David Weigel puts aside his copy of The Passing of the Great Race, listens in as John Gibson urges whites to put their loins into the struggle against the Rising Colored Empire, ponders the future of the European race, and finally hangs himself with the measuring tape he usually uses to measure the misshapen craniums of foreigners.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Genghis Kahn | August 7, 2006, 4:38am | #
Poor David, if only he'd survived long enough to read the comments on his white hot blazing critique of the anti-let-'em-inners. Ah well, his mother should have had a few more of him anyway.Genghis Kahn | August 7, 2006, 4:51am | #
In all seriousness, there's some great irrationality to stone on the anti- side of this debate. But I'd find it a lot easier to listen to the "Open the Gates" crowd if they showed any awareness of the legit concerns about a true Open Door policy.We're real good at absorbing immigrants, I buy that theory. And I'm definitely in the camp that says we should let as many immigrants in as possible, just for humanitarian reasons if nothing else (my wife is an immigrant, a political refugee, so forget the "you're just racist" BS). But --
Fact remains, there IS a LIMIT as to how many immigrants this country can absorb at any given moment. Our infrastructure does not possess infinite capacity, our supply chains are not set up to provide infinite amounts of food and consumer goods, etc etc.
What's the upper bound? Who the hell knows. But you know there has to be one, just from common sense considerations.
To those who will "bah humbug" this, consider: there are roughly a billion Muslims in the Middle East today. According to a recent UN survey, roughly half of them would like to leave and go somewhere else. And who can blame them?
If we now add to this Africa, China, plus Central and South America, I contend that yes in fact WE COULD very easily end up with more immigrants than our system can handle in a year's time.
I'm in favor of letting in just as many immigrants at the highest rate we can rationally absorb. That's my Open Door policy. But whether anyone likes it or not, we do in fact need some kind of restrictions on how many get to come in each year.
The world is a big place, and as far as I can tell most of it isn't a happy place. Now, if someone could help me start trying to put a rational estimate on our immigrant absorption rate I'd think it was grand.
shecky | August 7, 2006, 6:13am | #
Why not let market forces determine the immigration rate? They're always what really determines immigration rates anyway.Arguing the country shouldn't have open borders because it can be flooded with more people than it can absorb, is a bit like arguing Manhattan shouldn't have open borders. After all, it could be flooded with way more people than it can absorb, right? Real world circumstances, largely market forces, create substantial disincentives keeping folks from flooding into Manhattan.
Same goes for the country. As long as there is promising lookout for bettering lives, immigrants will come. Legal or not. If/when the economy no longer looks promising, they will no longer come. The situation will be reversed, immigrants and natives alike will leave in search elsewhere for prosperity.
Doctor Duck | August 7, 2006, 6:37am | #
Why not let market forces determine the immigration rate?Because the clearing price is likely to be a lot lower than we're willing to tolerate.
On quality of life issues -- if immigrants are currently at an average of, say, 10 units, and we're at an average of 70, an unregulated influx of people for whom 30 represents a big improvement will drive the quality down until it reaches that level. That's what free markets do.
It works internally -- Manhattan is wide open -- because there's little variation in the national average. The world average is much, much lower. Would you really settle for being 3 times as well off as Darfur?
Mr. F. Le Mur | August 7, 2006, 7:21am | #
IOW "La Raza" (etc,etc,etc) isn't racist because it's largely compsed of 'brown' people. Check.The situation will be reversed, immigrants and natives alike will leave in search elsewhere for prosperity.
The ability to flee your own country once the wave of 'open border' immigrants (how many millions? 1s? 10s? 100s?) transform it into a country similar to the ones they already created, and then fled, will be rather limited by the fact that nobody else has, or will have, open borders.
Mr. Nice Guy | August 7, 2006, 8:06am | #
"Popish brothels"I have to say we Irish did a lousy job keeping these things around, 'cause I sure as hell don't know where one is...
...and I DO have a thing for red-heads.
MikeP | August 7, 2006, 8:19am | #
It works internally -- Manhattan is wide open -- because there's little variation in the national average.Connecticut has twice the GDP per capita and just over half the unemployment rate of Mississippi. Yet there not a massive or even mentioned migration from Mississippi to Connecticut.
The world average is much, much lower. Would you really settle for being 3 times as well off as Darfur?
And of course individual variations in income and well being are vastly greater than state variations. So please explain why the migration of someone from Darfur which improves his life by a factor of three makes my life three-sevenths as good? I'd rather think that his coming here makes mine marginally better.
Even better, please explain why the fear -- and it it is nothing more than fear -- that my life will be more than marginally worse gives me the right to prevent his improving his life by a factor of three.
thoreau | August 7, 2006, 8:26am | #
Bill O’Reilly raging against illegal immigration? Nothing special. Bill O’Reilly prophesying the decline of the white race? That’s why we pay our cable bills.David Weigel's writing: Priceless.
There are some things money can't buy. A subscription to Reason isn't one of them.
joe | August 7, 2006, 9:15am | #
Genghis, I'd take the nativist/anti-immigration (but oh so incredibly pro-legal immigrant) crow seriously if you could bestir yourselves to even acknowledge, or maybe even denounce, the openly racist elemants you're marching with.An entire column dedicated to the racist, eugenics-inspired rantings of prominent anti-immigration figures, and you either support their ideas, or at a minimum, you can't work up the motivation, to say they're wrong.
And neither can any of the other anti-immigrant commenters on the thread. Yes, Lemur, I talking about your "tu quoque" dodge about La Raza.
jw | August 7, 2006, 9:36am | #
A few days ago in Amarillo, Tx. the KKK marched and demonstrated against liberalized immigration policies. Therefore, anybody who is against the idea of completely unrestricted immigration must be a member of the Knights in White Muslin. Right? I mean, I am right, aren't I?I've also heard that alot of those guys like to drive pick-up trucks, too. Any white guy you see driving a pick-up truck and speaking with any sort of a drawl is probably a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm right there. too, aren't I?
Damn those brown folks for coming here and picking fruit practically for free! Damn them!
