essentially illegal for Americans to pick up these skills, shouldn’t we address that FIRST? That way, we at least have some people who can fill in when we eliminate the illegals who are doing it.
If it’s currently essentially illegal for Americans to pick up these skills, shouldn’t we address that FIRST? That way, we at least have some people who can fill in when we eliminate the illegals who are doing it.
I would imagine some of the people who formerly did backbreaking jobs are cooling their heels after being downsized, made redundant by productivity enhancements, and outsourced (the English language is al about having your life and work destroyed but making it sound like misplacing your library card), and maybe getting some education to do the knowledge jobs of the future just in time for artificial intelligence to put the kibosh on those careers too.
Many attend truck-driving school to learn how to lose their jobs soon to the driverless semi.
All manufactured by cheap labor abroad, though that is reversing somewhat as foreign labor gets a leg up too far and corporations move jobs back here to take advantage of now desperate American labor.
Tell me the difference between a John Deere tractor manufactured in China that is shipped over here to displace Americans who are dying to do stoop labor, by all accounts, and a Mexican national wading across the rio grande to take the Americans’ jobs at lower wages.
The former doesn’t eat.
And there lies the rub. You lay off a human and they require food stamps to buy a meal. But cutting food stamps reduces the demand for food from workers laid off by productivity improvements. So you cut the food subsidy, which cuts the demand for foodstuffs, which cuts the demand for tractors, and you end up with idle humans and tractors, the difference being that the former gets pissed off and causes trouble and the tractors sit quietly inthe rain and rust but otherwise don’t cause trouble.
Another lesson from the school of simple answers.
I would imagine some of the people who formerly did backbreaking jobs are cooling their heels after being downsized, made redundant by productivity enhancements, and outsourced (the English language is al about having your life and work destroyed but making it sound like misplacing your library card), and maybe getting some education to do the knowledge jobs of the future just in time for artificial intelligence to put the kibosh on those careers too.
Many attend truck-driving school to learn how to lose their jobs soon to the driverless semi.
All manufactured by cheap labor abroad, though that is reversing somewhat as foreign labor gets a leg up too far and corporations move jobs back here to take advantage of now desperate American labor.
Tell me the difference between a John Deere tractor manufactured in China that is shipped over here to displace Americans who are dying to do stoop labor, by all accounts, and a Mexican national wading across the rio grande to take the Americans’ jobs at lower wages.
The former doesn’t eat.
And there lies the rub. You lay off a human and they require food stamps to buy a meal. But cutting food stamps reduces the demand for food from workers laid off by productivity improvements. So you cut the food subsidy, which cuts the demand for foodstuffs, which cuts the demand for tractors, and you end up with idle humans and tractors, the difference being that the former gets pissed off and causes trouble and the tractors sit quietly inthe rain and rust but otherwise don’t cause trouble.
Another lesson from the school of simple answers.
I would imagine some of the people who formerly did backbreaking jobs are cooling their heels after being downsized, made redundant by productivity enhancements, and outsourced (the English language is al about having your life and work destroyed but making it sound like misplacing your library card), and maybe getting some education to do the knowledge jobs of the future just in time for artificial intelligence to put the kibosh on those careers too.
Many attend truck-driving school to learn how to lose their jobs soon to the driverless semi.
All manufactured by cheap labor abroad, though that is reversing somewhat as foreign labor gets a leg up too far and corporations move jobs back here to take advantage of now desperate American labor.
Tell me the difference between a John Deere tractor manufactured in China that is shipped over here to displace Americans who are dying to do stoop labor, by all accounts, and a Mexican national wading across the rio grande to take the Americans’ jobs at lower wages.
The former doesn’t eat.
And there lies the rub. You lay off a human and they require food stamps to buy a meal. But cutting food stamps reduces the demand for food from workers laid off by productivity improvements. So you cut the food subsidy, which cuts the demand for foodstuffs, which cuts the demand for tractors, and you end up with idle humans and tractors, the difference being that the former gets pissed off and causes trouble and the tractors sit quietly inthe rain and rust but otherwise don’t cause trouble.
Another lesson from the school of simple answers.
I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.
The great theme of industrialization is the emptying of the countryside and sending people into the cities. But the apples (for just one example) still need to be picked, no? So, it’s a two month job. So who is going to move to a rural area for two months? What are you going to do for the rest of the year? You would think the pay would have to be really rewarding under such circumstances.
But it is not.
And where are you going to live? In a motel? What developer is going to build housing in rural areas for people who will live there only two months?
And think of the of upward mobility? Ya’ think if you work hard someday you might own the farm?
I doubt it.
Opportunities in the city are, even if you work flipping burgers, better.
Ideally, what the agricultural interests and the conservatives desire is a return to the bracero system (which look up).
It did not turn out well.
I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.
The great theme of industrialization is the emptying of the countryside and sending people into the cities. But the apples (for just one example) still need to be picked, no? So, it’s a two month job. So who is going to move to a rural area for two months? What are you going to do for the rest of the year? You would think the pay would have to be really rewarding under such circumstances.
But it is not.
And where are you going to live? In a motel? What developer is going to build housing in rural areas for people who will live there only two months?
And think of the of upward mobility? Ya’ think if you work hard someday you might own the farm?
I doubt it.
Opportunities in the city are, even if you work flipping burgers, better.
Ideally, what the agricultural interests and the conservatives desire is a return to the bracero system (which look up).
It did not turn out well.
I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.
The great theme of industrialization is the emptying of the countryside and sending people into the cities. But the apples (for just one example) still need to be picked, no? So, it’s a two month job. So who is going to move to a rural area for two months? What are you going to do for the rest of the year? You would think the pay would have to be really rewarding under such circumstances.
But it is not.
And where are you going to live? In a motel? What developer is going to build housing in rural areas for people who will live there only two months?
And think of the of upward mobility? Ya’ think if you work hard someday you might own the farm?
I doubt it.
Opportunities in the city are, even if you work flipping burgers, better.
Ideally, what the agricultural interests and the conservatives desire is a return to the bracero system (which look up).
It did not turn out well.
We tolerate child labor of the illegal immigrant sort. As a society we have become very hostile to allowing the children of people here legally to work on a farm. To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
Having children of illegal immigrants working in fields alongside members of their culture of origin instead of attending school helps discourage acculturation, English proficiency, and literacy. Given the value you place on these things, I’m surprised to see you lionizing this by implying we should be doing the same to native-born children.
We tolerate child labor of the illegal immigrant sort. As a society we have become very hostile to allowing the children of people here legally to work on a farm. To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
Having children of illegal immigrants working in fields alongside members of their culture of origin instead of attending school helps discourage acculturation, English proficiency, and literacy. Given the value you place on these things, I’m surprised to see you lionizing this by implying we should be doing the same to native-born children.
We tolerate child labor of the illegal immigrant sort. As a society we have become very hostile to allowing the children of people here legally to work on a farm. To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
Having children of illegal immigrants working in fields alongside members of their culture of origin instead of attending school helps discourage acculturation, English proficiency, and literacy. Given the value you place on these things, I’m surprised to see you lionizing this by implying we should be doing the same to native-born children.
To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
This is simply not true.
To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
This is simply not true.
To the point where the government is currently trying to prevent children of farmers from working at their parents’ farms!
This is simply not true.
I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.
I think Brett is correct. It takes time to be good enough at it to make decent money, and it’s usually something you would learn as a kid.
Not that many people farm anymore, so the opportunity to get the skill set isn’t as available.
To Brett’s point about the government preventing minors from working on farms, here is the Department of Labor guidance.
Briefly, with some limitations, minors can work on farms owned by their families.
I also think there is, plain and simple, a stigma against manual labor, of any kind, as a career in the US.
Some links that may be of interest:
Here, here, here, here.
I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.
I think Brett is correct. It takes time to be good enough at it to make decent money, and it’s usually something you would learn as a kid.
Not that many people farm anymore, so the opportunity to get the skill set isn’t as available.
To Brett’s point about the government preventing minors from working on farms, here is the Department of Labor guidance.
Briefly, with some limitations, minors can work on farms owned by their families.
I also think there is, plain and simple, a stigma against manual labor, of any kind, as a career in the US.
Some links that may be of interest:
Here, here, here, here.
I was instead wondering why more non-immigrants weren’t entering the job market at the low-skill level.
I think Brett is correct. It takes time to be good enough at it to make decent money, and it’s usually something you would learn as a kid.
Not that many people farm anymore, so the opportunity to get the skill set isn’t as available.
To Brett’s point about the government preventing minors from working on farms, here is the Department of Labor guidance.
Briefly, with some limitations, minors can work on farms owned by their families.
I also think there is, plain and simple, a stigma against manual labor, of any kind, as a career in the US.
Some links that may be of interest:
Here, here, here, here.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
Understandable.
FWIW, it might be helpful to not make broad statements about the Cultural Values of large groups of people who are characterized by race, ethnicity, or country of origin.
It’s mostly the “broad statements” part of that. Being specific about who you’re talking about, and what particular thing you are talking about, might be helpful.
Offered for what it’s worth.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
Understandable.
FWIW, it might be helpful to not make broad statements about the Cultural Values of large groups of people who are characterized by race, ethnicity, or country of origin.
It’s mostly the “broad statements” part of that. Being specific about who you’re talking about, and what particular thing you are talking about, might be helpful.
Offered for what it’s worth.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
Understandable.
FWIW, it might be helpful to not make broad statements about the Cultural Values of large groups of people who are characterized by race, ethnicity, or country of origin.
It’s mostly the “broad statements” part of that. Being specific about who you’re talking about, and what particular thing you are talking about, might be helpful.
Offered for what it’s worth.
“Having children of illegal immigrants working in fields alongside members of their culture of origin instead of attending school helps discourage acculturation, English proficiency, and literacy. Given the value you place on these things, I’m surprised to see you lionizing this by implying we should be doing the same to native-born children.”
Why exactly do you suppose children don’t attend school during the summer? It’s not like they’d be harvesting crops all year round.
Russell: I wasn’t aware, until looking into it, that the Labor department had backed down in that regard. But they certainly did attempt it.
“Having children of illegal immigrants working in fields alongside members of their culture of origin instead of attending school helps discourage acculturation, English proficiency, and literacy. Given the value you place on these things, I’m surprised to see you lionizing this by implying we should be doing the same to native-born children.”
Why exactly do you suppose children don’t attend school during the summer? It’s not like they’d be harvesting crops all year round.
Russell: I wasn’t aware, until looking into it, that the Labor department had backed down in that regard. But they certainly did attempt it.
“Having children of illegal immigrants working in fields alongside members of their culture of origin instead of attending school helps discourage acculturation, English proficiency, and literacy. Given the value you place on these things, I’m surprised to see you lionizing this by implying we should be doing the same to native-born children.”
Why exactly do you suppose children don’t attend school during the summer? It’s not like they’d be harvesting crops all year round.
Russell: I wasn’t aware, until looking into it, that the Labor department had backed down in that regard. But they certainly did attempt it.
seems like this would be a good biz for the govt to get into. we have millions of people who are available to do a bit of work every summer: high school and college kids on summer break. start a program that gathers kids and sends them off to the country for a couple of months of picking – subsidize food and housing. i know this happens already in some places, but why not try expanding it?
the money won’t be great, but if we’re talking about college kids that’s OK.
i worked a very seasonal job on high school and college summer breaks (ice packing in upstate NY). it was hard work with long hours at minimum wage. but hours add up and overtime helps. so at the end of the summer i’d have a big chunk of cash to keep myself in spending money throughout the school year.
seems like this would be a good biz for the govt to get into. we have millions of people who are available to do a bit of work every summer: high school and college kids on summer break. start a program that gathers kids and sends them off to the country for a couple of months of picking – subsidize food and housing. i know this happens already in some places, but why not try expanding it?
the money won’t be great, but if we’re talking about college kids that’s OK.
i worked a very seasonal job on high school and college summer breaks (ice packing in upstate NY). it was hard work with long hours at minimum wage. but hours add up and overtime helps. so at the end of the summer i’d have a big chunk of cash to keep myself in spending money throughout the school year.
seems like this would be a good biz for the govt to get into. we have millions of people who are available to do a bit of work every summer: high school and college kids on summer break. start a program that gathers kids and sends them off to the country for a couple of months of picking – subsidize food and housing. i know this happens already in some places, but why not try expanding it?
the money won’t be great, but if we’re talking about college kids that’s OK.
i worked a very seasonal job on high school and college summer breaks (ice packing in upstate NY). it was hard work with long hours at minimum wage. but hours add up and overtime helps. so at the end of the summer i’d have a big chunk of cash to keep myself in spending money throughout the school year.
The bracero program (after WW II) was justified as an alternative to illegal immigration. Sound familiar?
It ended, mainly, because of objections to the unsafe conditions under which the agricultural workers involved worked, lived, were transported, etc. And conditions were bad, no question. Of course, today’s illegal immigrants have even worse conditions and fewer safeguards, so it isn’t obvious that it is an improvement on that score.
Indeed, a case could be made that what we should have done is improve the safeguards on how the braceros were treated. The fault for not taking that approach probably lies with organized labor, which was under the delusion that they would be able to organize the American workers who would replace the braceros. (Conservatives are not the only ones with illusions about Americans’ willingness to do farm labor.)
The bracero program (after WW II) was justified as an alternative to illegal immigration. Sound familiar?
It ended, mainly, because of objections to the unsafe conditions under which the agricultural workers involved worked, lived, were transported, etc. And conditions were bad, no question. Of course, today’s illegal immigrants have even worse conditions and fewer safeguards, so it isn’t obvious that it is an improvement on that score.
Indeed, a case could be made that what we should have done is improve the safeguards on how the braceros were treated. The fault for not taking that approach probably lies with organized labor, which was under the delusion that they would be able to organize the American workers who would replace the braceros. (Conservatives are not the only ones with illusions about Americans’ willingness to do farm labor.)
The bracero program (after WW II) was justified as an alternative to illegal immigration. Sound familiar?
It ended, mainly, because of objections to the unsafe conditions under which the agricultural workers involved worked, lived, were transported, etc. And conditions were bad, no question. Of course, today’s illegal immigrants have even worse conditions and fewer safeguards, so it isn’t obvious that it is an improvement on that score.
Indeed, a case could be made that what we should have done is improve the safeguards on how the braceros were treated. The fault for not taking that approach probably lies with organized labor, which was under the delusion that they would be able to organize the American workers who would replace the braceros. (Conservatives are not the only ones with illusions about Americans’ willingness to do farm labor.)
From one of Russell’s links:
“Farmers all around the country are describing a labor shortage.”
Absent consideration of farm subsidies, agriculture is about the closest industry we have to pure competition as you are exposed to in introductory classes in microeconomics. As a firm, you (your farm) are a price taker, totally at the whim of market prices for the labor you hire and the produce you sell.
Perhaps what we have instead is a surfeit of farm(er)s.
From one of Russell’s links:
“Farmers all around the country are describing a labor shortage.”
Absent consideration of farm subsidies, agriculture is about the closest industry we have to pure competition as you are exposed to in introductory classes in microeconomics. As a firm, you (your farm) are a price taker, totally at the whim of market prices for the labor you hire and the produce you sell.
Perhaps what we have instead is a surfeit of farm(er)s.
From one of Russell’s links:
“Farmers all around the country are describing a labor shortage.”
