New at Reason
Steve Chapman gets out his notebooks and figures out why, exactly, anti-immigration fearmongers are so utterly wrong.
Comments to "New at Reason":
thoreau | June 14, 2007, 8:17am | #
Latino men born in this country are seven times more likely to end up in prison than those who came here from abroad.Makes sense. It's worth noting that the white trash branch of my family didn't emerge until the second generation. My great-grandparents immigrated here. My grandfather is a fine, upstanding gentleman (88 years old and still going strong!).
Then one of my aunts turned into white trash and spawned a generation of white trash, who have in reproduced like rabbits.
The solution? Deport families that have been here for more than a few generations and force them to prove they deserve re-entry.
Oh, and I agree with whatever MikeP says.
(To clarify, I'm not Latino, an inference one could have drawn from the way I wrote my post.)
I'd be more convinced if there were actual references in the article.
MikeP | June 14, 2007, 8:45am | #
Along the lines of this article, here's a discussion topic I don't recall seeing...To what degree are the social pathologies seen in the illegal immigrant community due to the fact that they are illegal immigrants? Would these pathologies be decreased if the borders were open?
Say that the laboring classes in Latin America can be broken into three groups: (1) those who do not have the gumption to migrate to the US, (2) those who do have the gumption to migrate to the US and are willing to break the law and live in the shadows to do it, and (3) those who do have the gumption to migrate to the US but are not willing to break the law and live in the shadows to do it.
Group (1) will never come to the US. Group (2) are the current population of illegal immigrants. But by opening the borders, we would see more of group (3) immigrate.
The question is, are group (3) equivalent or better workers -- required in order for them to displace group (2) -- and does group (3) exhibit fewer pathologies?
BakedPenguin | June 14, 2007, 8:57am | #
From Radley Balko's Argentina article: ...most of [Buenos Aires] is of European descent, predominantly Spanish and Italian, but also German, Portuguese, French, and British...I wonder if a lot of Argentinians said "we need to keep out those damn Brits; they refuse to learn Spanish"
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 8:59am | #
I didn't read the article.In regards to crime: One could argue that allowing immigrants to have legal status and work freely would lessen the chance of them turning to crime. I imagine that most of them come to the U.S. with the intention of working, not with the intention of committing crimes. However, when their illegal status prevents them from finding suitable work, they may find themselves with no other alternative.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 8:59am | #
MikeP,What I got from the article is that the social pathologies you're talking about don't appear until the 2nd or 3rd generation, and therefore cannot be solved by immigration controls. Which makes sense when I observe the communities around me.
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 9:02am | #
I wonder if a lot of Argentinians said "we need to keep out those damn Brits; they refuse to learn Spanish"I'm sure it's just the opposite. They likely welcomed the foreign speaking people with curiosity, wonder, and the intent to learn from them.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 9:05am | #
TB is on the increase in this country because of illegal immigration. If we had open borders, these immigrants could be tested for TB and not allowed to come in until they were proven to be TB free. If we had open borders, we could check for things like this and for terrorists. That would leave fewer coming in illegally at other points which would make for an easier job patrolling for a smaller number coming over illegally. Right now, the terrorists can come in with the flood of immigrants illegally coming across the border.Ken | June 14, 2007, 9:06am | #
"If this leads you to think we are creating a permanent new underclass, though, don't be so sure. High crime rates were common among previous immigrant groups when they were still newcomers—particularly the Irish, Italians and Jews. Yet those groups are now as safe, sane and successful as you can get. It would be unwise to assume Hispanic immigrants who have arrived in recent years will automatically repeat the pattern, but there is no reason to think they are doomed to dysfunction."There is nothing wrong with that reasoning, but if you follow it there is also no reason to assume that this group will become as safe, sane and successful as you can get. Especially without the limits and assimilationist ethos that was trained on the former groups. Place ya bets, it's only the comfort and safety of the nation if we're wrong!