Mark VIII | August 7, 2006, 10:00am | #
Question: Is the KKK still alive and kicking in the southern states? We often hear about them over in the UK but don't really understand what they get up to.Are they noe made up of pointless losers holding on to former glories - along the same lines as punk rockers, slam poets and hippies?
An obstetrician or maternity ward nurse in Utah entering the 18th hour of a shift | August 7, 2006, 10:09am | #
What's all this about a shortage of white babies?I don't see why white people should have babies when it's so much cheaper to have Mexicans do it for us.
Tim Cavanaugh | August 7, 2006, 10:16am | #
I have to say we Irish did a lousy job keeping these things around, 'cause I sure as hell don't know where one is...Not only that, but by the time I went to Catholic school more than half the faculty consisted of lay teachers, and I didn't get laid once.
Just Checking | August 7, 2006, 10:21am | #
Rich, white conservative Mexicans rob Pemex blind and steal everything else that isn't nailed down; pass laws making it pretty much impossible to start a small business and force the Indigenas and Mestizos to risk death in the Sonoran desert; yet those of us who want our non-college educated relatives to make more than $6 an hour are the racists?smartass sob | August 7, 2006, 10:21am | #
But Jennifer, if you were truly a liberal-minded person, you would be willing to furnish your womb as a surrogate mother. You could help lighten the load for some poor hispanic woman!Isaac Bartram | August 7, 2006, 10:23am | #
An obstetrician or maternity ward nurse in Utah entering the 18th hour of a shift,But that's because of all the illegals that are using our hospitals. Or, at least, that's what I've been told.
Jennifer | August 7, 2006, 10:29am | #
Smartass, that would deny them self-sufficiency and only hurt them in the long run. You know the old saying--"Give a woman a baby and she'll have one child; teach a woman to have babies and she'll outbreed you and doom the white race."I never understood why that saying was considered inspirational.
Pig Mannix | August 7, 2006, 10:36am | #
On May 11, Big Story anchor John Gibson reported that America's under-5 population was experiencing a dangerous pigment boom. Gibson has never been cuddly; he vaguely resembles Matthias, the zombie Torquemada from The Omega Man who hunted Charlton Heston for his precious bodily fluids.Ooooo! that's gotta hurt! Somebody's gonna be sore in the morning!
*queue William Tell Overture*
"And our hero, Dave Weigal, swings courageously down from the balcony upon the evil, sniveling coward Gibson, and *snap!*, fells him with a single slap of his Magick Hit & Run Hankie!"
Bad day, huh Dave?
Aresen | August 7, 2006, 10:40am | #
95% of the diversity of the human gene pool is in Africa. Most of the rest is in Asia and South America. [Our white ancestors destroyed most of the North American aboriginal gene pool.]The diversity of the human genome is the best insurance we have against disease.
Do I want more of my brown and black brothers and sisters around? You bet I do!
smartass sob | August 7, 2006, 10:50am | #
[95% of the diversity of the human gene pool is in Africa. Most of the rest is in Asia and South America. [Our white ancestors destroyed most of the North American aboriginal gene pool.]The diversity of the human genome is the best insurance we have against disease.]
See? And you thought ony racists and Nazis were interested in eugenics!
Don Coyote | August 7, 2006, 10:53am | #
"Right of Return": Ditto, why Israel can't allow the influx of Palestinian's. Not the breeding but the voting.Doc | August 7, 2006, 11:02am | #
explain why the migration of someone from Darfur which improves his life by a factor of three makes my life three-sevenths as good?"Someone" wouldn't. Millions would. You're imputing to me an argument I didn't make.
I was trying to rebut the notion that market forces would let this all shake out for the best. If you care to argue that position, I'd love to hear it.
Something essentially benign in the ones and twos ("someone" from Darfur) can become strongly negative by the gross. Tragedy of the commons and all.
We have a remarkable ability to absorb immigrants, but it isn't infinite. Over a long time, at a controlled rate (which we've never determined), we could probably absorb Darfur. But doing it with wide open borders in the hope that market forces would find an equlibrium we'd enjoy is just loopy. IMO.
Doctor Duck | August 7, 2006, 11:11am | #
there not a massive or even mentioned migration from Mississippi to ConnecticutThe marginal difference between MS and CT is infinitesimal compared to that between Somalia and the US. And the differences that do exist are tempered by non-economic factors -- many people in MS would not consider a move to CT desirable because of family ties, current employment, or a host of other things.
But the mass migration from MI to TX in the 80s, for example, or from OK to CA in the 30s, show that when the tipping point comes, when the marginal difference is great enough, people will pick up stakes in large numbers.
Wild Pegasus | August 7, 2006, 11:16am | #
Attractive, talented, intelligent white man with good sense of humor seeks attractive, intelligent, talented white woman for babymaking. Nordic or Celtic ancestry a plus. No fat chicks.- Josh
Captain Holly | August 7, 2006, 11:38am | #
Genghis, I'd take the nativist/anti-immigration (but oh so incredibly pro-legal immigrant) crow seriously if you could bestir yourselves to even acknowledge, or maybe even denounce, the openly racist elemants you're marching with.joe, I'd take the pacifist/anti-war (but oh so incredibly pro-freedom) crow(d) seriously if you could bestir yourselves to even acknowledge, or maybe even denounce, the openly anti-American elements you're marching with.
It's fun to tar people with a broad brush, isn't it?
FatDrunkAndStupid | August 7, 2006, 12:04pm | #
The racism angle of this whole debate isn't really the point. In 50 years time when designer babies are a reality the whole world will start turning white. But the underlying problem of immigration will remain. The welfare state, and the fact that no other country in the world allows anything approaching open immigration renders the "open market" argument moot.grylliade | August 7, 2006, 12:07pm | #
Fact remains, there IS a LIMIT as to how many immigrants this country can absorb at any given moment. Our infrastructure does not possess infinite capacity, our supply chains are not set up to provide infinite amounts of food and consumer goods, etc etc.Yes, but . . . firstly, the people coming in are not just consumers of resources, they're also producers. That's why they're coming here, to get paid to do a job. They then spend a great deal of the money they get paid here, even if they send some of it home. Secondly, saying that there is a tipping point is absolutely true; but it is not likely that there will be such a massive influx of immigrants that we'll come close to that point. It's like saying that there's a point where the US is overpopulated; absolutely true, but ultimately irrelevant, because we're nowhere near that point now. Besides, calculating a "safe rate" of immigration is going to depend entirely on the assumptions that you make; I'm guessing that the rates calculated by immigration advocates and opponents will differ by an order of magnitude, at least.