Absent consideration of farm subsidies, agriculture is about the closest industry we have to pure competition as you are exposed to in introductory classes in microeconomics. As a firm, you (your farm) are a price taker, totally at the whim of market prices for the labor you hire and the produce you sell.
Perhaps what we have instead is a surfeit of farm(er)s.
I’ll be fascinated to observe President Bellmore announce in his first State of the Union the institution of a vast web of informers among immigrant farm labor and the replacement of these workers by inner-city kids below the age of 12 trucked into the countryside miles away to dig up onions at piece rate pay.
Sounds a little Mao tse tungish.
Of course, all regulation of working conditions will be suspended as well.
For the record, I ‘ve done plenty of backbreaking landscape work as well far in the past, and milked cows and baled hay as well.
At my current age, despite the fact I’m in good shape, if I’m to dig up onions while foregoing health insurance and other luxuries as the price of not being called a parasite, the foremen on these crews should understand that I will kick their f$cking asses, and I mean hurt them, if the pay and conditions are not up to civilized standards.
I draw the line at cutting sugarcane. You don’t want to hand me a machete and then shortchange me at the end of the day.
And stay the good goddamed out of my way when I unionize your children’s brigade.
I’ll be fascinated to observe President Bellmore announce in his first State of the Union the institution of a vast web of informers among immigrant farm labor and the replacement of these workers by inner-city kids below the age of 12 trucked into the countryside miles away to dig up onions at piece rate pay.
Sounds a little Mao tse tungish.
Of course, all regulation of working conditions will be suspended as well.
For the record, I ‘ve done plenty of backbreaking landscape work as well far in the past, and milked cows and baled hay as well.
At my current age, despite the fact I’m in good shape, if I’m to dig up onions while foregoing health insurance and other luxuries as the price of not being called a parasite, the foremen on these crews should understand that I will kick their f$cking asses, and I mean hurt them, if the pay and conditions are not up to civilized standards.
I draw the line at cutting sugarcane. You don’t want to hand me a machete and then shortchange me at the end of the day.
And stay the good goddamed out of my way when I unionize your children’s brigade.
I’ll be fascinated to observe President Bellmore announce in his first State of the Union the institution of a vast web of informers among immigrant farm labor and the replacement of these workers by inner-city kids below the age of 12 trucked into the countryside miles away to dig up onions at piece rate pay.
Sounds a little Mao tse tungish.
Of course, all regulation of working conditions will be suspended as well.
For the record, I ‘ve done plenty of backbreaking landscape work as well far in the past, and milked cows and baled hay as well.
At my current age, despite the fact I’m in good shape, if I’m to dig up onions while foregoing health insurance and other luxuries as the price of not being called a parasite, the foremen on these crews should understand that I will kick their f$cking asses, and I mean hurt them, if the pay and conditions are not up to civilized standards.
I draw the line at cutting sugarcane. You don’t want to hand me a machete and then shortchange me at the end of the day.
And stay the good goddamed out of my way when I unionize your children’s brigade.
But they certainly did attempt it.
Fair enough.
Perhaps what we have instead is a surfeit of farm(er)s.
We have a historically very low number of farms and farmers in the US. And, people still need to eat.
I follow the logic of the economic analysis, I’m just thinking there’s probably more involved.
But they certainly did attempt it.
Fair enough.
Perhaps what we have instead is a surfeit of farm(er)s.
We have a historically very low number of farms and farmers in the US. And, people still need to eat.
I follow the logic of the economic analysis, I’m just thinking there’s probably more involved.
But they certainly did attempt it.
Fair enough.
Perhaps what we have instead is a surfeit of farm(er)s.
We have a historically very low number of farms and farmers in the US. And, people still need to eat.
I follow the logic of the economic analysis, I’m just thinking there’s probably more involved.
Indeed, a case could be made that what we should have done is improve the safeguards on how the braceros were treated. The fault for not taking that approach probably lies with organized labor
I doubt that was the reason. From the wikki entry on the program (which in itself is rather interesting)….
“U.S. businesses increasingly realized that provisions within the program ensured an increase of costs for the imported labor.
The program mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (all payable by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. This not only enabled many to send funds home to their families but also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration after the filling of quotas for official workers in the U.S.”
Indeed, a case could be made that what we should have done is improve the safeguards on how the braceros were treated. The fault for not taking that approach probably lies with organized labor
I doubt that was the reason. From the wikki entry on the program (which in itself is rather interesting)….
“U.S. businesses increasingly realized that provisions within the program ensured an increase of costs for the imported labor.
The program mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (all payable by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. This not only enabled many to send funds home to their families but also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration after the filling of quotas for official workers in the U.S.”
Indeed, a case could be made that what we should have done is improve the safeguards on how the braceros were treated. The fault for not taking that approach probably lies with organized labor
I doubt that was the reason. From the wikki entry on the program (which in itself is rather interesting)….
“U.S. businesses increasingly realized that provisions within the program ensured an increase of costs for the imported labor.
The program mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (all payable by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. This not only enabled many to send funds home to their families but also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration after the filling of quotas for official workers in the U.S.”
“i know this happens already in some places, but why not try expanding it?”
I have been driven to the conclusion that the government does not actually want to alleviate unemployment. Perhaps they think there’s no point in the attempt, that we are inevitably transitioning to an age where very few people actually work. I could make an argument for that.
Or maybe they find it politically inexpedient. I could make a case for that, have made it.
But there are so many things they don’t do, that they could. Why not revive the Civil Conservation Corps? We’d get some work out of the unemployed, and it would be better for their mental health to actually be doing something for the support they get.
But they don’t.
“i know this happens already in some places, but why not try expanding it?”
I have been driven to the conclusion that the government does not actually want to alleviate unemployment. Perhaps they think there’s no point in the attempt, that we are inevitably transitioning to an age where very few people actually work. I could make an argument for that.
Or maybe they find it politically inexpedient. I could make a case for that, have made it.
But there are so many things they don’t do, that they could. Why not revive the Civil Conservation Corps? We’d get some work out of the unemployed, and it would be better for their mental health to actually be doing something for the support they get.
But they don’t.
“i know this happens already in some places, but why not try expanding it?”
I have been driven to the conclusion that the government does not actually want to alleviate unemployment. Perhaps they think there’s no point in the attempt, that we are inevitably transitioning to an age where very few people actually work. I could make an argument for that.
Or maybe they find it politically inexpedient. I could make a case for that, have made it.
But there are so many things they don’t do, that they could. Why not revive the Civil Conservation Corps? We’d get some work out of the unemployed, and it would be better for their mental health to actually be doing something for the support they get.
But they don’t.
I have been driven to the conclusion that the government does not actually want to alleviate unemployment.
?!!??
Unemployment, as measured by the feds, was 10% at the end of 2009. Now it’s under 6%.
Good bad or indifferent, government played no role in that change?
Why not revive the Civil Conservation Corps?
Good question, great question 5 years ago.
I suspect it has something to do with the reaction that lots of people have to the combination of “government” and “program”.
Especially if “work camp” is thrown into the mix.
I have been driven to the conclusion that the government does not actually want to alleviate unemployment.
?!!??
Unemployment, as measured by the feds, was 10% at the end of 2009. Now it’s under 6%.
Good bad or indifferent, government played no role in that change?
Why not revive the Civil Conservation Corps?
Good question, great question 5 years ago.
I suspect it has something to do with the reaction that lots of people have to the combination of “government” and “program”.
Especially if “work camp” is thrown into the mix.
I have been driven to the conclusion that the government does not actually want to alleviate unemployment.
?!!??
Unemployment, as measured by the feds, was 10% at the end of 2009. Now it’s under 6%.
Good bad or indifferent, government played no role in that change?
Why not revive the Civil Conservation Corps?
Good question, great question 5 years ago.
I suspect it has something to do with the reaction that lots of people have to the combination of “government” and “program”.
Especially if “work camp” is thrown into the mix.
“Unemployment, as measured by the feds, was 10% at the end of 2009. Now it’s under 6%.”
The whole reduction is to be found in that, “as measured by the feds”. I didn’t say they had no interest in making the published number smaller. Just that they didn’t have any interest in reducing what it purportedly measures.
The unemployment rate, as defined by the feds, is dropping. The percentage of the population actually employed is not climbing. Rather, the labor pool that unemployment is measured as a percentage of is shrinking.
“Unemployment, as measured by the feds, was 10% at the end of 2009. Now it’s under 6%.”
The whole reduction is to be found in that, “as measured by the feds”. I didn’t say they had no interest in making the published number smaller. Just that they didn’t have any interest in reducing what it purportedly measures.
The unemployment rate, as defined by the feds, is dropping. The percentage of the population actually employed is not climbing. Rather, the labor pool that unemployment is measured as a percentage of is shrinking.
“Unemployment, as measured by the feds, was 10% at the end of 2009. Now it’s under 6%.”
The whole reduction is to be found in that, “as measured by the feds”. I didn’t say they had no interest in making the published number smaller. Just that they didn’t have any interest in reducing what it purportedly measures.
The unemployment rate, as defined by the feds, is dropping. The percentage of the population actually employed is not climbing. Rather, the labor pool that unemployment is measured as a percentage of is shrinking.
Rather, the labor pool that unemployment is measured as a percentage of is shrinking.
How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement, rather than some attempt to fudge the numbers?
Rather, the labor pool that unemployment is measured as a percentage of is shrinking.
How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement, rather than some attempt to fudge the numbers?
Rather, the labor pool that unemployment is measured as a percentage of is shrinking.
How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement, rather than some attempt to fudge the numbers?
You will need to show your work if you want me to believe that.
How has the formula used to calculate the unemployment rate changed from five years ago to now?
How has the number of people who have removed themselves from the labor pool, however and for whatever reason, changed from five years ago to now?
How has the way in which those people are represented in the fed’s numbers changed from five years ago until now?
In short, you’re claiming that the reduction of over four points in the unemployment rate is purely number cooking by the feds.
Show me how you get there.
You will need to show your work if you want me to believe that.
How has the formula used to calculate the unemployment rate changed from five years ago to now?
How has the number of people who have removed themselves from the labor pool, however and for whatever reason, changed from five years ago to now?
How has the way in which those people are represented in the fed’s numbers changed from five years ago until now?
In short, you’re claiming that the reduction of over four points in the unemployment rate is purely number cooking by the feds.
Show me how you get there.
You will need to show your work if you want me to believe that.
How has the formula used to calculate the unemployment rate changed from five years ago to now?
How has the number of people who have removed themselves from the labor pool, however and for whatever reason, changed from five years ago to now?
How has the way in which those people are represented in the fed’s numbers changed from five years ago until now?
In short, you’re claiming that the reduction of over four points in the unemployment rate is purely number cooking by the feds.
Show me how you get there.
Here, I’ll help you out.
If you have better numbers than the BLS, let’s see them.
Here, I’ll help you out.
If you have better numbers than the BLS, let’s see them.
Here, I’ll help you out.
If you have better numbers than the BLS, let’s see them.
“I suspect it has something to do with the reaction that lots of people have to the combination of “government” and “program”.
Especially if “work camp” is thrown into the mix.”
“Get some work out of them!” will quiet those objections, I think.
“How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement, rather than some attempt to fudge the numbers?”
Well, some of it consists of earlier than usual retirements, and the number of people on “disability” is soaring. But the bigger part, as I understand it, is people just giving up.
There’s a lot of data here, but I’ve got to take the car into the garage, check engine light.
“I suspect it has something to do with the reaction that lots of people have to the combination of “government” and “program”.
Especially if “work camp” is thrown into the mix.”
“Get some work out of them!” will quiet those objections, I think.
“How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement, rather than some attempt to fudge the numbers?”
Well, some of it consists of earlier than usual retirements, and the number of people on “disability” is soaring. But the bigger part, as I understand it, is people just giving up.
There’s a lot of data here, but I’ve got to take the car into the garage, check engine light.
“I suspect it has something to do with the reaction that lots of people have to the combination of “government” and “program”.
Especially if “work camp” is thrown into the mix.”
“Get some work out of them!” will quiet those objections, I think.
“How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement, rather than some attempt to fudge the numbers?”
Well, some of it consists of earlier than usual retirements, and the number of people on “disability” is soaring. But the bigger part, as I understand it, is people just giving up.
There’s a lot of data here, but I’ve got to take the car into the garage, check engine light.
How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement
Millenials (1980-1999), as a cohort, are larger than the boomers, and they’re mostly all workforce-age now.
As an aside, the oldest Gen-X’ers are 50 now.
Crap, I feel old.
How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement
Millenials (1980-1999), as a cohort, are larger than the boomers, and they’re mostly all workforce-age now.
As an aside, the oldest Gen-X’ers are 50 now.
Crap, I feel old.
How much of that is a matter of Boomers aging into retirement
Millenials (1980-1999), as a cohort, are larger than the boomers, and they’re mostly all workforce-age now.
As an aside, the oldest Gen-X’ers are 50 now.
Crap, I feel old.
“Get some work out of them!” will quiet those objections, I think.
Tell it to your anti-government buddies.
“Get some work out of them!” will quiet those objections, I think.
Tell it to your anti-government buddies.
“Get some work out of them!” will quiet those objections, I think.
Tell it to your anti-government buddies.
But the bigger part, as I understand it, is people just giving up.
That was certainly a factor in holding down the unemployment numbers the last half dozen years. But as the economy has improved lately, people have been coming back into the workforce . . . thus making the unemployment numbers worse than they would have been.
But the bigger part, as I understand it, is people just giving up.
That was certainly a factor in holding down the unemployment numbers the last half dozen years. But as the economy has improved lately, people have been coming back into the workforce . . . thus making the unemployment numbers worse than they would have been.
But the bigger part, as I understand it, is people just giving up.
That was certainly a factor in holding down the unemployment numbers the last half dozen years. But as the economy has improved lately, people have been coming back into the workforce . . . thus making the unemployment numbers worse than they would have been.
Actually, looking at the numbers I’d say Brett has a fairly strong case. A lot of ~4 percent difference in the rate looks like it can be attributed to a decline in the participation rate relative to the base population.
If any other number crunchers want to take a look, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Fewer people who could participate in the labor pool do so. If you calculate the unemployment rate by the number employed vs. the total working age population, the rate from 2010 to now is down by about a point.
If you calculate based on the number of people who have work or who are actively seeking employment, it’s down by about 4 points.
I don’t have enough insight into who has left the pool and why to say what that means.
All of that said, it’s several miles away from demonstrating that (a) the feds are changing anything about how things are measured, or (b) have an interest in keeping the actual rate of unemployment high.
They haven’t changed how things are measured as far as I can tell, and not being a mind-reader I don’t think I can speculate about hidden motives.
Actually, looking at the numbers I’d say Brett has a fairly strong case. A lot of ~4 percent difference in the rate looks like it can be attributed to a decline in the participation rate relative to the base population.
If any other number crunchers want to take a look, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Fewer people who could participate in the labor pool do so. If you calculate the unemployment rate by the number employed vs. the total working age population, the rate from 2010 to now is down by about a point.
If you calculate based on the number of people who have work or who are actively seeking employment, it’s down by about 4 points.
I don’t have enough insight into who has left the pool and why to say what that means.
All of that said, it’s several miles away from demonstrating that (a) the feds are changing anything about how things are measured, or (b) have an interest in keeping the actual rate of unemployment high.
They haven’t changed how things are measured as far as I can tell, and not being a mind-reader I don’t think I can speculate about hidden motives.
Actually, looking at the numbers I’d say Brett has a fairly strong case. A lot of ~4 percent difference in the rate looks like it can be attributed to a decline in the participation rate relative to the base population.
If any other number crunchers want to take a look, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Fewer people who could participate in the labor pool do so. If you calculate the unemployment rate by the number employed vs. the total working age population, the rate from 2010 to now is down by about a point.
If you calculate based on the number of people who have work or who are actively seeking employment, it’s down by about 4 points.
I don’t have enough insight into who has left the pool and why to say what that means.
All of that said, it’s several miles away from demonstrating that (a) the feds are changing anything about how things are measured, or (b) have an interest in keeping the actual rate of unemployment high.
They haven’t changed how things are measured as far as I can tell, and not being a mind-reader I don’t think I can speculate about hidden motives.
I follow the logic of the economic analysis, I’m just thinking there’s probably more involved.
Obviously. Compare and contrast our public policies to smooth out the cyclical nature of agriculture commodity prices and the terrible human toll that can wreak vs. public policy vz. the impoverishment of the agricultural work force.
Night and day.
I follow the logic of the economic analysis, I’m just thinking there’s probably more involved.
Obviously. Compare and contrast our public policies to smooth out the cyclical nature of agriculture commodity prices and the terrible human toll that can wreak vs. public policy vz. the impoverishment of the agricultural work force.
Night and day.
I follow the logic of the economic analysis, I’m just thinking there’s probably more involved.
Obviously. Compare and contrast our public policies to smooth out the cyclical nature of agriculture commodity prices and the terrible human toll that can wreak vs. public policy vz. the impoverishment of the agricultural work force.
Night and day.
Russell,
A brief synopsis of LFPR for us beginners!
http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/
Russell,
A brief synopsis of LFPR for us beginners!
http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/
Russell,
A brief synopsis of LFPR for us beginners!
http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/
bobbyp – thanks for the analysis.
Yes, the overall participation rate does not call out the different reasons that somebody might not be in the market for a job.
Retired, in school, staying home with kids, taking care of parents, etc., are lumped in with folks who have just given up on looking.
The folks who report themselves as wanting a job if they could get one, but who have basically given up, are captured as “discouraged workers” in the various measures of unemployment – basically they are difference between the U3 and U4.
They account for one half of one percent of the unemployment rate, so currently order-of-magnitude about 750K people.
Brett’s point was, if I understand it correctly, that if the participation rate had stayed constant, the absolute number of employed people would yield about the same rate of unemployment as we had five or so years ago. Which, on its face, seems accurate.
The question is whether the change in the participation rate represents a mass exodus from a crap economy, or just less people choosing to work for whatever reason.
The actual measure of folks who state that they’ve checked out is, at this point, only about a half percent of the workforce. And, less than a half percent of the total working age population.
bobbyp – thanks for the analysis.
Yes, the overall participation rate does not call out the different reasons that somebody might not be in the market for a job.
Retired, in school, staying home with kids, taking care of parents, etc., are lumped in with folks who have just given up on looking.
The folks who report themselves as wanting a job if they could get one, but who have basically given up, are captured as “discouraged workers” in the various measures of unemployment – basically they are difference between the U3 and U4.
They account for one half of one percent of the unemployment rate, so currently order-of-magnitude about 750K people.
Brett’s point was, if I understand it correctly, that if the participation rate had stayed constant, the absolute number of employed people would yield about the same rate of unemployment as we had five or so years ago. Which, on its face, seems accurate.
The question is whether the change in the participation rate represents a mass exodus from a crap economy, or just less people choosing to work for whatever reason.
The actual measure of folks who state that they’ve checked out is, at this point, only about a half percent of the workforce. And, less than a half percent of the total working age population.
bobbyp – thanks for the analysis.
Yes, the overall participation rate does not call out the different reasons that somebody might not be in the market for a job.
Retired, in school, staying home with kids, taking care of parents, etc., are lumped in with folks who have just given up on looking.
The folks who report themselves as wanting a job if they could get one, but who have basically given up, are captured as “discouraged workers” in the various measures of unemployment – basically they are difference between the U3 and U4.
They account for one half of one percent of the unemployment rate, so currently order-of-magnitude about 750K people.
Brett’s point was, if I understand it correctly, that if the participation rate had stayed constant, the absolute number of employed people would yield about the same rate of unemployment as we had five or so years ago. Which, on its face, seems accurate.
The question is whether the change in the participation rate represents a mass exodus from a crap economy, or just less people choosing to work for whatever reason.
The actual measure of folks who state that they’ve checked out is, at this point, only about a half percent of the workforce. And, less than a half percent of the total working age population.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
I subscribe to the notion that everyone is a bit racist/xenophobic. However, this point is brought up in regards to your comments because, when people point out the racist implications of your argumentation (culture of corruption, I’m in a mixed race marriage and my neighbors are black), you always double down and try to flip the accusation. (the real racists are anyone who votes for the Democrats!)
So the real problem is not racism but the fact that you are totally unable to step back and look at your statements objectively, It’s like you are one of those early chess playing programs that can only analyze 2 and a half moves deep. You end up trying to score points (Government is evil, evil, evil, but why don’t we create a system of informers to sort out our problems? I’m ready to bug out from the country, but why oh why doesn’t someone do something? etc etc) that make you look like a hypocrite and an idiot.
The real reason why you get covered with super special racist sauce, is that people are trying to get through to you and end up resorting to bigger and heavier blunt instruments. I suspect you keep willing this on because you want to leave the comment section an irradiated wasteland and you can walk away happy in the knowledge that everyone here has proven that they just can’t handle your ‘truth’. Of course, that could happen here, but I hope by pointing out the possibility, everyone else will just stop feeding you.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
I subscribe to the notion that everyone is a bit racist/xenophobic. However, this point is brought up in regards to your comments because, when people point out the racist implications of your argumentation (culture of corruption, I’m in a mixed race marriage and my neighbors are black), you always double down and try to flip the accusation. (the real racists are anyone who votes for the Democrats!)
So the real problem is not racism but the fact that you are totally unable to step back and look at your statements objectively, It’s like you are one of those early chess playing programs that can only analyze 2 and a half moves deep. You end up trying to score points (Government is evil, evil, evil, but why don’t we create a system of informers to sort out our problems? I’m ready to bug out from the country, but why oh why doesn’t someone do something? etc etc) that make you look like a hypocrite and an idiot.
The real reason why you get covered with super special racist sauce, is that people are trying to get through to you and end up resorting to bigger and heavier blunt instruments. I suspect you keep willing this on because you want to leave the comment section an irradiated wasteland and you can walk away happy in the knowledge that everyone here has proven that they just can’t handle your ‘truth’. Of course, that could happen here, but I hope by pointing out the possibility, everyone else will just stop feeding you.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
I subscribe to the notion that everyone is a bit racist/xenophobic. However, this point is brought up in regards to your comments because, when people point out the racist implications of your argumentation (culture of corruption, I’m in a mixed race marriage and my neighbors are black), you always double down and try to flip the accusation. (the real racists are anyone who votes for the Democrats!)
So the real problem is not racism but the fact that you are totally unable to step back and look at your statements objectively, It’s like you are one of those early chess playing programs that can only analyze 2 and a half moves deep. You end up trying to score points (Government is evil, evil, evil, but why don’t we create a system of informers to sort out our problems? I’m ready to bug out from the country, but why oh why doesn’t someone do something? etc etc) that make you look like a hypocrite and an idiot.
The real reason why you get covered with super special racist sauce, is that people are trying to get through to you and end up resorting to bigger and heavier blunt instruments. I suspect you keep willing this on because you want to leave the comment section an irradiated wasteland and you can walk away happy in the knowledge that everyone here has proven that they just can’t handle your ‘truth’. Of course, that could happen here, but I hope by pointing out the possibility, everyone else will just stop feeding you.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
Says the guy who calls the non-Jewish population of the ME “murderous savages” and Mexicans lazy criminals.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
Says the guy who calls the non-Jewish population of the ME “murderous savages” and Mexicans lazy criminals.
I am sick up to here with being called a racist
Says the guy who calls the non-Jewish population of the ME “murderous savages” and Mexicans lazy criminals.
See, I use a rather strict definition of “racism”. I gave it above, it has to do, strangely enough, with race. Bizarre, no?
Judaism and Islam are religions. “Mexican” is a nationality. The people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race. Even if I were discriminating against people on the basis of these categories, (I’m not.) that would not be “racism”.
The word actually has a meaning! And it’s not, “Anything a liberal disapproves of.”, or “Disagreeing with a liberal.”
What is my proposed immigration policy?
1. Strict enforcement of immigration laws, without respect to race, religion, gender, or nation of origin.
2. Abolish birthright citizenship, in favor of citizenship for people born of parents who are already Americans, or who are here legally, and excluding people who were only born here because their parents arranged to be illegally present in the US for the birth.
3. Issue visas, lots of them, without respect to race, religion, gender, or nation of origin. But instead to people who are literate in English, well educated, and law abiding.
What the hell is “racist” about THAT? Is speaking English a genetic trait? Having a college degree a genetic trait? Having a rap sheet a genetic trait? Not that I ever heard.
Countering this is a proposal that we issue lots of visas, and give most of them to immigrants from Mexico and South America, without regard to English literacy, level of education, or criminal records. That we give the visas to the people who have currently entered or stayed in our country illegally, and committed a variety of crimes to do so.
Now, I would not personally call this “racist”, because it, too, is not quite on the basis of race. This policy would presumably issue a visa to a light skinned Spanish speaking drug smuggler just as readily as to a swarthy English literate physicist, while screwing over a farmer from the Urals. It’s on the basis of national origin, and essentially nothing more. Definitionally not “racist”.
But it’s closer to “racism” than anything I advocate. I suppose the counterpart on my side would be advocating prohibiting immigration from Mexico, rather than just treating Mexico like every other country on the face of the Earth.
I’m sure if I’d proposed that, I’d be called, inaccurately, “racist”. It would at least be some sort of “ist”.
But, of course, I didn’t. I proposed a policy which completely ignores race, religion, gender, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic, and got attacked for it.
See, I use a rather strict definition of “racism”. I gave it above, it has to do, strangely enough, with race. Bizarre, no?
Judaism and Islam are religions. “Mexican” is a nationality. The people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race. Even if I were discriminating against people on the basis of these categories, (I’m not.) that would not be “racism”.
The word actually has a meaning! And it’s not, “Anything a liberal disapproves of.”, or “Disagreeing with a liberal.”
What is my proposed immigration policy?
1. Strict enforcement of immigration laws, without respect to race, religion, gender, or nation of origin.
2. Abolish birthright citizenship, in favor of citizenship for people born of parents who are already Americans, or who are here legally, and excluding people who were only born here because their parents arranged to be illegally present in the US for the birth.
3. Issue visas, lots of them, without respect to race, religion, gender, or nation of origin. But instead to people who are literate in English, well educated, and law abiding.
What the hell is “racist” about THAT? Is speaking English a genetic trait? Having a college degree a genetic trait? Having a rap sheet a genetic trait? Not that I ever heard.
Countering this is a proposal that we issue lots of visas, and give most of them to immigrants from Mexico and South America, without regard to English literacy, level of education, or criminal records. That we give the visas to the people who have currently entered or stayed in our country illegally, and committed a variety of crimes to do so.
Now, I would not personally call this “racist”, because it, too, is not quite on the basis of race. This policy would presumably issue a visa to a light skinned Spanish speaking drug smuggler just as readily as to a swarthy English literate physicist, while screwing over a farmer from the Urals. It’s on the basis of national origin, and essentially nothing more. Definitionally not “racist”.
But it’s closer to “racism” than anything I advocate. I suppose the counterpart on my side would be advocating prohibiting immigration from Mexico, rather than just treating Mexico like every other country on the face of the Earth.
I’m sure if I’d proposed that, I’d be called, inaccurately, “racist”. It would at least be some sort of “ist”.
But, of course, I didn’t. I proposed a policy which completely ignores race, religion, gender, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic, and got attacked for it.
See, I use a rather strict definition of “racism”. I gave it above, it has to do, strangely enough, with race. Bizarre, no?
Judaism and Islam are religions. “Mexican” is a nationality. The people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race. Even if I were discriminating against people on the basis of these categories, (I’m not.) that would not be “racism”.
The word actually has a meaning! And it’s not, “Anything a liberal disapproves of.”, or “Disagreeing with a liberal.”
What is my proposed immigration policy?
1. Strict enforcement of immigration laws, without respect to race, religion, gender, or nation of origin.
2. Abolish birthright citizenship, in favor of citizenship for people born of parents who are already Americans, or who are here legally, and excluding people who were only born here because their parents arranged to be illegally present in the US for the birth.
3. Issue visas, lots of them, without respect to race, religion, gender, or nation of origin. But instead to people who are literate in English, well educated, and law abiding.
What the hell is “racist” about THAT? Is speaking English a genetic trait? Having a college degree a genetic trait? Having a rap sheet a genetic trait? Not that I ever heard.
Countering this is a proposal that we issue lots of visas, and give most of them to immigrants from Mexico and South America, without regard to English literacy, level of education, or criminal records. That we give the visas to the people who have currently entered or stayed in our country illegally, and committed a variety of crimes to do so.
Now, I would not personally call this “racist”, because it, too, is not quite on the basis of race. This policy would presumably issue a visa to a light skinned Spanish speaking drug smuggler just as readily as to a swarthy English literate physicist, while screwing over a farmer from the Urals. It’s on the basis of national origin, and essentially nothing more. Definitionally not “racist”.
But it’s closer to “racism” than anything I advocate. I suppose the counterpart on my side would be advocating prohibiting immigration from Mexico, rather than just treating Mexico like every other country on the face of the Earth.
I’m sure if I’d proposed that, I’d be called, inaccurately, “racist”. It would at least be some sort of “ist”.
But, of course, I didn’t. I proposed a policy which completely ignores race, religion, gender, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic, and got attacked for it.
For the record, what I suggest is increasing the number of visas granted to people in this hemisphere, full stop.
For the record, what I suggest is increasing the number of visas granted to people in this hemisphere, full stop.
For the record, what I suggest is increasing the number of visas granted to people in this hemisphere, full stop.
Also, for the record, the accusations of racism are likely not based on your immigration proposals, but on your assertion that Mexico and nations further south are corrupt due to “cultural values”, and that folks coming here from those countries would naturally bring those “cultural values” with them, thereby corrupting this nation.
Not a specifically racist claim, but one that racists often make.
So, perhaps the confusion is understandable.
Also, for the record, the accusations of racism are likely not based on your immigration proposals, but on your assertion that Mexico and nations further south are corrupt due to “cultural values”, and that folks coming here from those countries would naturally bring those “cultural values” with them, thereby corrupting this nation.
Not a specifically racist claim, but one that racists often make.
So, perhaps the confusion is understandable.
Also, for the record, the accusations of racism are likely not based on your immigration proposals, but on your assertion that Mexico and nations further south are corrupt due to “cultural values”, and that folks coming here from those countries would naturally bring those “cultural values” with them, thereby corrupting this nation.
Not a specifically racist claim, but one that racists often make.
So, perhaps the confusion is understandable.