On quality of life issues -- if immigrants are currently at an average of, say, 10 units, and we're at an average of 70, an unregulated influx of people for whom 30 represents a big improvement will drive the quality down until it reaches that level. That's what free markets do.
Will it? If we got a massive influx of doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, and middle managers, yeah, maybe. But the immigrants we get in are taking jobs that Americans don't want to do, by and large. They're not competing for the "70" jobs; they're competing for the "30" jobs that aren't getting filled because Americans want a wage of at least 40. And, as noted below, there are other factors than just wages that figure into decisions to emigrate.
And the differences that do exist are tempered by non-economic factors -- many people in MS would not consider a move to CT desirable because of family ties, current employment, or a host of other things.
And these factors don't apply when talking about international immigration why? Seriously, many (if not most) of the Mexicans who come here to work would probably rather go home after making some money in the US, but our present policies make it nearly impossible for them to do so. People don't, generally, want to pick up and move. They're comfortable where they grew up, where they know people, and, in the case of international immigration, where the culture is what they're accustomed to.
And remember that immigration is not free, even with open borders. In the case of Mexico, you still have to get to the border and have some money to tide you over until you find work. In the case of any other country, you have to buy a plane ticket or a ship ticket, which raises the cost greatly.
People who immigrate are the exception. They're normally the kind of people you want in your country working, because they show initiative and willingness to work. We're not going to have a greater influx of immigrants than we can handle because the barriers to immigration are still very high, even with open borders.
highnumber | August 7, 2006, 12:12pm | #
...the differences that do exist are tempered by non-economic factors -- many people in MS would not consider a move to CT desirable because of family ties, current employment, or a host of other things...Add to that list that some could not afford to make the move from MS to CT, and you are on to something.
Those are all reasons why not every poor person on the planet will come to the US.
Aresen | August 7, 2006, 12:18pm | #
FD&SIn economics, open markets do better than closed ones, even when there are no other open markets.
I suspect that the same is true in immigration. In general, one can observe that societies open to immigration (the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Europe) are freer than those that are not. I don't know if there are any studies which confirm this, but I'd bet my passport that there is a correlation.
Doctor Duck | August 7, 2006, 12:47pm | #
And these factors don't apply when talking about international immigration why?Rather than address all your excellent points one by one, I'll just say that these factors are trumped when the marginal difference is great enough, which it is for most third-worlders.
Most Mexicans may want to go home, but not most Eritreans. Mexico is a special case in several ways, mainly due to the shared border which would be easy to cross and recross. But the Irish, Poles, Germans, Italians etc didn't go back, in the main, and not just because it was difficult. I'm not saying they weren't a net benefit, only that their behavior is the true norm. The harder the move, the less likely you'd be to reverse it.
I am in favor of more open immigration, if for no other reason than it reduces or removes the law enforcement nightmare that we create by trying to stem an unstemmable tide. And free(r) movement of labor is a necessary balance to free flows of capital. The theory is great, if everyone plays.
But I can't make myself into a utopian. There'd be serious problems with being the only open country, especially one so attractive economically and socially.
For one (OK, a slippery-slope) scenario, if I were a hater wishing to destabilize this open US, I'd take all my bomb money and put it to use loading cargo ships with every starving dead-ender I could find who'd be willing to take a ride. It isn't just the number who come, it's the rate they come and what they can contribute.
Doctor Duck | August 7, 2006, 12:51pm | #
And these factors don't apply when talking about international immigration why?Rather than address all your excellent points one by one, I'll just say that these factors are trumped when the marginal difference is great enough, which it is for most third-worlders.
Most Mexicans may want to go home, but not most Eritreans. Mexico is a special case in several ways, mainly due to the shared border which would be easy to cross and recross. But the Irish, Poles, Germans, Italians etc didn't go back, in the main, and not just because it was difficult. I'm not saying they weren't a net benefit, only that their behavior is the true norm. The harder the move, the less likely you'd be to reverse it.
I am in favor of more open immigration, if for no other reason than it reduces or removes the law enforcement nightmare that we create by trying to stem an unstemmable tide. And free(r) movement of labor is a necessary balance to free flows of capital. The theory is great, if everyone plays.
But I can't make myself into a utopian. There'd be serious problems with being the only open country, especially one so attractive economically and socially.
For one (OK, a slippery-slope) scenario, if I were a hater wishing to destabilize this open US, I'd take all my bomb money and put it to use loading cargo ships with every starving dead-ender I could find who'd be willing to take a ride. It isn't just the number who come, it's the rate they come and what they can contribute.
thoreau | August 7, 2006, 1:09pm | #
But the Irish, Poles, Germans, Italians etc didn't go back, in the main, and not just because it was difficult.Actually, I seem to recall hearing that a significant number of them did go home after working here for a while in the early part of the 20th century. We're just descended from the ones who stayed. I think some of the returnees were abetted by the fact that they could come and go with relative ease: They could leave their families in the old country, where the cost of living is cheaper, come here and work, send money home for their families to live well, go home and visit, come back and make more money for their families, rinse and repeat. If it was easy to go back and forth then it was easier to decide to not bring a family. And if it was easier to decide to not bring a family, it was easier to decide not to stay forever.
Sometimes when you try to dissuade people from a course of action, what you really do is persuade them to do it once and get it over with.
Controlling people and markets is hard.
joe | August 7, 2006, 1:22pm | #
Captain Holly,The media and blogs were full of anti-radical, non-ANSWER arguments agains the war, ranging from the antiwar.com isolationaist libertoids to the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The contrast with the silence towards, and active defense of, racist anti-immigrant crusaders by the so-called moderate anti-immigrant crusaders could not be more strinking to anyone who is actually familiar with the two debates.