The claim Brett and other bigots commonly make is that bigotry against a nationality or members of a religion isn’t racism because race isn’t involved. It would follow then that anti- semitism isn’t a form of racism because Jews can be of many different racial backgrounds. Maybe so, but anti-Semites think along the same lines as racists. The mindset behind racism and closely related forms of bigotry is much the same–you lump a large number of people together into a category and define them as inferior in some way.
Poor Brett. He comes to liberal blogs and make contemptuous generalizations about entire categories of people and after all these years it turns out he is a sensitive soul who just wants the privilege of sermonizing others without being criticized for it.
The claim Brett and other bigots commonly make is that bigotry against a nationality or members of a religion isn’t racism because race isn’t involved. It would follow then that anti- semitism isn’t a form of racism because Jews can be of many different racial backgrounds. Maybe so, but anti-Semites think along the same lines as racists. The mindset behind racism and closely related forms of bigotry is much the same–you lump a large number of people together into a category and define them as inferior in some way.
Poor Brett. He comes to liberal blogs and make contemptuous generalizations about entire categories of people and after all these years it turns out he is a sensitive soul who just wants the privilege of sermonizing others without being criticized for it.
The claim Brett and other bigots commonly make is that bigotry against a nationality or members of a religion isn’t racism because race isn’t involved. It would follow then that anti- semitism isn’t a form of racism because Jews can be of many different racial backgrounds. Maybe so, but anti-Semites think along the same lines as racists. The mindset behind racism and closely related forms of bigotry is much the same–you lump a large number of people together into a category and define them as inferior in some way.
Poor Brett. He comes to liberal blogs and make contemptuous generalizations about entire categories of people and after all these years it turns out he is a sensitive soul who just wants the privilege of sermonizing others without being criticized for it.
“Sermonizing ” was my IPad’s correction for “criticizing”‘ which I apparently misspelled. It almost works.
“Sermonizing ” was my IPad’s correction for “criticizing”‘ which I apparently misspelled. It almost works.
“Sermonizing ” was my IPad’s correction for “criticizing”‘ which I apparently misspelled. It almost works.
Damn–I just made my own mistake all on my own–I meant “demonizing”‘ since Brett’s attitudes towards “corrupt” Mexicans and the “savages” who surround Israel go a little beyond criticism.
Damn–I just made my own mistake all on my own–I meant “demonizing”‘ since Brett’s attitudes towards “corrupt” Mexicans and the “savages” who surround Israel go a little beyond criticism.
Damn–I just made my own mistake all on my own–I meant “demonizing”‘ since Brett’s attitudes towards “corrupt” Mexicans and the “savages” who surround Israel go a little beyond criticism.
So it’s okay if we call Brett a bigot, instead? ;^)
So it’s okay if we call Brett a bigot, instead? ;^)
So it’s okay if we call Brett a bigot, instead? ;^)
We all have our blind spots.
We all have our blind spots.
We all have our blind spots.
Sure, go ahead and call be a bigot. It’s at least the right word for what you’re accusing me of. Remember, “racist” is a rather specific subset of “bigot”.
Sure, go ahead and call be a bigot. It’s at least the right word for what you’re accusing me of. Remember, “racist” is a rather specific subset of “bigot”.
Sure, go ahead and call be a bigot. It’s at least the right word for what you’re accusing me of. Remember, “racist” is a rather specific subset of “bigot”.
But, of course, I didn’t. I proposed a policy which completely ignores race, religion, gender, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic…
Your proposed policies would consistently result in disparate impact on people who, strangely enough, tend to have darker skin than you. Feature or bug?
Does this make you personally a racist? Not necessarily. But the outcome is strikingly similar.
That you align yourself politically with a movement with deep “cultural” (back at you!) ties to historical and on-going racism is another factor.
But, of course, I didn’t. I proposed a policy which completely ignores race, religion, gender, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic…
Your proposed policies would consistently result in disparate impact on people who, strangely enough, tend to have darker skin than you. Feature or bug?
Does this make you personally a racist? Not necessarily. But the outcome is strikingly similar.
That you align yourself politically with a movement with deep “cultural” (back at you!) ties to historical and on-going racism is another factor.
But, of course, I didn’t. I proposed a policy which completely ignores race, religion, gender, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic…
Your proposed policies would consistently result in disparate impact on people who, strangely enough, tend to have darker skin than you. Feature or bug?
Does this make you personally a racist? Not necessarily. But the outcome is strikingly similar.
That you align yourself politically with a movement with deep “cultural” (back at you!) ties to historical and on-going racism is another factor.
I don’t much care about “disparate impact”. If, for instance, blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites, I’m perfectly content with arresting them, trying them, and imprisoning them for murder, at a higher rate than whites. I’m not going to demand that black murderers be let off, or innocent whites convicted of murder, just to make the statistics not reflect the underlying reality.
You know what exhibits “disparate impact”? Your local grocery store charges everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck. Blacks are, on average, poorer than whites. So charging everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck has “disparate impact”, and quite predictably so.
How racist of Krogers to charge everybody the same price for their products, regardless of their race…
Unless races are identically situated, which is not the case, treating everybody without regard to their race will produce disparate impact. So, the demand that you not produce disparate impact is a demand that you not treat people equally without regard to race.
I refuse to accept that I must racially discriminate in order to not be thought a racist. I reject “disparate impact” as a basis for accusations of racism.
I don’t much care about “disparate impact”. If, for instance, blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites, I’m perfectly content with arresting them, trying them, and imprisoning them for murder, at a higher rate than whites. I’m not going to demand that black murderers be let off, or innocent whites convicted of murder, just to make the statistics not reflect the underlying reality.
You know what exhibits “disparate impact”? Your local grocery store charges everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck. Blacks are, on average, poorer than whites. So charging everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck has “disparate impact”, and quite predictably so.
How racist of Krogers to charge everybody the same price for their products, regardless of their race…
Unless races are identically situated, which is not the case, treating everybody without regard to their race will produce disparate impact. So, the demand that you not produce disparate impact is a demand that you not treat people equally without regard to race.
I refuse to accept that I must racially discriminate in order to not be thought a racist. I reject “disparate impact” as a basis for accusations of racism.
I don’t much care about “disparate impact”. If, for instance, blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites, I’m perfectly content with arresting them, trying them, and imprisoning them for murder, at a higher rate than whites. I’m not going to demand that black murderers be let off, or innocent whites convicted of murder, just to make the statistics not reflect the underlying reality.
You know what exhibits “disparate impact”? Your local grocery store charges everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck. Blacks are, on average, poorer than whites. So charging everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck has “disparate impact”, and quite predictably so.
How racist of Krogers to charge everybody the same price for their products, regardless of their race…
Unless races are identically situated, which is not the case, treating everybody without regard to their race will produce disparate impact. So, the demand that you not produce disparate impact is a demand that you not treat people equally without regard to race.
I refuse to accept that I must racially discriminate in order to not be thought a racist. I reject “disparate impact” as a basis for accusations of racism.
The main issue I have with Brett’s visa proposal is that it does nothing to address the problem he originally weighed in about, which is people coming here illegally from Mexico and other Central and South American countries.
The only solution to those he’s put on the table are a very strict enforcement of existing law, which appears to require a 2,000 mile long security perimeter and a Stasi-like program of informers, and amending the jus soli criteria for citizenship established in the 14th Amendment.
All of that seems like an awfully big hammer for the nail in question.
Personally, I don’t give a crap if Brett is a racist or not. Given the history and culture of the US, it would be a rare person indeed who was not prone to any bias based on skin color or ethnicity. It’s just not a stone I care to throw.
The main issue I have with Brett’s visa proposal is that it does nothing to address the problem he originally weighed in about, which is people coming here illegally from Mexico and other Central and South American countries.
The only solution to those he’s put on the table are a very strict enforcement of existing law, which appears to require a 2,000 mile long security perimeter and a Stasi-like program of informers, and amending the jus soli criteria for citizenship established in the 14th Amendment.
All of that seems like an awfully big hammer for the nail in question.
Personally, I don’t give a crap if Brett is a racist or not. Given the history and culture of the US, it would be a rare person indeed who was not prone to any bias based on skin color or ethnicity. It’s just not a stone I care to throw.
The main issue I have with Brett’s visa proposal is that it does nothing to address the problem he originally weighed in about, which is people coming here illegally from Mexico and other Central and South American countries.
The only solution to those he’s put on the table are a very strict enforcement of existing law, which appears to require a 2,000 mile long security perimeter and a Stasi-like program of informers, and amending the jus soli criteria for citizenship established in the 14th Amendment.
All of that seems like an awfully big hammer for the nail in question.
Personally, I don’t give a crap if Brett is a racist or not. Given the history and culture of the US, it would be a rare person indeed who was not prone to any bias based on skin color or ethnicity. It’s just not a stone I care to throw.
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
As for “a Stasi-like program of informers”, it is generally the case that law enforcement relies upon people who witness crimes telling the police about them. The fact that you don’t approve of enforcement of immgration laws is doing all the work here, I think; If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
You object to this, because you object to the immigration laws themselves. I don’t think there’s ANY way of enforcing them that you’d approve of; Who agrees with means to ends they reject?
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
As for “a Stasi-like program of informers”, it is generally the case that law enforcement relies upon people who witness crimes telling the police about them. The fact that you don’t approve of enforcement of immgration laws is doing all the work here, I think; If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
You object to this, because you object to the immigration laws themselves. I don’t think there’s ANY way of enforcing them that you’d approve of; Who agrees with means to ends they reject?
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
As for “a Stasi-like program of informers”, it is generally the case that law enforcement relies upon people who witness crimes telling the police about them. The fact that you don’t approve of enforcement of immgration laws is doing all the work here, I think; If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
You object to this, because you object to the immigration laws themselves. I don’t think there’s ANY way of enforcing them that you’d approve of; Who agrees with means to ends they reject?
I’m fine with calling you and people who think like you “bigot”, Brett. The tangential nitpicking about whether this group or that group is a “race” is a distraction. It might be of interest to scholars of bigotry, but it’s not a legitimate excuse to say someone can despise Muslims or Jews because Muslims or Jews are not a race. It’s an ugly feature of human nature that we like to find outgroups that we can demonize. Sometimes this is based on biological traits or imagined biological traits and sometimes it is something else. Sometimes a given form of bigotry (like anti-Semitism) is given a racial twist by some and a religious twist by others. Bigots aren’t always the clearest of thinkers and sometimes may not have a clear rationalization for why they hate this or that group. In your case, your empathy just turns off like a switch with certain categories of people. They are all bringers of corruption, like some disease, or they are all “savages”.
I’m fine with calling you and people who think like you “bigot”, Brett. The tangential nitpicking about whether this group or that group is a “race” is a distraction. It might be of interest to scholars of bigotry, but it’s not a legitimate excuse to say someone can despise Muslims or Jews because Muslims or Jews are not a race. It’s an ugly feature of human nature that we like to find outgroups that we can demonize. Sometimes this is based on biological traits or imagined biological traits and sometimes it is something else. Sometimes a given form of bigotry (like anti-Semitism) is given a racial twist by some and a religious twist by others. Bigots aren’t always the clearest of thinkers and sometimes may not have a clear rationalization for why they hate this or that group. In your case, your empathy just turns off like a switch with certain categories of people. They are all bringers of corruption, like some disease, or they are all “savages”.
I’m fine with calling you and people who think like you “bigot”, Brett. The tangential nitpicking about whether this group or that group is a “race” is a distraction. It might be of interest to scholars of bigotry, but it’s not a legitimate excuse to say someone can despise Muslims or Jews because Muslims or Jews are not a race. It’s an ugly feature of human nature that we like to find outgroups that we can demonize. Sometimes this is based on biological traits or imagined biological traits and sometimes it is something else. Sometimes a given form of bigotry (like anti-Semitism) is given a racial twist by some and a religious twist by others. Bigots aren’t always the clearest of thinkers and sometimes may not have a clear rationalization for why they hate this or that group. In your case, your empathy just turns off like a switch with certain categories of people. They are all bringers of corruption, like some disease, or they are all “savages”.
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
Yes, advocating strict enforcement of immigration laws is on point. Your visa proposal is not.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Damned straight.
You object to this, because you object to the immigration laws themselves.
It’d be much more enjoyable discussing this stuff with you if you would not try to tell me what I think.
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
Yes, advocating strict enforcement of immigration laws is on point. Your visa proposal is not.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Damned straight.
You object to this, because you object to the immigration laws themselves.
It’d be much more enjoyable discussing this stuff with you if you would not try to tell me what I think.
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
Yes, advocating strict enforcement of immigration laws is on point. Your visa proposal is not.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Damned straight.
You object to this, because you object to the immigration laws themselves.
It’d be much more enjoyable discussing this stuff with you if you would not try to tell me what I think.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Consistency is somewhat overrated, but for a foe of big government you come up with some seriously wack ideas.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Consistency is somewhat overrated, but for a foe of big government you come up with some seriously wack ideas.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Consistency is somewhat overrated, but for a foe of big government you come up with some seriously wack ideas.
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
OK, but why limit it to immigration laws? Seems like it would be at least as sensible to advocate strict enforcement of the traffic/speed laws. And you’d get a nice cross-section of the population, too . . . since pretty much everybody breaks them routinely. Let’s have a little enthusiasm for Law And Order — address the part of life where our children, all of our children, are learning contempt for the law!
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
OK, but why limit it to immigration laws? Seems like it would be at least as sensible to advocate strict enforcement of the traffic/speed laws. And you’d get a nice cross-section of the population, too . . . since pretty much everybody breaks them routinely. Let’s have a little enthusiasm for Law And Order — address the part of life where our children, all of our children, are learning contempt for the law!
I think advocating strict enforcement of immgration laws is pretty much on point when it comes to the problem of people coming here illegally. It would be tough to get much more on point.
OK, but why limit it to immigration laws? Seems like it would be at least as sensible to advocate strict enforcement of the traffic/speed laws. And you’d get a nice cross-section of the population, too . . . since pretty much everybody breaks them routinely. Let’s have a little enthusiasm for Law And Order — address the part of life where our children, all of our children, are learning contempt for the law!
I would be glad to strictly enforce speed limits, if they were rationally set. In fact, I’d be glad to see them strictly enforced, so that it would become politically impossible to not set rational ones.
I am not fond of laws which are intended to be enforced sporadically. They are an open invitation to abusive selective prosecution.
I would be glad to strictly enforce speed limits, if they were rationally set. In fact, I’d be glad to see them strictly enforced, so that it would become politically impossible to not set rational ones.
I am not fond of laws which are intended to be enforced sporadically. They are an open invitation to abusive selective prosecution.
I would be glad to strictly enforce speed limits, if they were rationally set. In fact, I’d be glad to see them strictly enforced, so that it would become politically impossible to not set rational ones.
I am not fond of laws which are intended to be enforced sporadically. They are an open invitation to abusive selective prosecution.
Let’s also have strict enforcement of our narcotics laws. Throw another 5 or 10 or 100 million people in jail, problem solved.
We could introduce a bounty system. $500 for turning in somebody smoking weed, $1000 for oxycontin or coke. $5000 for meth, that crap is nasty.
Pay the bounties and lock ’em up.
That should clear up some of the corruption issues south of the border, too.
Let’s also have strict enforcement of our narcotics laws. Throw another 5 or 10 or 100 million people in jail, problem solved.
We could introduce a bounty system. $500 for turning in somebody smoking weed, $1000 for oxycontin or coke. $5000 for meth, that crap is nasty.
Pay the bounties and lock ’em up.
That should clear up some of the corruption issues south of the border, too.
Let’s also have strict enforcement of our narcotics laws. Throw another 5 or 10 or 100 million people in jail, problem solved.
We could introduce a bounty system. $500 for turning in somebody smoking weed, $1000 for oxycontin or coke. $5000 for meth, that crap is nasty.
Pay the bounties and lock ’em up.
That should clear up some of the corruption issues south of the border, too.
I would be glad to strictly enforce speed limits, if they were rationally set.
The penny drops.
I would be glad to strictly enforce speed limits, if they were rationally set.
The penny drops.
I would be glad to strictly enforce speed limits, if they were rationally set.
The penny drops.
“Yes, advocating strict enforcement of immigration laws is on point. Your visa proposal is not.”
No, my visa proposal is because I think the US would benefit from comparatively high levels of selective immigration. It is not to address illegal immigration.
I am of the opinion that our government should persue policies meant to advance the interests of existing Americans, with the interests of non-Americans taken into account only as a side constraint. I believe it would advance the interests of America to import as many high quality citizens from other countries as we can. Skimming the cream.
Illegal immigrants are not the cream.
“Yes, advocating strict enforcement of immigration laws is on point. Your visa proposal is not.”
No, my visa proposal is because I think the US would benefit from comparatively high levels of selective immigration. It is not to address illegal immigration.
I am of the opinion that our government should persue policies meant to advance the interests of existing Americans, with the interests of non-Americans taken into account only as a side constraint. I believe it would advance the interests of America to import as many high quality citizens from other countries as we can. Skimming the cream.
Illegal immigrants are not the cream.
“Yes, advocating strict enforcement of immigration laws is on point. Your visa proposal is not.”
No, my visa proposal is because I think the US would benefit from comparatively high levels of selective immigration. It is not to address illegal immigration.
I am of the opinion that our government should persue policies meant to advance the interests of existing Americans, with the interests of non-Americans taken into account only as a side constraint. I believe it would advance the interests of America to import as many high quality citizens from other countries as we can. Skimming the cream.
Illegal immigrants are not the cream.
If, for instance, blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites, I’m perfectly content with arresting them, trying them, and imprisoning them for murder
That is not an example of the concept.
Your local grocery store charges everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck.
That, too, is not an example of the concept.
Unless races are identically situated, which is not the case, treating everybody without regard to their race will produce disparate impact..
So why are they not “identically situated”? Must be those “cultural values”, eh? Oh, and those “values” are just coincidentally correlated with skin color. How convenient!
I don’t much care about “disparate impact”.
Well, it’s the law. You’re the one spouting off about “strict enforcement”. We are a nation of laws, no?
If, for instance, blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites, I’m perfectly content with arresting them, trying them, and imprisoning them for murder
That is not an example of the concept.
Your local grocery store charges everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck.
That, too, is not an example of the concept.
Unless races are identically situated, which is not the case, treating everybody without regard to their race will produce disparate impact..
So why are they not “identically situated”? Must be those “cultural values”, eh? Oh, and those “values” are just coincidentally correlated with skin color. How convenient!
I don’t much care about “disparate impact”.
Well, it’s the law. You’re the one spouting off about “strict enforcement”. We are a nation of laws, no?
If, for instance, blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites, I’m perfectly content with arresting them, trying them, and imprisoning them for murder
That is not an example of the concept.
Your local grocery store charges everybody the same price for a pound of ground chuck.
That, too, is not an example of the concept.
Unless races are identically situated, which is not the case, treating everybody without regard to their race will produce disparate impact..
So why are they not “identically situated”? Must be those “cultural values”, eh? Oh, and those “values” are just coincidentally correlated with skin color. How convenient!
I don’t much care about “disparate impact”.
Well, it’s the law. You’re the one spouting off about “strict enforcement”. We are a nation of laws, no?
No, read the 14th amendment: You won’t find diddly in there about “disparate impact”. Equal protection of the law, yes.
Disparate impact was invented to justify mandating racial discrimination under the guise of combating it.
No, read the 14th amendment: You won’t find diddly in there about “disparate impact”. Equal protection of the law, yes.
Disparate impact was invented to justify mandating racial discrimination under the guise of combating it.
No, read the 14th amendment: You won’t find diddly in there about “disparate impact”. Equal protection of the law, yes.
Disparate impact was invented to justify mandating racial discrimination under the guise of combating it.
No, my visa proposal is because I think the US would benefit from comparatively high levels of selective immigration. It is not to address illegal immigration.
Sorry, but no.
You originally weighed in on this thread to complain about Mexicans who immigrate here illegally. Your concern was that they were bringing their cultural values of widespread corruption here with them.
Assuming that the “point” under discussion is how to address the problem of illegal immigration, your visa proposal is irrelevant.
Granting visas to educated, English-literate people without regard to country of origin has no effect on illegal immigration over our southern border whatsoever.
It has no effect, because it does not address the problem or its causes in any way, shape, or form.
Strictly enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration *does* address that, but that isn’t your visa proposal.
Two different things. See?
I don’t like the strict enforcement idea either, but for other reasons.
No, my visa proposal is because I think the US would benefit from comparatively high levels of selective immigration. It is not to address illegal immigration.
Sorry, but no.
You originally weighed in on this thread to complain about Mexicans who immigrate here illegally. Your concern was that they were bringing their cultural values of widespread corruption here with them.
Assuming that the “point” under discussion is how to address the problem of illegal immigration, your visa proposal is irrelevant.
Granting visas to educated, English-literate people without regard to country of origin has no effect on illegal immigration over our southern border whatsoever.
It has no effect, because it does not address the problem or its causes in any way, shape, or form.
Strictly enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration *does* address that, but that isn’t your visa proposal.
Two different things. See?
I don’t like the strict enforcement idea either, but for other reasons.
No, my visa proposal is because I think the US would benefit from comparatively high levels of selective immigration. It is not to address illegal immigration.
Sorry, but no.
You originally weighed in on this thread to complain about Mexicans who immigrate here illegally. Your concern was that they were bringing their cultural values of widespread corruption here with them.
Assuming that the “point” under discussion is how to address the problem of illegal immigration, your visa proposal is irrelevant.
Granting visas to educated, English-literate people without regard to country of origin has no effect on illegal immigration over our southern border whatsoever.
It has no effect, because it does not address the problem or its causes in any way, shape, or form.
Strictly enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration *does* address that, but that isn’t your visa proposal.
Two different things. See?
I don’t like the strict enforcement idea either, but for other reasons.
“strict enforcement of our immigration laws”
1. Build impenetrable fence at border.
2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.
3. For political advantage, spout off for decades about the “problem” of “illegals” in our country and scream “something must be done!!!!”.
4. Do nothing else.
5. The illegals all eventually die off.
Problem solved! Move on to lecturing blacks about their terrible “cultural values”, another hardy perennial.
“strict enforcement of our immigration laws”
1. Build impenetrable fence at border.
2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.
3. For political advantage, spout off for decades about the “problem” of “illegals” in our country and scream “something must be done!!!!”.
4. Do nothing else.
5. The illegals all eventually die off.
Problem solved! Move on to lecturing blacks about their terrible “cultural values”, another hardy perennial.
“strict enforcement of our immigration laws”
1. Build impenetrable fence at border.
2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.
3. For political advantage, spout off for decades about the “problem” of “illegals” in our country and scream “something must be done!!!!”.
4. Do nothing else.
5. The illegals all eventually die off.
Problem solved! Move on to lecturing blacks about their terrible “cultural values”, another hardy perennial.
“2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.”
I don’t particularly care whether a well educated, English speaking, law abiding immigrant is white, black or green. I think it’s very difficult to make a sensible case for wanting immigrants who are poorly educated, don’t speak English, and have criminal backgrounds.
You may try to make that case, however.
“2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.”
I don’t particularly care whether a well educated, English speaking, law abiding immigrant is white, black or green. I think it’s very difficult to make a sensible case for wanting immigrants who are poorly educated, don’t speak English, and have criminal backgrounds.
You may try to make that case, however.
“2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.”
I don’t particularly care whether a well educated, English speaking, law abiding immigrant is white, black or green. I think it’s very difficult to make a sensible case for wanting immigrants who are poorly educated, don’t speak English, and have criminal backgrounds.
You may try to make that case, however.
“2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.”
I don’t particularly care whether a well educated, English speaking, law abiding immigrant is white, black or green. I think it’s very difficult to make a sensible case for wanting immigrants who are poorly educated, don’t speak English, and have criminal backgrounds.
You may try to make that case, however.
“2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.”
I don’t particularly care whether a well educated, English speaking, law abiding immigrant is white, black or green. I think it’s very difficult to make a sensible case for wanting immigrants who are poorly educated, don’t speak English, and have criminal backgrounds.
You may try to make that case, however.
“2. Institute immigration filters tilted toward well of English speaking white Europeans who most likely are just fine with their own country.”
I don’t particularly care whether a well educated, English speaking, law abiding immigrant is white, black or green. I think it’s very difficult to make a sensible case for wanting immigrants who are poorly educated, don’t speak English, and have criminal backgrounds.
You may try to make that case, however.
Where did the “have criminal backgrounds” thing come in?
How does “issue more visas to people in this hemisphere” turn into “allow people with criminal backgrounds to immigrate”?
If don’t mind discussing *what I actually say* with you, but I’m not interested in having you make shit up and claim that I said it.
That is also known as “lying”.
Where did the “have criminal backgrounds” thing come in?
How does “issue more visas to people in this hemisphere” turn into “allow people with criminal backgrounds to immigrate”?
If don’t mind discussing *what I actually say* with you, but I’m not interested in having you make shit up and claim that I said it.
That is also known as “lying”.
Where did the “have criminal backgrounds” thing come in?
How does “issue more visas to people in this hemisphere” turn into “allow people with criminal backgrounds to immigrate”?
If don’t mind discussing *what I actually say* with you, but I’m not interested in having you make shit up and claim that I said it.
That is also known as “lying”.
No, read the 14th amendment….
Oh, please.
Your concept of the Amendment is deeply flawed, and certainly not in line with “original intent” in any manner, shape, or form. That activist conservative judges on the SC are trying to get around this does not obviate this simple fact.
See also Section 5 of said Amendment. I suggest you read it a couple of times.
No, read the 14th amendment….
Oh, please.
Your concept of the Amendment is deeply flawed, and certainly not in line with “original intent” in any manner, shape, or form. That activist conservative judges on the SC are trying to get around this does not obviate this simple fact.
See also Section 5 of said Amendment. I suggest you read it a couple of times.
No, read the 14th amendment….
Oh, please.
Your concept of the Amendment is deeply flawed, and certainly not in line with “original intent” in any manner, shape, or form. That activist conservative judges on the SC are trying to get around this does not obviate this simple fact.
See also Section 5 of said Amendment. I suggest you read it a couple of times.
Where the “criminal backgrounds” thing comes from is them violation . . . the immigration laws. That is, someone who comes here (illegally) to work, goes home occasionally, and comes back to work again. Obviously must forever be barred from immigrating legally, even if the immigration laws are changed.
Where the “criminal backgrounds” thing comes from is them violation . . . the immigration laws. That is, someone who comes here (illegally) to work, goes home occasionally, and comes back to work again. Obviously must forever be barred from immigrating legally, even if the immigration laws are changed.
Where the “criminal backgrounds” thing comes from is them violation . . . the immigration laws. That is, someone who comes here (illegally) to work, goes home occasionally, and comes back to work again. Obviously must forever be barred from immigrating legally, even if the immigration laws are changed.
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
It is my position that “appropriate” legislation to enforce a guarantee of “equal” protection of the law, can not consist of mandating unequal protection of the law.
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
It is my position that “appropriate” legislation to enforce a guarantee of “equal” protection of the law, can not consist of mandating unequal protection of the law.
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
It is my position that “appropriate” legislation to enforce a guarantee of “equal” protection of the law, can not consist of mandating unequal protection of the law.
Granting visas to educated, English-literate people without regard to country of origin has no effect on illegal immigration over our southern border whatsoever.
I thought the original point of the post was about the failure of the Amish to assimilate.
In response to wj’s question, the only other group I came up with are Native Americans, but they aren’t new and they were here first. Maybe it is we who have failed to assimilate? Lord knows, we’ve had plenty of time. Must have something to do with our cultural notions of “race”.
Granting visas to educated, English-literate people without regard to country of origin has no effect on illegal immigration over our southern border whatsoever.
I thought the original point of the post was about the failure of the Amish to assimilate.
In response to wj’s question, the only other group I came up with are Native Americans, but they aren’t new and they were here first. Maybe it is we who have failed to assimilate? Lord knows, we’ve had plenty of time. Must have something to do with our cultural notions of “race”.
Granting visas to educated, English-literate people without regard to country of origin has no effect on illegal immigration over our southern border whatsoever.
I thought the original point of the post was about the failure of the Amish to assimilate.
In response to wj’s question, the only other group I came up with are Native Americans, but they aren’t new and they were here first. Maybe it is we who have failed to assimilate? Lord knows, we’ve had plenty of time. Must have something to do with our cultural notions of “race”.
How bout a bounty on date rapists on college campuses.
Regarding pedophilia, I can’t await until 7 year olds see the public service announcements regarding the $5000 bounties on pedophiles.
EVERYONE put their hands up.
Dr. Phil will host an 8-year old worth 20 million gained solely from the pedophile bounty hotline.
After all, under Brett’s regime, we always believe the women and the children, correctomundo?
How bout a bounty on police brutality? Stalking of innocent citizenry by self-appointed armed neighborhood commandos.
Reporting the waving around of automatic weaponry in family restaurants by, come to think of it, vaguely pedophile-looking pasty-faced feral losers and their trigger happy girlfriends.
Would these bounties be paid out by one agency according to the crime designation or would I spend my life in separate lines – the Ted Cruz is a pedophile line, the Ted Cruz is a road rage gunpointer line and the Vlad Putin/Ted Cruz took off their shirts and bared their nipples at my kid line.
I’ll take mine in twenties, thank you.
How bout a bounty on date rapists on college campuses.
Regarding pedophilia, I can’t await until 7 year olds see the public service announcements regarding the $5000 bounties on pedophiles.
EVERYONE put their hands up.
Dr. Phil will host an 8-year old worth 20 million gained solely from the pedophile bounty hotline.
After all, under Brett’s regime, we always believe the women and the children, correctomundo?
How bout a bounty on police brutality? Stalking of innocent citizenry by self-appointed armed neighborhood commandos.
Reporting the waving around of automatic weaponry in family restaurants by, come to think of it, vaguely pedophile-looking pasty-faced feral losers and their trigger happy girlfriends.
Would these bounties be paid out by one agency according to the crime designation or would I spend my life in separate lines – the Ted Cruz is a pedophile line, the Ted Cruz is a road rage gunpointer line and the Vlad Putin/Ted Cruz took off their shirts and bared their nipples at my kid line.
I’ll take mine in twenties, thank you.
How bout a bounty on date rapists on college campuses.
Regarding pedophilia, I can’t await until 7 year olds see the public service announcements regarding the $5000 bounties on pedophiles.
EVERYONE put their hands up.
Dr. Phil will host an 8-year old worth 20 million gained solely from the pedophile bounty hotline.
After all, under Brett’s regime, we always believe the women and the children, correctomundo?