"In 50 years time when designer babies are a reality the whole world will start turning white." Really? You think the African, Asian, and other non-northern-European people of the world are just dying to turn themselves and their children white? I think you'd be surprised.
shecky | August 7, 2006, 1:48pm | #
Thoreau:Controlling people and markets is hard.Exactly. The only way governments truly control people and markets is with a very heavy hand, and typically manage to botch the job anyway. Yet this is what is proposed by those opposed to open borders. However, if immigration is treated like the labor market it is, it takes care of itself. Like it always does.
Doc:We have a remarkable ability to absorb immigrants, but it isn't infinite. Over a long time, at a controlled rate (which we've never determined), we could probably absorb Darfur. But doing it with wide open borders in the hope that market forces would find an equlibrium we'd enjoy is just loopy. IMO.
We let people in at a government-determined controlled rate already, the result is people ignore it. Because market forces demand what law will not allow. Market forces are dynamic and continually find an equilibrium.
Doctor Duck:But the mass migration from MI to TX in the 80s, for example, or from OK to CA in the 30s, show that when the tipping point comes, when the marginal difference is great enough, people will pick up stakes in large numbers.
There was much grumbling and rending of clothes then, too. But I can't see how this mass migration a bad thing.
Doctor Duck | August 7, 2006, 2:15pm | #
We let people in at a government-determined controlled rate already, the result is people ignore it.I meant the sustainable rate. What we currently allow is certainly much below that.
Market forces are dynamic and continually find an equilibrium.
Of course. That's why I qualified it as an 'equilibrium we'd enjoy'. Everything we know says that in the end markets are unstoppable. But the results may be better in the abstract than in reality. We in the US have the most to lose in this, and while I won't say it's a zero sum game, I also don't believe that the sum will be positive for everyone. You can argue long-term success, but you know what the man said about the long term.
I guess it would help me to understand your position if I knew whether you advocate open borders as a unilateral move by the US, or as part of a world where movement of labor is as unrestricted as capital flows. I can get behind the latter, utopian as it is, but I can see no good result from the former.
shecky | August 7, 2006, 2:37pm | #
Doctor Duck:We in the US have the most to lose in this, and while I won't say it's a zero sum game, I also don't believe that the sum will be positive for everyone.On the contrary, the US has the most to gain. And has gained with massive immigration in the past, in addition to a large influx of females into the workplace. I also don't believe that the sum will be positive for everyone. But it seems clear that it will be positive for nearly everyone in the end.
Doctor Duck:I guess it would help me to understand your position if I knew whether you advocate open borders as a unilateral move by the US, or as part of a world where movement of labor is as unrestricted as capital flows.
Both. We'd benefit if done unilaterally, and benefit more if reciprocated. The key is to think of people as the resource they are.
MikeP | August 7, 2006, 2:37pm | #
I was trying to rebut the notion that market forces would let this all shake out for the best. If you care to argue that position, I'd love to hear it.The key to the argument that the market will moderate immigration is to not compare the average standard of living in the US to the standard of living of the would-be immigrant.
Rather, one must compare the standard of living of the marginal potential immigrant to the standard of living of the marginal actual immigrant. And as has been noted before, family, culture, and cost of living are all parts of the standard of living.
The new unskilled immigrant enters the US economy at the bottom rung of the ladder. All the other rungs of the ladder move up through leveraging the new cheaper production in their own production and in their consumption. But at some point it is not worth it for the economy to provide a new lower rung of the ladder: either the pay is so low that the marginal immigrant's standard of living actually decreases compared to his standard in his native land, or the overhead to the employer is simply not worth it.
It's all about the marginal immigrant. The first marginal immigrant sees a job worth taking. The ten millionth marginal immigrant sees a lesser job, but one still worth taking. The twenty millionth marginal immigrant does not see a job worth taking and does not immigrate.
And those who reside on the higher rungs of the ladder see their standards of living rise as the new immigrants take lower rungs. The total average standard of living might fall with large scale immigration -- although this is quite debatable -- but the average standard of living of the non-immigrants will go up and will not fall toward the new average.
joe | August 7, 2006, 3:03pm | #
shecky, "We let people in at a government-determined controlled rate already, the result is people ignore it."This is my starting point in the debate: he have a prohibitionist policy that is resulting in the predictable consequences of prohibition. Except this time, it's even harder, because the drive to improve one's position and take care of one's family is even more basic to human nature than the drive to drink.
But please note, we didn't completely eliminate all regulations on the production and sale of alcohol, just most of them. And, predictably, this didn't completely eliminate bootlegging, just most of it.
As someone whose primary concern about the immigration debate is undoing the dangerous black market and the criminal organizations it feeds, I don't think a totally open-borders policy is necessary. Just making the immigration laws better, and more reflective of the reality of immigration, would go a long, long way.
Mr. F. Le Mur | August 7, 2006, 3:32pm | #
I was trying to rebut the notion that market forces would let this all shake out for the best. If you care to argue that position, I'd love to hear it.Pure market forces would likely produce the best *overall* result for the largest number of people.
However, I'm not concerned about producing the best results for the rest of the world, just the best results for the US, and that end is most definitely NOT served by open immigration.
++
Hi joe, you avowed racist, you!
An entire column dedicated to the racist, ...
eugenics-inspired rantings of ...you can't work up the motivation, to say they're wrong.
That's because, as usual with Weigel articles, I only read the first few sentences, if that. I responded to comments from others.
And neither can any of the other anti-immigrant commenters on the thread. Yes, Lemur, I talking about your "tu quoque" dodge about La Raza.
No dodge at all.
La Raza = "The Race," and they're most definitely not referring to the entire 'human race.'
I think it's funny that Reason prints several articles about Gibson's (who the hell is he anyway, besides some talking head I never heard of except here?) supposedly racist remarks but never covers, or even mentions, the far more blatant, hostile and widespread racist remarks and policies eminating from the pro-(illegal)-immigration groups.
But that's libruls for ya.
Don Coyote | August 7, 2006, 4:35pm | #
All immigrants are not of the working class. You also get the sick, lame, lazy, elderly that must be supported. Get your foot in the door then bring the relatives.Is this really all about economics? At some point voting power matters.