How bout a bounty on police brutality? Stalking of innocent citizenry by self-appointed armed neighborhood commandos.
Reporting the waving around of automatic weaponry in family restaurants by, come to think of it, vaguely pedophile-looking pasty-faced feral losers and their trigger happy girlfriends.
Would these bounties be paid out by one agency according to the crime designation or would I spend my life in separate lines – the Ted Cruz is a pedophile line, the Ted Cruz is a road rage gunpointer line and the Vlad Putin/Ted Cruz took off their shirts and bared their nipples at my kid line.
I’ll take mine in twenties, thank you.
“Where the “criminal backgrounds” thing comes from is them violation . . . the immigration laws.”
And identity theft. And driving without a license or insurance.
But, yes, violating immigration laws is violating laws. We don’t rationally want immigrants with a demonstrated inclination to violate any of our laws they find inconvenient. That includes laws YOU find inconvenient.
People who have immgrated here in definance of our laws are, by statute, barred from legally immigrating. That law is already on the books, even if the President doesn’t feel bound by his oath to “see the laws faithfully executed”.
“Where the “criminal backgrounds” thing comes from is them violation . . . the immigration laws.”
And identity theft. And driving without a license or insurance.
But, yes, violating immigration laws is violating laws. We don’t rationally want immigrants with a demonstrated inclination to violate any of our laws they find inconvenient. That includes laws YOU find inconvenient.
People who have immgrated here in definance of our laws are, by statute, barred from legally immigrating. That law is already on the books, even if the President doesn’t feel bound by his oath to “see the laws faithfully executed”.
“Where the “criminal backgrounds” thing comes from is them violation . . . the immigration laws.”
And identity theft. And driving without a license or insurance.
But, yes, violating immigration laws is violating laws. We don’t rationally want immigrants with a demonstrated inclination to violate any of our laws they find inconvenient. That includes laws YOU find inconvenient.
People who have immgrated here in definance of our laws are, by statute, barred from legally immigrating. That law is already on the books, even if the President doesn’t feel bound by his oath to “see the laws faithfully executed”.
So Brett, if a state enacts laws to facilitate driving licenses (and insurance ) for those who are here illegally, would you be OK with that fix? Just checking.
We really need a new term. “Identity theft” probably should be retained for those who adopt another person’s identity for the purpose of getting credit cards in that name (and not paying the bills), gaining access to assets, etc. That is, stuff that directly damages the individual whose identity is stolen.
Term X could be used for those who adopt another person’s identity for the purpose of being allowed to work and pay taxes. But do not engage in any other illegal activity, specifically in anything which directly damages the individual whose identity they take.
I would certainly agree that those who engagge in Identity Theft under those definitions is a criminal. But those who engage in Term X? More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
So Brett, if a state enacts laws to facilitate driving licenses (and insurance ) for those who are here illegally, would you be OK with that fix? Just checking.
We really need a new term. “Identity theft” probably should be retained for those who adopt another person’s identity for the purpose of getting credit cards in that name (and not paying the bills), gaining access to assets, etc. That is, stuff that directly damages the individual whose identity is stolen.
Term X could be used for those who adopt another person’s identity for the purpose of being allowed to work and pay taxes. But do not engage in any other illegal activity, specifically in anything which directly damages the individual whose identity they take.
I would certainly agree that those who engagge in Identity Theft under those definitions is a criminal. But those who engage in Term X? More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
So Brett, if a state enacts laws to facilitate driving licenses (and insurance ) for those who are here illegally, would you be OK with that fix? Just checking.
We really need a new term. “Identity theft” probably should be retained for those who adopt another person’s identity for the purpose of getting credit cards in that name (and not paying the bills), gaining access to assets, etc. That is, stuff that directly damages the individual whose identity is stolen.
Term X could be used for those who adopt another person’s identity for the purpose of being allowed to work and pay taxes. But do not engage in any other illegal activity, specifically in anything which directly damages the individual whose identity they take.
I would certainly agree that those who engagge in Identity Theft under those definitions is a criminal. But those who engage in Term X? More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Brett is a master of both understatement and overstatement, which every way the hyperbole blows. Inconvenient…got it.
Brett is a master of both understatement and overstatement, which every way the hyperbole blows. Inconvenient…got it.
Brett is a master of both understatement and overstatement, which every way the hyperbole blows. Inconvenient…got it.
More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Shoot them down like the dogs they are. Are you for strict enforcement, or just the laws “YOU find inconvenient.”
As for snitching, I prefer Franklins.
More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Shoot them down like the dogs they are. Are you for strict enforcement, or just the laws “YOU find inconvenient.”
As for snitching, I prefer Franklins.
More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Shoot them down like the dogs they are. Are you for strict enforcement, or just the laws “YOU find inconvenient.”
As for snitching, I prefer Franklins.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Can I just say russell’s ‘damn straight’ is dead on? So much could go wrong with a program like that.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Can I just say russell’s ‘damn straight’ is dead on? So much could go wrong with a program like that.
If I proposed a bounty for people who turned in pedophiles, would you be invoking the Stasi?
Can I just say russell’s ‘damn straight’ is dead on? So much could go wrong with a program like that.
More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Maybe we can have a bounty program for that as well. You collect half the fine for every meter you report.
More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Maybe we can have a bounty program for that as well. You collect half the fine for every meter you report.
More like someone who fails to put money in the parking meter.
Maybe we can have a bounty program for that as well. You collect half the fine for every meter you report.
The careful reader will note that nowhere in anything I have proposed is there any recommendation that the existing requirements for an immigrant visa be changed.
I’m proposing exactly one thing:
We current grant several hundred thousand immigration visas per year. In the most recent year I could find numbers for, about 135K of those went to Mexican nationals.
We should issue more visas to Mexican nationals and/or other folks from this hemisphere who want to come here.
That is my proposal, in its entirety.
The issue of folks who are currently here illegally is a separate issue.
How do we cut down on the number of people who come here illegally from south of the border?
Make it possible for more of them to come legally.
That’s my proposal, full stop.
It doesn’t require English literacy, because we currently don’t require English literacy for an immigrant visa.
It doesn’t require a particular level of education, because we currently don’t require a particular level of education for an immigrant visa.
It would likely require a clean criminal record, because I believe we currently require a clean criminal record for an immigrant visa.
To review:
The visas we issue now, under the existing visa program? Issue more.
All done.
Does it solve everything? No.
Does it reduce the number of people who come here illegally? I believe it will.
Why? Because they won’t have to break the freaking law to come here.
Hope that helps clarify things.
The careful reader will note that nowhere in anything I have proposed is there any recommendation that the existing requirements for an immigrant visa be changed.
I’m proposing exactly one thing:
We current grant several hundred thousand immigration visas per year. In the most recent year I could find numbers for, about 135K of those went to Mexican nationals.
We should issue more visas to Mexican nationals and/or other folks from this hemisphere who want to come here.
That is my proposal, in its entirety.
The issue of folks who are currently here illegally is a separate issue.
How do we cut down on the number of people who come here illegally from south of the border?
Make it possible for more of them to come legally.
That’s my proposal, full stop.
It doesn’t require English literacy, because we currently don’t require English literacy for an immigrant visa.
It doesn’t require a particular level of education, because we currently don’t require a particular level of education for an immigrant visa.
It would likely require a clean criminal record, because I believe we currently require a clean criminal record for an immigrant visa.
To review:
The visas we issue now, under the existing visa program? Issue more.
All done.
Does it solve everything? No.
Does it reduce the number of people who come here illegally? I believe it will.
Why? Because they won’t have to break the freaking law to come here.
Hope that helps clarify things.
The careful reader will note that nowhere in anything I have proposed is there any recommendation that the existing requirements for an immigrant visa be changed.
I’m proposing exactly one thing:
We current grant several hundred thousand immigration visas per year. In the most recent year I could find numbers for, about 135K of those went to Mexican nationals.
We should issue more visas to Mexican nationals and/or other folks from this hemisphere who want to come here.
That is my proposal, in its entirety.
The issue of folks who are currently here illegally is a separate issue.
How do we cut down on the number of people who come here illegally from south of the border?
Make it possible for more of them to come legally.
That’s my proposal, full stop.
It doesn’t require English literacy, because we currently don’t require English literacy for an immigrant visa.
It doesn’t require a particular level of education, because we currently don’t require a particular level of education for an immigrant visa.
It would likely require a clean criminal record, because I believe we currently require a clean criminal record for an immigrant visa.
To review:
The visas we issue now, under the existing visa program? Issue more.
All done.
Does it solve everything? No.
Does it reduce the number of people who come here illegally? I believe it will.
Why? Because they won’t have to break the freaking law to come here.
Hope that helps clarify things.
I thought the original point of the post was about the failure of the Amish to assimilate.
That was prior to Brett’s participation.
I thought the original point of the post was about the failure of the Amish to assimilate.
That was prior to Brett’s participation.
I thought the original point of the post was about the failure of the Amish to assimilate.
That was prior to Brett’s participation.
“It doesn’t require English literacy, because we currently don’t require English literacy for an immigrant visa.”
As an absolute requirement, no. I assure you, the subject IS inquired into, and for naturalization, is a formal requirement subject to exceptions for extraordinary cases.
“It doesn’t require English literacy, because we currently don’t require English literacy for an immigrant visa.”
As an absolute requirement, no. I assure you, the subject IS inquired into, and for naturalization, is a formal requirement subject to exceptions for extraordinary cases.
“It doesn’t require English literacy, because we currently don’t require English literacy for an immigrant visa.”
As an absolute requirement, no. I assure you, the subject IS inquired into, and for naturalization, is a formal requirement subject to exceptions for extraordinary cases.
It is my position that “appropriate” legislation to enforce a guarantee of “equal” protection of the law, can not consist of mandating unequal protection of the law.
There is no such legislation.
It is my position that “appropriate” legislation to enforce a guarantee of “equal” protection of the law, can not consist of mandating unequal protection of the law.
There is no such legislation.
It is my position that “appropriate” legislation to enforce a guarantee of “equal” protection of the law, can not consist of mandating unequal protection of the law.
There is no such legislation.
Naturalization is not immigration.
What we’re talking about are immigrant visas.
Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen.
It typically takes some number of years for an immigrant to be naturalized as a citizen. In fact, depending on the path someone takes to become a citizen, some years of residency after their initial arrival is required.
During that time, many immigrants whose native language is not English find a way to learn English.
Que milagro!!
What I am proposing as an alternative to what we currently do is, very simply, allow more people from this hemisphere to immigrate legally.
Nothing more, nothing less. No change to immigration or naturalization requirements, no nothing.
Same procedure, same protocols, just more.
I hope that helps clarify. If not, feel free to raise the same points again and again, and I’ll keep trying to say the same exact thing more clearly.
Naturalization is not immigration.
What we’re talking about are immigrant visas.
Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen.
It typically takes some number of years for an immigrant to be naturalized as a citizen. In fact, depending on the path someone takes to become a citizen, some years of residency after their initial arrival is required.
During that time, many immigrants whose native language is not English find a way to learn English.
Que milagro!!
What I am proposing as an alternative to what we currently do is, very simply, allow more people from this hemisphere to immigrate legally.
Nothing more, nothing less. No change to immigration or naturalization requirements, no nothing.
Same procedure, same protocols, just more.
I hope that helps clarify. If not, feel free to raise the same points again and again, and I’ll keep trying to say the same exact thing more clearly.
Naturalization is not immigration.
What we’re talking about are immigrant visas.
Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen.
It typically takes some number of years for an immigrant to be naturalized as a citizen. In fact, depending on the path someone takes to become a citizen, some years of residency after their initial arrival is required.
During that time, many immigrants whose native language is not English find a way to learn English.
Que milagro!!
What I am proposing as an alternative to what we currently do is, very simply, allow more people from this hemisphere to immigrate legally.
Nothing more, nothing less. No change to immigration or naturalization requirements, no nothing.
Same procedure, same protocols, just more.
I hope that helps clarify. If not, feel free to raise the same points again and again, and I’ll keep trying to say the same exact thing more clearly.
Russell, I believe you might also have to make some adjustment to the process/criteria for “green cards”. That is, for getting allowed to work legally once you are here.
Russell, I believe you might also have to make some adjustment to the process/criteria for “green cards”. That is, for getting allowed to work legally once you are here.
Russell, I believe you might also have to make some adjustment to the process/criteria for “green cards”. That is, for getting allowed to work legally once you are here.
Thirded. Although if you believe hyperbolic MRAs, we already routinely suffer from this under the auspices of our divorce courts, with payouts in the form of child support.
No, no, no. See, bounties aren’t properly “market-based” enough, since you’re only selling off the opportunity to collect fines, not the right to do so. You need to follow the automated speeding/traffic light contracting model, which we all know is a shining beacon of efficiency and pure intentions…
Thirded. Although if you believe hyperbolic MRAs, we already routinely suffer from this under the auspices of our divorce courts, with payouts in the form of child support.
No, no, no. See, bounties aren’t properly “market-based” enough, since you’re only selling off the opportunity to collect fines, not the right to do so. You need to follow the automated speeding/traffic light contracting model, which we all know is a shining beacon of efficiency and pure intentions…
Thirded. Although if you believe hyperbolic MRAs, we already routinely suffer from this under the auspices of our divorce courts, with payouts in the form of child support.
No, no, no. See, bounties aren’t properly “market-based” enough, since you’re only selling off the opportunity to collect fines, not the right to do so. You need to follow the automated speeding/traffic light contracting model, which we all know is a shining beacon of efficiency and pure intentions…
“Skimming the cream”
What do we do with all of the half and half and soured milk that have arrived here since 1600?
I say we conduct yearly intensive ancestor justification of every citizen to see that they are at least equaling the productive output of their forebears and their forebears before that and if not, it’s back to the homeland with them.
Just cause a guy’s granddaddy underpaid his mill workers while earning a fortune in Scranton and muttering “Was ist los” into his weinerschnitzel doesn’t mean you can live off his laurels and skate thru life as white trash two generations later working the assistant night manager shift at the all-night Mama Cass’s Top-Heavy Sandwich Throw Down (our sandwiches are so big you’ll choke) while mispronouncing the word “statistics” as el número grande.
No sirree Bob, there are scientists and entrepreneurs with advanced degrees and better health profiles than you waiting to be skimmed from other lands who deserve more than you do to work that job while losing their native accents in preparation for upward mobility.
At my age, when prospective employers ask me where I see myself in five years, I say well Janine, making firm eye contact all the way through, I see myself flinching from angina pain and balancing a full drool cup precariously while underpaid health attendants with barely understandable language skills, but very nice people nevertheless, rush for the medication and the change of Depends.
I threaten them with replacement by creamier sorts with advanced degrees and exquisite English pronunciation who will take these jobs and damn well like it when my bowels move.
Janine winces, and scribbles something in her notes, and announces her next appointment has arrived while directing me to the expendable door, behind which I fear is a chute I will slide down into the hold of a ship named the USS Unproductive which will sail for my forefathers homelands populated by low fat milk solids, scalawags, and underachievers, the skimming having been successful.
Any citizen whose forebears signed their citizenship papers with an “X” and who did not speak English should be retroactively reverse processed through Ellis Island and returned to the ghettos of the world to be raped by Cossacks.
“Skimming the cream”
What do we do with all of the half and half and soured milk that have arrived here since 1600?
I say we conduct yearly intensive ancestor justification of every citizen to see that they are at least equaling the productive output of their forebears and their forebears before that and if not, it’s back to the homeland with them.