Too bad the High School/College/University students (not including faculty) can't form some serious research/study group and determine what would be best for them. Lord (whatever that means) knows the greatest generation and boomers are grabbing all they can get. They might even want to vote if they thought it could matter?
highnumber | August 7, 2006, 5:32pm | #
That's because, as usual with Weigel articles, I only read the first few sentences, if that.No, no bigoted thinking here.
Am I stepping over the line?
I don't believe so. Closed-mindedness is the root of bigotry, no?
highnumber | August 7, 2006, 6:44pm | #
La Raza = "The Race," and they're most definitely not referring to the entire 'human race.'Do you know what they are referring to?
or are you going to remain in your small little world and interpret everything that is unfamiliar to you as a threat?
MUTT | August 7, 2006, 8:30pm | #
"Why not let market forces determine the immigration rate? They're always what really determines immigration rates anyway."Ah, yes: "market forces", aka, the "invisible hand"
Hands, actually. While one hand holds a gun to your head, the other hand picks your pocket. the stolen funds x millions are shipped to the cronies of the gun hand in other countries. There other gun hands -related by class- with the domestic one use said funds to keep honest people in peonage...brutal militaries, degenerate, corrupt oligarchs, quisling governments- that hand not at all invisible to the peons. As it is, for some reason, to us.
Said peons, unable to earn an honest days pay because of those gun hands, flee North, where, even if they work well below the rate of the locals (who faced down gun hands long ago, to improve thier lot) STILL make a lot more than they ever will in the "democracies" they flee from.
And the gun hand here, in the employ of the same sort of scum who hold the guns there, can now undo all the work of the folks who broke thier wrists generations ago.
Ah, yes: market forces.
you have GOT to be kidding me.
Instead of debating the 'nativists', who ever they are, why not adresses the substantive arguments against mass immigration, including arguments made by other Libertarians?
Genghis Kahn | August 7, 2006, 9:59pm | #
Le Mur,ever, I'm not concerned about producing the best results for the rest of the world, just the best results for the US, and that end is most definitely NOT served by open immigration.
Well said.
Genghis Kahn | August 7, 2006, 10:13pm | #
D Coyote,this really all about economics? At some point voting power matters.
It's not all about economics any more than it's all about racism. And I was really, really hoping that the voting question would occur to somebody besides me.....
At what number of immigrants have we effectively become another country? This is not an idle question.
Genghis Kahn | August 7, 2006, 10:17pm | #
At last! The kind of debate on this subject that I've wanted to see, as opposed to listening to all the auto-play tapes on both sides of the fence.This time I actually learned some things I hadn't thought of.
BG | August 7, 2006, 10:39pm | #
MUTTWhat are you talking about?
or maybe I should ask:
What are you on and where can I get some?
ilked | August 7, 2006, 11:38pm | #
One answer to people who are concerned about the potential effect on the stability of the country if too many people are let in is to suggest for the concerned to leave. Let's see, if a majority of people have this concern, that's at least 200 million people; that would clear out a lot of room.But if the concern just boils down to, "I just want to make sure me and mine get what's coming to us" then that's a different concern. Here's a question to address that: why is that you and your ilk are thought of in terms of your humanity and individuality but when you talk about the millions of people coming here, they are just points on a graph?"
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 12:37am | #
Dear (obviously confused) ilk,One answer to people who are concerned about the potential effect on the stability of the country if too many people are let in is to suggest for the concerned to leave.
Another answer would be for people who could care less what happened, if we just opened the flood gates to all comers, to leave themselves.
This is a many-dimensioned issue, see my 10:13 post above for example. Why should the beneficiaries of our immigration policy by the one concern that trumps all others? Would you also tell me I must eat my all of my beans because people are starving in Africa?
The cornerstone of libertarian economics is "mutually beneficial exchange". We benefit by letting in immigrants, within certain bounds. But beyond some point we start going the other way.
There are those of us who aren't interested in going backwards. If we dilute ourselves to the point that we become something fundamentally different from what we now are, then we won't be a beacon to anyone anymore. That, I contend, is not good, and we are under no obligation to go down that path.
It's like the question of how much money one should give to charity. Am I allowed to decide how much I'm going to give to charity? Or do you think I'm obligated to give until I'm bankrupt?
I'm not going bankrupt, because I'm not an altruist. I'm concerned about other people in the world, yes, but that doesn't mean I have to kill myself to save all of them.
ilked | August 8, 2006, 12:41am | #
"At what number of immigrants have we effectively become another country?"To answer this question, I think you first have to dial into the underlying assumptions it rests on. "another country"? What is the right number of people that preserves the status quo, that preserves the U.S. as the country it is now? How is this number arrived at? Who gets to decide? Others could say we tipped that point a 100 years ago and effectively became 'another country' then. Should we then attempt to kick out all the non-native born to return our country to the right number we had before?
You and I are people. Other people struggling to get here or who are newly arrived are just numbers.
shecky | August 8, 2006, 12:45am | #
Pure market forces would likely produce the best *overall* result for the largest number of people.However, I'm not concerned about producing the best results for the rest of the world, just the best results for the US, and that end is most definitely NOT served by open immigration.
Why is it that market forces work so well except when it comes to the labor market?
It's also very curious that what's good for the world isn't good for the US.
And the conclusion that the US would not be well served by open border follows, how?
shecky | August 8, 2006, 12:54am | #
The cornerstone of libertarian economics is "mutually beneficial exchange". We benefit by letting in immigrants, within certain bounds. But beyond some point we start going the other way.I thought the cornerstone was letting the market work itself out without government intrusion?
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 2:44am | #
Okay, let's try taking this one step at a time. First off, do you grasp the fact that it is possible to overload our existing infrastructure, if the immigration rate is high enough?We've got what, 300 million people in the US? Suppose we just opened the gates wide, and got another 100 million more over the next 12 months? Or how about 300 million more?
It takes time to develop the infrastructure to support the added population. You don't build new roads over night, for example.
What we're talking about here is "the town that became a city over night" syndrome. Mind numbing traffic jams, perpetually long lines at all the stores, etc etc. Sure you can build and catch up, but you can't do it instantaneously.