Just cause a guy’s granddaddy underpaid his mill workers while earning a fortune in Scranton and muttering “Was ist los” into his weinerschnitzel doesn’t mean you can live off his laurels and skate thru life as white trash two generations later working the assistant night manager shift at the all-night Mama Cass’s Top-Heavy Sandwich Throw Down (our sandwiches are so big you’ll choke) while mispronouncing the word “statistics” as el número grande.
No sirree Bob, there are scientists and entrepreneurs with advanced degrees and better health profiles than you waiting to be skimmed from other lands who deserve more than you do to work that job while losing their native accents in preparation for upward mobility.
At my age, when prospective employers ask me where I see myself in five years, I say well Janine, making firm eye contact all the way through, I see myself flinching from angina pain and balancing a full drool cup precariously while underpaid health attendants with barely understandable language skills, but very nice people nevertheless, rush for the medication and the change of Depends.
I threaten them with replacement by creamier sorts with advanced degrees and exquisite English pronunciation who will take these jobs and damn well like it when my bowels move.
Janine winces, and scribbles something in her notes, and announces her next appointment has arrived while directing me to the expendable door, behind which I fear is a chute I will slide down into the hold of a ship named the USS Unproductive which will sail for my forefathers homelands populated by low fat milk solids, scalawags, and underachievers, the skimming having been successful.
Any citizen whose forebears signed their citizenship papers with an “X” and who did not speak English should be retroactively reverse processed through Ellis Island and returned to the ghettos of the world to be raped by Cossacks.
“Skimming the cream”
What do we do with all of the half and half and soured milk that have arrived here since 1600?
I say we conduct yearly intensive ancestor justification of every citizen to see that they are at least equaling the productive output of their forebears and their forebears before that and if not, it’s back to the homeland with them.
Just cause a guy’s granddaddy underpaid his mill workers while earning a fortune in Scranton and muttering “Was ist los” into his weinerschnitzel doesn’t mean you can live off his laurels and skate thru life as white trash two generations later working the assistant night manager shift at the all-night Mama Cass’s Top-Heavy Sandwich Throw Down (our sandwiches are so big you’ll choke) while mispronouncing the word “statistics” as el número grande.
No sirree Bob, there are scientists and entrepreneurs with advanced degrees and better health profiles than you waiting to be skimmed from other lands who deserve more than you do to work that job while losing their native accents in preparation for upward mobility.
At my age, when prospective employers ask me where I see myself in five years, I say well Janine, making firm eye contact all the way through, I see myself flinching from angina pain and balancing a full drool cup precariously while underpaid health attendants with barely understandable language skills, but very nice people nevertheless, rush for the medication and the change of Depends.
I threaten them with replacement by creamier sorts with advanced degrees and exquisite English pronunciation who will take these jobs and damn well like it when my bowels move.
Janine winces, and scribbles something in her notes, and announces her next appointment has arrived while directing me to the expendable door, behind which I fear is a chute I will slide down into the hold of a ship named the USS Unproductive which will sail for my forefathers homelands populated by low fat milk solids, scalawags, and underachievers, the skimming having been successful.
Any citizen whose forebears signed their citizenship papers with an “X” and who did not speak English should be retroactively reverse processed through Ellis Island and returned to the ghettos of the world to be raped by Cossacks.
Judaism and Islam are religions. “Mexican” is a nationality. The people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race. Even if I were discriminating against people on the basis of these categories, (I’m not.) that would not be “racism”.
The word actually has a meaning! And it’s not, “Anything a liberal disapproves of.”, or “Disagreeing with a liberal.”
To beat this dead horse with pinpoint verbosity, the problem with the usage you’re proposing here is that while “racism” does have a clear meaning in common parlance, it hinges on the word “race” which is commonly understood to have a comprehensible meaning, but is actually fluid and arbitrary. Irish and Italians became “white” rather recently. There’s more intra-racial genetic diversity among “blacks” than there is inter-racial genetic diversity between “blacks” and “whites”. Etc. So e.g., stating that “people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race” is neither obvious nor necessarily in keeping with traditional (or even contemporary) understandings of the term “race”.
You come closer to a useful working definition when you state:
What the hell is “racist” about THAT? Is speaking English a genetic trait? Having a college degree a genetic trait? Having a rap sheet a genetic trait?
If racism is to be a meaningful distinction among bigotries, it should be understood to be the belief that broad behavioral patterns in adults are determined primarily or exclusively by genetics, not environment or upbringing. And while this is far more problematic for your denials of racist bigotry than an understanding fixating on a fungible term like “race”, it’s still not damning in and of itself, because there’s the cop-out of “cultural values”. It’s not a bad cop-out, mind you, since our behaviors are shaped by our upbringings and environments, and that’s guided by the social milieu that we find ourselves in. However, if there’s no obvious way to distinguish between assertions that e.g. “Latino immigrants are corrupt criminals because it’s in their blood” and “Latino immigrants will invariably engage in crime and corruption because they instill these ‘values’ in their children regardless of where they’re raised”, the distinction between racist bigotry and non-racist bigotry is one without meaningful difference. Regardless, you’re damning vast swathes of humanity based on the circumstances of their birth, and it matters only a little whether you’re decrying the plague that afflicts them as being passed by blood or word of mouth if in both cases you deem it be be inevitable, incurable, and infectious…
Judaism and Islam are religions. “Mexican” is a nationality. The people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race. Even if I were discriminating against people on the basis of these categories, (I’m not.) that would not be “racism”.
The word actually has a meaning! And it’s not, “Anything a liberal disapproves of.”, or “Disagreeing with a liberal.”
To beat this dead horse with pinpoint verbosity, the problem with the usage you’re proposing here is that while “racism” does have a clear meaning in common parlance, it hinges on the word “race” which is commonly understood to have a comprehensible meaning, but is actually fluid and arbitrary. Irish and Italians became “white” rather recently. There’s more intra-racial genetic diversity among “blacks” than there is inter-racial genetic diversity between “blacks” and “whites”. Etc. So e.g., stating that “people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race” is neither obvious nor necessarily in keeping with traditional (or even contemporary) understandings of the term “race”.
You come closer to a useful working definition when you state:
What the hell is “racist” about THAT? Is speaking English a genetic trait? Having a college degree a genetic trait? Having a rap sheet a genetic trait?
If racism is to be a meaningful distinction among bigotries, it should be understood to be the belief that broad behavioral patterns in adults are determined primarily or exclusively by genetics, not environment or upbringing. And while this is far more problematic for your denials of racist bigotry than an understanding fixating on a fungible term like “race”, it’s still not damning in and of itself, because there’s the cop-out of “cultural values”. It’s not a bad cop-out, mind you, since our behaviors are shaped by our upbringings and environments, and that’s guided by the social milieu that we find ourselves in. However, if there’s no obvious way to distinguish between assertions that e.g. “Latino immigrants are corrupt criminals because it’s in their blood” and “Latino immigrants will invariably engage in crime and corruption because they instill these ‘values’ in their children regardless of where they’re raised”, the distinction between racist bigotry and non-racist bigotry is one without meaningful difference. Regardless, you’re damning vast swathes of humanity based on the circumstances of their birth, and it matters only a little whether you’re decrying the plague that afflicts them as being passed by blood or word of mouth if in both cases you deem it be be inevitable, incurable, and infectious…
Judaism and Islam are religions. “Mexican” is a nationality. The people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race. Even if I were discriminating against people on the basis of these categories, (I’m not.) that would not be “racism”.
The word actually has a meaning! And it’s not, “Anything a liberal disapproves of.”, or “Disagreeing with a liberal.”
To beat this dead horse with pinpoint verbosity, the problem with the usage you’re proposing here is that while “racism” does have a clear meaning in common parlance, it hinges on the word “race” which is commonly understood to have a comprehensible meaning, but is actually fluid and arbitrary. Irish and Italians became “white” rather recently. There’s more intra-racial genetic diversity among “blacks” than there is inter-racial genetic diversity between “blacks” and “whites”. Etc. So e.g., stating that “people on both sides of Israel’s security wall are the same race” is neither obvious nor necessarily in keeping with traditional (or even contemporary) understandings of the term “race”.
You come closer to a useful working definition when you state:
What the hell is “racist” about THAT? Is speaking English a genetic trait? Having a college degree a genetic trait? Having a rap sheet a genetic trait?
If racism is to be a meaningful distinction among bigotries, it should be understood to be the belief that broad behavioral patterns in adults are determined primarily or exclusively by genetics, not environment or upbringing. And while this is far more problematic for your denials of racist bigotry than an understanding fixating on a fungible term like “race”, it’s still not damning in and of itself, because there’s the cop-out of “cultural values”. It’s not a bad cop-out, mind you, since our behaviors are shaped by our upbringings and environments, and that’s guided by the social milieu that we find ourselves in. However, if there’s no obvious way to distinguish between assertions that e.g. “Latino immigrants are corrupt criminals because it’s in their blood” and “Latino immigrants will invariably engage in crime and corruption because they instill these ‘values’ in their children regardless of where they’re raised”, the distinction between racist bigotry and non-racist bigotry is one without meaningful difference. Regardless, you’re damning vast swathes of humanity based on the circumstances of their birth, and it matters only a little whether you’re decrying the plague that afflicts them as being passed by blood or word of mouth if in both cases you deem it be be inevitable, incurable, and infectious…
I’m treating vast swaths of humanity according to generalizations, as must be done when dealing with vast swaths, and I treat individuals as individuals, when at all possible.
Which is what I advocate doing with immgrants: Treating them as individuals. I don’t want to give Mexicans special treatment, I want them admitted under exactly the same standards anybody would be admitted from anywhere else in the world.
It is not predjudical to people from Mexico, or central or south America, to treat them as you would people coming from anywhere.
I’m treating vast swaths of humanity according to generalizations, as must be done when dealing with vast swaths, and I treat individuals as individuals, when at all possible.
Which is what I advocate doing with immgrants: Treating them as individuals. I don’t want to give Mexicans special treatment, I want them admitted under exactly the same standards anybody would be admitted from anywhere else in the world.
It is not predjudical to people from Mexico, or central or south America, to treat them as you would people coming from anywhere.
I’m treating vast swaths of humanity according to generalizations, as must be done when dealing with vast swaths, and I treat individuals as individuals, when at all possible.
Which is what I advocate doing with immgrants: Treating them as individuals. I don’t want to give Mexicans special treatment, I want them admitted under exactly the same standards anybody would be admitted from anywhere else in the world.
It is not predjudical to people from Mexico, or central or south America, to treat them as you would people coming from anywhere.
wj:
some adjustment to the process/criteria for “green cards”. That is, for getting allowed to work legally once you are here.
A green card isn’t required for working, any number of visas allow immigrants to work. I would also like to see the work based visas loosened a little, such that a person with a work visa doesn’t have to vacate the country in short order if they lose their job.
wj:
some adjustment to the process/criteria for “green cards”. That is, for getting allowed to work legally once you are here.
A green card isn’t required for working, any number of visas allow immigrants to work. I would also like to see the work based visas loosened a little, such that a person with a work visa doesn’t have to vacate the country in short order if they lose their job.
wj:
some adjustment to the process/criteria for “green cards”. That is, for getting allowed to work legally once you are here.
A green card isn’t required for working, any number of visas allow immigrants to work. I would also like to see the work based visas loosened a little, such that a person with a work visa doesn’t have to vacate the country in short order if they lose their job.
OK, Brett, I think we will all agree that Mexicans should not be given special treatment. Where we appear to disagree is whether there should be substantially more visas available for agricultural and other low-skill (or, at least, not high-IQ skilled) workers. But nobody here, as far as I can tell, thinks we should discriminate in favor of Mexicans at the expense of other Latin Americans (or people from anywhere else who might happen to desire to come).
But perhaps some of us (maybe even me) were sloppy in our phrasing. If so, I apologize.
OK, Brett, I think we will all agree that Mexicans should not be given special treatment. Where we appear to disagree is whether there should be substantially more visas available for agricultural and other low-skill (or, at least, not high-IQ skilled) workers. But nobody here, as far as I can tell, thinks we should discriminate in favor of Mexicans at the expense of other Latin Americans (or people from anywhere else who might happen to desire to come).
But perhaps some of us (maybe even me) were sloppy in our phrasing. If so, I apologize.
OK, Brett, I think we will all agree that Mexicans should not be given special treatment. Where we appear to disagree is whether there should be substantially more visas available for agricultural and other low-skill (or, at least, not high-IQ skilled) workers. But nobody here, as far as I can tell, thinks we should discriminate in favor of Mexicans at the expense of other Latin Americans (or people from anywhere else who might happen to desire to come).
But perhaps some of us (maybe even me) were sloppy in our phrasing. If so, I apologize.
But should we give Cubans special treatment?
How about we give EVERYONE the same treatment that the Cubans get?
But should we give Cubans special treatment?
How about we give EVERYONE the same treatment that the Cubans get?
But should we give Cubans special treatment?
How about we give EVERYONE the same treatment that the Cubans get?
I think we will all agree that Mexicans should not be given special treatment.
No, we don’t all agree on that particular point.
Again, for the record, I am saying that we should make more visas available, specifically, to people who want to immigrate from this hemisphere.
So, Mexico, possibly also Central and South America.
Currently, there is a quote system that prevents more than a certain percent of all immigrants from coming from any given country. The idea is that we don’t want any one nation of origin to dominate immigration.
Basically, I’m not sure that’s realistic, and to me it makes sense to make allowances for reality.
Frankly, I’m not married to any of this stuff. People seem to be highly disturbed by the number of illegal immigrants in the country. So, maybe we should try to find a solution to that problem.
Since most of those folks come here to work, and since most of them do in fact work, at useful jobs, and create value, and generally aren’t robbing and shooting like maniacs, it strikes me that a simple solution is let them come legally.
Then, just like magic, they won’t be breaking the law.
If folks really and truly prefer a 2,000 mile physical barrier extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and an intrusive regime of paid police informants, and whatever other Tough On Crime approach somebody somewhere wants to cook up, to simply letting people immigrate if they want to, I will not stand in their way.
It really won’t rock my world either way, personally.
I’m just generally in favor of (a) changing laws if they aren’t working and aren’t enforceable, and (b) letting people come here if they want to, because that’s how my people got here.
To each his own.
I think we will all agree that Mexicans should not be given special treatment.
No, we don’t all agree on that particular point.
Again, for the record, I am saying that we should make more visas available, specifically, to people who want to immigrate from this hemisphere.
So, Mexico, possibly also Central and South America.
Currently, there is a quote system that prevents more than a certain percent of all immigrants from coming from any given country. The idea is that we don’t want any one nation of origin to dominate immigration.
Basically, I’m not sure that’s realistic, and to me it makes sense to make allowances for reality.
Frankly, I’m not married to any of this stuff. People seem to be highly disturbed by the number of illegal immigrants in the country. So, maybe we should try to find a solution to that problem.
Since most of those folks come here to work, and since most of them do in fact work, at useful jobs, and create value, and generally aren’t robbing and shooting like maniacs, it strikes me that a simple solution is let them come legally.
Then, just like magic, they won’t be breaking the law.
If folks really and truly prefer a 2,000 mile physical barrier extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and an intrusive regime of paid police informants, and whatever other Tough On Crime approach somebody somewhere wants to cook up, to simply letting people immigrate if they want to, I will not stand in their way.
It really won’t rock my world either way, personally.
I’m just generally in favor of (a) changing laws if they aren’t working and aren’t enforceable, and (b) letting people come here if they want to, because that’s how my people got here.
To each his own.
I think we will all agree that Mexicans should not be given special treatment.
No, we don’t all agree on that particular point.
Again, for the record, I am saying that we should make more visas available, specifically, to people who want to immigrate from this hemisphere.
So, Mexico, possibly also Central and South America.
Currently, there is a quote system that prevents more than a certain percent of all immigrants from coming from any given country. The idea is that we don’t want any one nation of origin to dominate immigration.
Basically, I’m not sure that’s realistic, and to me it makes sense to make allowances for reality.
Frankly, I’m not married to any of this stuff. People seem to be highly disturbed by the number of illegal immigrants in the country. So, maybe we should try to find a solution to that problem.
Since most of those folks come here to work, and since most of them do in fact work, at useful jobs, and create value, and generally aren’t robbing and shooting like maniacs, it strikes me that a simple solution is let them come legally.
Then, just like magic, they won’t be breaking the law.
If folks really and truly prefer a 2,000 mile physical barrier extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and an intrusive regime of paid police informants, and whatever other Tough On Crime approach somebody somewhere wants to cook up, to simply letting people immigrate if they want to, I will not stand in their way.
It really won’t rock my world either way, personally.
I’m just generally in favor of (a) changing laws if they aren’t working and aren’t enforceable, and (b) letting people come here if they want to, because that’s how my people got here.
To each his own.
So yeah, I’d say give Mexicans “special treatment”. Let more people from Mexico come than, say, people from Belgium, or Mongolia, or Botswana, or even good old Canada.
Because more of them want to come.
So yeah, I’d say give Mexicans “special treatment”. Let more people from Mexico come than, say, people from Belgium, or Mongolia, or Botswana, or even good old Canada.
Because more of them want to come.
So yeah, I’d say give Mexicans “special treatment”. Let more people from Mexico come than, say, people from Belgium, or Mongolia, or Botswana, or even good old Canada.
Because more of them want to come.
Again, for the record, I am saying that we should make more visas available, specifically, to people who want to immigrate from this hemisphere.
Actually, that is NOT giving Mexicans special treatment. At most, it is giving special treatment to people who want to come. Which ends up being more from Latin America (and probably most from Mexico), not because they get special treatment but because, as you say, more of them want to come.
Again, for the record, I am saying that we should make more visas available, specifically, to people who want to immigrate from this hemisphere.
Actually, that is NOT giving Mexicans special treatment. At most, it is giving special treatment to people who want to come. Which ends up being more from Latin America (and probably most from Mexico), not because they get special treatment but because, as you say, more of them want to come.
Again, for the record, I am saying that we should make more visas available, specifically, to people who want to immigrate from this hemisphere.
Actually, that is NOT giving Mexicans special treatment. At most, it is giving special treatment to people who want to come. Which ends up being more from Latin America (and probably most from Mexico), not because they get special treatment but because, as you say, more of them want to come.
What is with this bullet-headed insistence that first generation immigrants speak and read fluent English?
When the Marx Brothers parents, as one example, arrived in this country late in the 19th century, they most certainly spoke Yiddish and German but not English to any degree, maybe some French.
Their children prospered. As did the scores of the Jewish immigrant children who became comedians, starting with vaudeville, despite their parents toiling in rough, lower class professions commensurate with harvesting fruit and vegetables.
This is only one professional area of the many that immigrants without fluency in English contributed to business, science, and the arts throughout our history.
I live in Denver with a huge Hispanic immigrant population. While the parents and grandparents may speak Spanish at home, their kids are all fluent English speakers just as every other immigrant nationality that has arrived in this country since the beginning.
To get back to the Jewish immigration into this country 130 years ago and into the 20th Century, Groucho’s first wisecrack on stage reportedly took place at the opera house in 1911 in Nacogdoches, Texas when a donkey started braying (not Rick Perry, some jackasses weren’t born yet) outside the joint and while folks went outside to see what the trouble was, Groucho said “The jack-ass is the flower of Tex-ass”‘ which caused the first recorded laughter in Texas since the Comanche counted coup on Texan settlers.
Now, if Brett’s English only immigration language policy would have been the rule of the day, we would have missed that joke and all the others by the Brothers and every other Yiddish/Jewish comedian born to immigrant parents and further, the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, and every other comedian would have gone up as ash via the smokestacks of the Holocaust.
Harpo Marx alone would have starved to death or been gassed at Auschwitz because in answer to Brett’s question “do you speaka de English” Harpo would have forgone spech altogether and honked twice and misplaced Brett’s hat and been denied entry into this country.
As Chico Marx said about Brett’s point of view on some matters, “I no believe in a Sanity Clause.”
You wanna hear someone talk funny, listen to George W. Bush say ‘Mericans in what he thinks is Texan.
What is with this bullet-headed insistence that first generation immigrants speak and read fluent English?
When the Marx Brothers parents, as one example, arrived in this country late in the 19th century, they most certainly spoke Yiddish and German but not English to any degree, maybe some French.
Their children prospered. As did the scores of the Jewish immigrant children who became comedians, starting with vaudeville, despite their parents toiling in rough, lower class professions commensurate with harvesting fruit and vegetables.
This is only one professional area of the many that immigrants without fluency in English contributed to business, science, and the arts throughout our history.
I live in Denver with a huge Hispanic immigrant population. While the parents and grandparents may speak Spanish at home, their kids are all fluent English speakers just as every other immigrant nationality that has arrived in this country since the beginning.
To get back to the Jewish immigration into this country 130 years ago and into the 20th Century, Groucho’s first wisecrack on stage reportedly took place at the opera house in 1911 in Nacogdoches, Texas when a donkey started braying (not Rick Perry, some jackasses weren’t born yet) outside the joint and while folks went outside to see what the trouble was, Groucho said “The jack-ass is the flower of Tex-ass”‘ which caused the first recorded laughter in Texas since the Comanche counted coup on Texan settlers.
Now, if Brett’s English only immigration language policy would have been the rule of the day, we would have missed that joke and all the others by the Brothers and every other Yiddish/Jewish comedian born to immigrant parents and further, the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, and every other comedian would have gone up as ash via the smokestacks of the Holocaust.
Harpo Marx alone would have starved to death or been gassed at Auschwitz because in answer to Brett’s question “do you speaka de English” Harpo would have forgone spech altogether and honked twice and misplaced Brett’s hat and been denied entry into this country.
As Chico Marx said about Brett’s point of view on some matters, “I no believe in a Sanity Clause.”
You wanna hear someone talk funny, listen to George W. Bush say ‘Mericans in what he thinks is Texan.
What is with this bullet-headed insistence that first generation immigrants speak and read fluent English?
When the Marx Brothers parents, as one example, arrived in this country late in the 19th century, they most certainly spoke Yiddish and German but not English to any degree, maybe some French.
Their children prospered. As did the scores of the Jewish immigrant children who became comedians, starting with vaudeville, despite their parents toiling in rough, lower class professions commensurate with harvesting fruit and vegetables.
This is only one professional area of the many that immigrants without fluency in English contributed to business, science, and the arts throughout our history.
I live in Denver with a huge Hispanic immigrant population. While the parents and grandparents may speak Spanish at home, their kids are all fluent English speakers just as every other immigrant nationality that has arrived in this country since the beginning.
To get back to the Jewish immigration into this country 130 years ago and into the 20th Century, Groucho’s first wisecrack on stage reportedly took place at the opera house in 1911 in Nacogdoches, Texas when a donkey started braying (not Rick Perry, some jackasses weren’t born yet) outside the joint and while folks went outside to see what the trouble was, Groucho said “The jack-ass is the flower of Tex-ass”‘ which caused the first recorded laughter in Texas since the Comanche counted coup on Texan settlers.
Now, if Brett’s English only immigration language policy would have been the rule of the day, we would have missed that joke and all the others by the Brothers and every other Yiddish/Jewish comedian born to immigrant parents and further, the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, and every other comedian would have gone up as ash via the smokestacks of the Holocaust.
Harpo Marx alone would have starved to death or been gassed at Auschwitz because in answer to Brett’s question “do you speaka de English” Harpo would have forgone spech altogether and honked twice and misplaced Brett’s hat and been denied entry into this country.
As Chico Marx said about Brett’s point of view on some matters, “I no believe in a Sanity Clause.”
You wanna hear someone talk funny, listen to George W. Bush say ‘Mericans in what he thinks is Texan.
Yes, it’s not treating Mexicans differently when you tell more of them than other people that they can’t come in legally. It’s only treating Mexicans differently when you tell more of them they can come in.
There are any number of rational ways to go about figuring out what’s fair and what’s not (or what’s best for the United States) when you’re dealing with something of complexity, which immigration certainly is.
But Brett wants more doctors and engineers from Slovenia to do our migrant farm labor.
Yes, it’s not treating Mexicans differently when you tell more of them than other people that they can’t come in legally. It’s only treating Mexicans differently when you tell more of them they can come in.
There are any number of rational ways to go about figuring out what’s fair and what’s not (or what’s best for the United States) when you’re dealing with something of complexity, which immigration certainly is.
But Brett wants more doctors and engineers from Slovenia to do our migrant farm labor.
Yes, it’s not treating Mexicans differently when you tell more of them than other people that they can’t come in legally. It’s only treating Mexicans differently when you tell more of them they can come in.
There are any number of rational ways to go about figuring out what’s fair and what’s not (or what’s best for the United States) when you’re dealing with something of complexity, which immigration certainly is.
But Brett wants more doctors and engineers from Slovenia to do our migrant farm labor.
Vis a vis immigrant comedians, Bob Hope was born in England.
Now, Daffy Duck was also English, having been born into a fine Quacker family who emigrated here early one Spring in the late 18th century.
He was thrown out of the Quackers after lisping as you know this means war to Elmer Fudd, who himself comes from a long line of humorless Scots-Irish gunrunners, drunks, and umbrage-takers.
Vis a vis immigrant comedians, Bob Hope was born in England.
Now, Daffy Duck was also English, having been born into a fine Quacker family who emigrated here early one Spring in the late 18th century.
He was thrown out of the Quackers after lisping as you know this means war to Elmer Fudd, who himself comes from a long line of humorless Scots-Irish gunrunners, drunks, and umbrage-takers.
Vis a vis immigrant comedians, Bob Hope was born in England.
Now, Daffy Duck was also English, having been born into a fine Quacker family who emigrated here early one Spring in the late 18th century.
He was thrown out of the Quackers after lisping as you know this means war to Elmer Fudd, who himself comes from a long line of humorless Scots-Irish gunrunners, drunks, and umbrage-takers.
I can see why Brett thinks that Americans shouldn’t have any problem doing manual labor – he’s not stopped digging since he got in that hole. At this rate, he’ll be to China in a day or two.
I can see why Brett thinks that Americans shouldn’t have any problem doing manual labor – he’s not stopped digging since he got in that hole. At this rate, he’ll be to China in a day or two.
I can see why Brett thinks that Americans shouldn’t have any problem doing manual labor – he’s not stopped digging since he got in that hole. At this rate, he’ll be to China in a day or two.
When the Marx Brothers parents, as one example, arrived in this country late in the 19th century, they most certainly spoke Yiddish and German but not English to any degree, maybe some French.
Not to belabor the point.. actually, yes, to belabor the point, one set of my great grands came from Italy, limited if any English upon arrival, no money, unlikely that they had anything resembling a visa or would have had the knowledge or resources to acquire such a thing. Great grand-dad dug big holes in the ground that turned into the NYC subway system. Great grand-mom wore the Italian version of a burka, never spoke English well, and made excellent ravioli from scratch.
Next generation included my great uncle who worked at Bell Labs.
My old man’s people were border Scots who came as indentured servants in the late 18th C. The other maternal great-grands were Welsh miners.
No doubt they all spoke English, but they probably resented it.
And here we all are.
IMO it’s all a matter of what you think this country is about, and what you think makes this country what it is.
Either you think it’s part of our agenda to welcome people who want to come and make a better life for themselves, or you think we should be all about keeping those ignorant foreign slobs the hell out.
I was raised to think the former.
When the Marx Brothers parents, as one example, arrived in this country late in the 19th century, they most certainly spoke Yiddish and German but not English to any degree, maybe some French.
Not to belabor the point.. actually, yes, to belabor the point, one set of my great grands came from Italy, limited if any English upon arrival, no money, unlikely that they had anything resembling a visa or would have had the knowledge or resources to acquire such a thing. Great grand-dad dug big holes in the ground that turned into the NYC subway system. Great grand-mom wore the Italian version of a burka, never spoke English well, and made excellent ravioli from scratch.
Next generation included my great uncle who worked at Bell Labs.
My old man’s people were border Scots who came as indentured servants in the late 18th C. The other maternal great-grands were Welsh miners.
No doubt they all spoke English, but they probably resented it.
And here we all are.
IMO it’s all a matter of what you think this country is about, and what you think makes this country what it is.
Either you think it’s part of our agenda to welcome people who want to come and make a better life for themselves, or you think we should be all about keeping those ignorant foreign slobs the hell out.
I was raised to think the former.
When the Marx Brothers parents, as one example, arrived in this country late in the 19th century, they most certainly spoke Yiddish and German but not English to any degree, maybe some French.
Not to belabor the point.. actually, yes, to belabor the point, one set of my great grands came from Italy, limited if any English upon arrival, no money, unlikely that they had anything resembling a visa or would have had the knowledge or resources to acquire such a thing. Great grand-dad dug big holes in the ground that turned into the NYC subway system. Great grand-mom wore the Italian version of a burka, never spoke English well, and made excellent ravioli from scratch.
Next generation included my great uncle who worked at Bell Labs.
My old man’s people were border Scots who came as indentured servants in the late 18th C. The other maternal great-grands were Welsh miners.
No doubt they all spoke English, but they probably resented it.
And here we all are.
IMO it’s all a matter of what you think this country is about, and what you think makes this country what it is.
Either you think it’s part of our agenda to welcome people who want to come and make a better life for themselves, or you think we should be all about keeping those ignorant foreign slobs the hell out.
I was raised to think the former.
Great grand-dad dug big holes in the ground…
By hand, with a shovel.
I don’t know what Brett’s background is, but unless he’s highly unusual, some or all of his folks made there way here by a similar route.
We’re mongrels, and in general we’re the descendants of people who wanted nothing more than to get the hell out of wherever they came from.
We might as well wear it proudly.
Great grand-dad dug big holes in the ground…
By hand, with a shovel.
I don’t know what Brett’s background is, but unless he’s highly unusual, some or all of his folks made there way here by a similar route.
We’re mongrels, and in general we’re the descendants of people who wanted nothing more than to get the hell out of wherever they came from.
We might as well wear it proudly.
Great grand-dad dug big holes in the ground…
By hand, with a shovel.
I don’t know what Brett’s background is, but unless he’s highly unusual, some or all of his folks made there way here by a similar route.
We’re mongrels, and in general we’re the descendants of people who wanted nothing more than to get the hell out of wherever they came from.
We might as well wear it proudly.
… he’s not stopped digging since he got in that hole …
Quimby’s advice to Brett
–TP
… he’s not stopped digging since he got in that hole …
Quimby’s advice to Brett
–TP
… he’s not stopped digging since he got in that hole …
Quimby’s advice to Brett
–TP