Second, do you realize that getting 100 million immigrants a year is not at all unrealistic, if we did throw our doors open to the world? Add up populations of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central and South America. Even if only a fraction of them can afford to come here, it wouldn't take a very large percentage of this many billions, to get yourself 100 million immigrants in 12 months.
Third, let's suppose we decided we could handle 100 million a year (which I doubt). Suppose we did this for three years in a row. At that point, 1/2 of the US population would be immigrants.
Some around here are probably going to have trouble grasping this little truth, but there is in fact a limit as to how many immigrants this nation can assimilate at any given time. Add 300 million immigrants in three years, and I contend that we will quickly find ourselves evolving into some other country than the one we currently are (which btw is the country that everybody wants to come to, right????)
Chinese civilization went essentially unchanged for about 2000 years, largely because the population mass was always so large that all invanders and immigrants got assimilated. The US doesn't have anywhere near the same population mass to work with.
Europe, after Rome fell, was a different story. A good part of why the Dark Ages lasted as long as they did, was the fact that Europe kept getting invaded from the Eurasian steppes. And Europe didn't have enough population to just assimilate the new comers. This kept everything (ideas, culture, political institutions, etc) in flux for a very long time. Eventually the Church became a strong enough institution to re-anchor civilization, but this took centuries (the last couple of which there were few new invasions).
The Middle East is, and has been, an idealogical disaster area, precisely because the native population has never been large enough to assimilate immigrants and invaders. It's the reason stable countries have rarely existed, or lasted long, in the ME. Not since the Egyptians anyway.
On the one hand you have the example of Chinese stability. On the other, you have the example of the Middle East. Europe fell somewhere in the middle.
Which would you like to live in? I for one do not choose the Middle East option.
btw, "the market" has worked itself out in the Middle East over the ages. You will note that letting the "the market" work itself out is one issue. But quality of life is an entirely different matter.
I personally like what we have here, all flaws aside. We've been the world's beacon of hope, at least for the last two centuries, and I would like to see it go on for two more centuries. Preserving this is something that some of us consider worth while.
If you don't think the US is worth preserving that's fine. But at least admit it so we can stop arguing the wrong points.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 3:04am | #
I really think a big part of the problem here is that we (the US) are very good at assimilating immigrants. Maybe we're the best ever. But combine this with most people's lack of knowledge about history, and it makes Americans think they're freaking invincible.I spent 10 years reading Western and ME history as a hobby. Then I married an Asian, and spent another 10 years reading Asian history. The differences between East and West are as instructive as they are striking.
Let me tell you, we aren't invincible. But we aren't smart enough yet to know it.
The stability of Sinicized civilization really is due to their huge population mass. They never, never got diluted by immigrants or invaders. The Mongols overthrew Chinese government -- and in a very few generations, the Mongols became Chinese for all practical purposes.
There is nowhere in the Western world where you can say the same thing has happened. Roman Europe was diluted by invaders, and this greatly hampered the building of the next generation of civilization.
The Middle East has been and still is so diluted that achieving stability is a near-impossibility.
You can pooh-pooh stability if you want. But it's a lot like playing with fire. People's innate, instinctive fear of getting too diluted by "furiners" is not entirely irrational, whether anyone else here wants to face up to it or not.
The fear, in a nutshell, is that (worst case) you end up with what they've had in the Middle East for centuries on end.
Those of you who want to, can bitch about the apparent "immorality" of us not opening our doors wide to all who care to come. But I counter with the very real "immorality" that you see going on in the Middle East right now.
Achieving a stable civilization is no small accomplishment, and it's not something that anybody should just take for granted. Over the ages, it's very often been a "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" thing.
Right now, we've got it. Think twice and three times before you gamble with it. The world is a real big place, and the only people who've ever been big enough to ride out all tides have been the Chinese.
Don't kid yourself. We aren't Chinese big. We can't assimilate limitless numbers of immigrants. Our civilization, our nation, is not invincible.
ilked | August 8, 2006, 3:16am | #
Genghis Khan,I think you missed my point.
"Why should the beneficiaries of our immigration policy by the one concern that trumps all others?"
That wasn't my trump card. My trump card would be that your desire to keep things the way doesn'
t trump the basic human rights and desires of others. Because you or your family skipped across the pond earlier doesn't trump the rights of others to skip over, or trundle up from below, later. I'm sure there were families who came here before yours or people close to you.
"Would you also tell me I must eat my all of my beans because people are starving in Africa?"
No, I wouldn't say that as that's not a suitable analogy. Now if you had said, "Hey look, I know there are a lot of starving people in Africa but there IS a limit somewhere of how many people the earth can support. You do agree that there is a limit at some point of how many people the earth can support, do you not? We have 5 billion now. How about 50 billion, 100 billion, 1 trillion? A gazzilion? At least address the question of what number the earth can support. It's all very well and good to talk about the benefits of genetically engineered crops to feed our burgeoning population, or the basic rights of others to life, but it's completely misguided as there simply ARE limits to how many people the earth can sustain - think of increased pollution, disease, schools, etc." To which I would say, well, if it's just the number of people you are worried about you can either not have children or just off yourself. Those starving people do not count more than you (that's what altruism would be about) but they also do not count less than you do.
You keep treating this like it's just a numbers game when the real issue is why you don't think of yourself as a number but of the other people involved as just that.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 3:55am | #
You keep treating this like it's just a numbers game when the real issue is why you don't think of yourself as a number but of the other people involved as just that.I think, you missed my points.
My trump card would be that your desire to keep things the way doesn't trump the basic human rights and desires of others.
Have you heard of a thing called property rights?
The fact that you want my house doesn't mean you're entitled to it, legally or morally.
The fact that other people suffer does not negate my right to self determination. I don't have to sacrifice myself just because somebody else doesn't have all the things I have.
It's true that what you have is, to an extent, a matter of dumb luck and where you're born. But the fact that I wasn't born a Kennedy, doesn't make me argue that the Kennedys should not be allowed to keep their wealth.
That is a directly relevant analogy.
ilked | August 8, 2006, 5:30am | #
GK,Now that's another fine mess of an analogy you've gotten me into....
Property rights has nothing to do with it. I'm not advocating they have a right to steal your house. Just that they have a right to come to the U.S. to live and work just as you and your ancestor's did. Come to think of it, maybe you are right about property rights, but not for the reasons you believe. You do not own someone's else's apartment complex or place of business. That's their property and they should have the right to rent to or employ who they want - that's if we are talking about property rights.
And no, again, your analogy about the Kennedy's is way way off the mark. Where did I advocate stealing/redistributing the Kennedy's wealth?
Your previous discussion about China and the Middle East and population pressures was interesting but still leaves me with this feeling you see this as a giant chess game - at least when it comes to the faceless hoardes; they're pieces to be arranged on the board according to a strategy set by annointed others. How do we decide what's the optimal number and since you mentioned ethnicity, the optimal mix? Who gets to play grandmaster? Why do they deserve this right to settle the fate of others? Once again, the point is the right to live and work, not steal what you already have.
Alleviating the suffering of others by allowing them to make their own decisions about coming here, does not interfere with your right to self-determination.
Mo | August 8, 2006, 5:48am | #
What makes you think 100 million people would get over here Khan? Most people in other countries don't have the means to get over here. Those with the means in those countries tend to have a good thing going for them in other countries and don't want to leave a good thing behind. Immigrants that cross oceans to get here have a strong desire to improve their lot, are risk taking and are willing to work hard. That's a selection bias that benefits us. It's chauvanistic to believe that everyone can and will come over given the opportunity. Even putting in rudimentary checks like criminal background checks will help prevent the worst (so nations don't ship all of their criminals to us).It wasn't the fact that there was immigration in the Middle East that messed it up, it was the fact that that immigration was in the form of invading armies, not workers looking for a better life. Of course, your society is going to suck if you keep getting invaded and having your institutions constantly in upheaval. However, people coming over willingly to work and improve their lives will be a net benefit for us. Not to mention, as stated above, it doesn't matter what the conditions are here, but what the marginal benefit is.
MikeP | August 8, 2006, 7:50am | #
The Mongols overthrew Chinese government -- and in a very few generations, the Mongols became Chinese for all practical purposes.I have an alternative hypothesis for Chinese cultural domination of its invaders: the Mongols found Chinese culture superior to Mongol culture.
Note that Greek culture dominated the eastern half of the Roman Empire after its conquest. No one would argue that it was the vast population of Greece that caused this. Rather it was the fact that the Romans and their subjects found Greek culture to be superior.
Do you really think that American culture is so untenable that it won't survive further immigration with the strength that it has carried through past waves of immigration?
stable countries have rarely existed, or lasted long, in the ME. Not since the Egyptians anyway.
This would come as a surprise to the Ottomans who ruled the Middle East for four centuries. If they had resisted putzing around in Europe, they probably would _still_ be ruling the Middle East.
Then again, perhaps you think the Ottoman Empire actually proves your greater point since the Turks were recent immigrants to Anatolia...
Don Coyote | August 8, 2006, 8:12am | #
Ilked, MoHow many cats can an old woman have in a house before it turns to ....well, a news story?
No, immigrants are not cats, but the old woman could easily be a liberal congress wanting cat votes (cause it's all about them). Both Houses wrecked at whose expense.
I bet you both control who comes in and out of your home? Even have locks on your doors? Why? There are limits in this world, yours are probably just closer to home than others. Be glad you live in a country that protects you (as the locks on your doors) and allows you the freedom to work, play and live without fear. Like your home, America is worth protecting and has limits.
Even Heaven has limits and don't allow everyone in!!!
MikeP | August 8, 2006, 8:16am | #
Add 300 million immigrants in three years, and I contend that we will quickly find ourselves evolving into some other country than the one we currently are (which btw is the country that everybody wants to come to, right????)Again you completely miss the point of why making up big numbers like this is meaningless. There is no way the economy can grow and adapt to accept 300 million people in three years. And there is no way that the 270 million of them who don't find paying work will want to live dirt poor in the street. They don't want to subject themselves to that hell: They simply won't immigrate. Why do you keep presuming they will -- even as the country purportedly evolves into something they won't want to migrate to -- and then worry about their assimilation?
Margins are real things. You can't ignore them simply by spouting very large numbers.
Don Coyote | August 8, 2006, 8:36am | #
MikeP: Margins are real things. You can't ignore them simply by spouting very large numbers.What are the correct margins/numbers? Tell us. Or, are you spouting words (margins) instead of numbers? What's the difference?
Don't you think until we get it figured out we ought to be careful about relaxing immigration policies?
Isaac Bartram | August 8, 2006, 9:19am | #
At what number of immigrants have we effectively become another country? This is not an idle question.America "become[s] another country" every ten years or so with or without large numbers of immigrants. Just as the world "become[s] another" world every few years.
What we have here is a classic "stasis vs dynamism" struggle.
MikeP | August 8, 2006, 9:22am | #
What are the correct margins/numbers? Tell us.The margin with respect to immigration describes that immigrant who sees a worse situation for himself were he to move to the US than if he stayed in his home country. The margin forms from both the supply and demand side: later immigrants are less suited to immigration than earlier immigrants, and later immigrants see fewer opportunities paying less than earlier immigrants saw.
I don't know the numbers. I never claimed I did. I simply noted that numbers that are meant to sound ridiculous probably are ridiculous.
Don Coyote | August 8, 2006, 9:54am | #
MikeP,I would hope that all possible immigrants are as reflective as you describe, which also seems ridiculous. If we suggest they are, this would be as simple as posting "all" available US jobs (is there other opportunity besides jobs?) world wide.
We have no more homestead land, no free places to live, bzillions of more laws to comply with, limited resources, bla, bla, bla. This is not your grandma's America.
The global economy should, over time, provide opportunity to everyone, everywhere and slow this desire to find utopia in other places.
Henry Ford | August 8, 2006, 10:34am | #
You can have any color baby you want as long as it's white.ilked | August 8, 2006, 10:49am | #
"I bet you both control who comes in and out of your home?"Yes, Don Coyote, I do. But I don't control who goes into *other* people's homes, who wants to rent or sell their house to other people, and who wants to work for other people or offer work to other people. See the difference?
As far as heaven having limits, well, I haven't been there, so you got me there.
Russ 2000 | August 8, 2006, 10:58am | #
Second, do you realize that getting 100 million immigrants a year is not at all unrealistic, if we did throw our doors open to the world?Uh, yeah it IS unrealistic. 100 million would be roughly the entire population of Mexico. Even if it were realistic, it would pretty much be a one-shot deal then.
Secondly, if the economy tanked because 100 million came here in one year, why the fuck would another 100 million come here the following year?
I don't know where the next 100 million would come from, but if people started walking from Nicaragua, they might enjoy the completely empty and wide-open country just south of the Rio Grande. But perhaps they'd prefer the crowded economic shithole to the north.
I suppose we could get 100 million Chinese in shipping containers, but then that might be a good thing for the economy seeing that China's doing all the manufacturing these days. We probably don't even have enough shipping containers to handle that kind of cargo capacity. Perhaps we could manufacture them, with our increased labor supply we'd be able to undercut the Asians on price.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 11:58am | #
MikeP,I have an alternative hypothesis for Chinese cultural domination of its invaders: the Mongols found Chinese culture superior to Mongol culture.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. So would at least several historians I've read.
This would come as a surprise to the Ottomans who ruled the Middle East for four centuries. If they had resisted putzing around in Europe, they probably would _still_ be ruling the Middle East.
Maybe you should take a little closer look at what Ottoman rule was really like in the ME. It wasn't exactly smooth and stable all the time, the Turks were always a minority in the ME, and they were never able to integrate the ME populations into their society and culture. If it weren't for European help, the Ottomans would most certainly have lost their ME empire centuries before they actually did.
And btw yes, the Turks were another invader out of the Eurasian steppes.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 12:01pm | #
Isaac,What we have here is a classic "stasis vs dynamism" struggle/
Sure. But are you one of those who considers it an idle matter? Given the size of the unhappy third world, I don't.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 12:06pm | #
Russ2000,I don't know where the next 100 million would come from
First of all, I don't think it would take 100 million a year to cause real problems. Second, there's roughly a billion people in the ME, roughly half of which would like to leave. Add to that now the populations of Asia, Africa, Central and South America.
Suppose further that only 3% of all these people had both the means and the will to come here. Do you still think 300 million is an unrealistic number?
I don't.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 12:12pm | #
Isaac,btw, it's very easy to take the overall stability we've had in the US for granted, when you've never had to fight against the opposite problem. That is one of my points here. Those who think we can absorb any number of immigrants who choose to come here, at whatever rate, know not what they speak of.
But at least it seems a few people are starting to get the point that we can't absorb a boundless number of immigrants in any given time period.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 12:17pm | #
MikeP,Contrast Ottoman rule of the ME with Mongol and Manchu rule of China, and maybe you'll get what I'm saying.
In both cases the invaders were a minority population. Yet the Turks were able to impose their ruling system over the vanquished. The Mongols and Manchus, OTOH, simply could not have ruled China without becoming Chinese (which they did do). Why? Because you can't stop the ocean from coming into the bay. And take a look, the Manchus tried really really hard, harder than the Mongols did, yet and they failed.
The population mass was a determining factor in China. The lack of a similar, coherent population mass in the ME was also a determining factor.
Chairman Mao pulled off his stunt only by co-opting enough of the Chinese people to his cause. But in a number of fundamental ways, Mao's communism was not entirely at odds with the old Confucian system.
MUTT | August 8, 2006, 12:25pm | #
well stated, G Khan. The point is, they WILL steal my (metaphorical) house...maybe the real one to.A vast sea of unskilled 3rd world labor would drive wages to the basement. A long term project of those whom TR called "malfactors of great wealth". And people-illiterate, or near so- refugees from tyrannies & despotisms, as often as not supported by those same malfactors, have zero notion of the concept of citizen as soveriegn. They can be counted on to vote for those who promise them other peoples money- or homes.
End of story, end of this experiment in self governance.
I suggest we halt ALL immigration, but for those fleeing political or religeous oppression: we need more troublemakers. Further, I propose we quit supporting despotic states none of us would live in. Let them collapse, let economic elites dangle from trees, or learn to grub for turnips with pointy sticks. Let the torturers & gunmen feel the bayonet. Let the common men & women of other countries OWN thier countries, and let them make a go of it, free from our arms, "advisers", and such.
And if a job goes unfilled, I guess it wasnt that important. Or maybe it will get filled if pay is in line with the jobs actual worth. Hey, I got an idea: trade schools. We've enough MBA's to last an eternity. How about competant, self employed tin knockers, plumbers, electricians, etcetc....you know, folks who actually can DO something.
Only thing an Emglish major is good for is upping the quality of conversation in the unemployment line.....
highnumber | August 8, 2006, 12:28pm | #
I cannot sit and read someone posting as Genghis Khan writing about Chinese history. Way too disconcerting.How do you know anything about Chairman Mao? You've been dead for nearly 800 years!
On a somewhat tangental but not unrelated note, how many devoutly Roman Catholic Hispanics would have to move here before Roe v. Wade would be overturned? And there is no doubt that these people are "devout" - Mexico was considered the apple of the last Pope's eye.
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 8:54pm | #
I cannot sit and read someone posting as Genghis Khan writing about Chinese history. Way too disconcerting.Sorry to disconcert. I chose that name because, people not infrequently react to my philosphy of life like I'm some kind of invading barbarian.
:) Which suits me just fine.
Never met him personally, but Chairman Mao's adaption of Marxism to the Chinese circumstance was nothing less than brilliant.
Think about it. Marxism was all about the working class over throwing the capitalist pigs. But China was still agrarian, there were no factories, no working class, and no capitalist pig overlords to roast.
Mao managed it (the bastard anyway).
Genghis Kahn | August 8, 2006, 9:33pm | #
I suggest we halt ALL immigrationMan, you're gonna force me to change tacks here.
I stated my immigration policy above, August 7, 2006 04:51 AM. I've also given my reasons. Doesn't sound like we're on the same page at all here.
At the risk of sounding like Cathy Young, this is a problem that demands a balanced view because both extremes are wrong. How many immigrants can we let in? No way to figure it out analytically. I expect we'd have to experiment and learn trial and error.