Steve Chapman, brought to you, as always, by the good folks at the Chamber of Commerce.
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 9:09am | #
Just curious, Ken...what "limits and assimilation ethos" were "trained on the former groups"???Jim Bob | June 14, 2007, 9:11am | #
Nativist arguments against the immigration of a particular ethnic group have never been reasonable or acceptable.Chapman's proposed solution to his stipulated problem seem to me, however, to be a short-term remedy at best. Nothing he says addresses the question of what to do after the parents of 2nd and 3rd-generation immigrations have been granted legal status. Do we allow the border to remain freely open and repeat that process ad infinitum?
RS Jake-so if we tried less to keep folks out then it would make it harder for the terrorists to get in. Okey-dokey...
That article is a nice summary. It is always refreshing to read or converse with those that are searching for reasons to allow people to stay, rather than obsessing about finding reasons to kick people out. Frankly, I’ve had it with those that talk about the migrant Mexicans as if they aren’t in the room.
BakedPenguin | June 14, 2007, 9:12am | #
Wow, jimmy, my sarcasometer went off the chart there for a second...Nevertheless, I have to agree with your point about illegality - as in the War on Some Drugs, the pathologies that result from creating a criminal subculture only compound and worsen any already existing ones.
Weeeellll, how about the 1924 limits fer example? And we had quite the attack on "hyphenated Americanism", some of it quite ugly (did you see Gangs of New York?).
Ken | June 14, 2007, 9:15am | #
"the pathologies that result from creating a criminal subculture only compound and worsen any already existing ones."Like laws against child porn my Baked Friend?
BIONIC AMERICAN | June 14, 2007, 9:36am | #
YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE DRASTIC RISE IN LEPROSY AND MS13 AND HOW AL QUAEDA TAKES SPANISH LESSONS AND THAT NONE OF OUR AMERICAN SONS HAVE CHANCE TO TRY DISHWASHING OR GARDENINGjimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 9:38am | #
Like laws against child porn my Baked Friend?
What are you trying to say there, Ken?? That people turn to child porn because it's illegal for them to not have child porn?? WTF??
Daniel | June 14, 2007, 9:49am | #
The third world is a state of mind: they bring it with them when they come to this country. This is what makes me a small "L" libertarian. I don't hold the religious postion that 3rd worlders are europeans with a different paint jobs. Your solution in your article is to surrender to this invasion and then they'll like us. lol. Are you joking? Go to South America. THAT is what our country will look like. You talk of crime and the standard of living. The most notorius gang in America now is the hispanic gang "MS13" Gang raping a white girl is an initiation ritual. When they took over an area of Charlotte in which I was living the shootings and the crime forced me to move to another area. I could no longer walk down the street without fearing for my life.You make the collectivist assumption that they invade our country because things are better over here without acknowledging that it is the people who make them better. Our political system represents the values of europeans. Now you can hate this, you can pound on the floor and scream, but you cannot change the fact that it is so. This invasion is not for our things, it is for us. It is to be near us. If we all abandon the South West and give it to them it will soon be worthless and they'll be invading us again. This is a migration to enslave people, not simply to confiscate our possessions. If we were to give them all of North America and go to a vacated South America they would be coming down there to invade. And letting them overrun us will ultimately reduce our freedoms because they'll never cognate, as a people, the rights of man. Instead, they'll vote for whoever will pony up the goods. So in the end, we're importing more slavemasters. Even Milton Friedman, who referred to himself as a radical for freedom, acknowledged the logic of building a wall. He said "when you're a welfare state you must consider such things".
joe | June 14, 2007, 10:04am | #
"Foreign-born Hispanics are far less likely to end up in prison than native-born whites."Well, yeah. We're talking about people who've already proven their ability to defeat security fences.
What?
QuietReaderGirl | June 14, 2007, 10:08am | #
Yep-Mexico can have a southern border even if the US loosens its southern border. As the Ask a Mexican columnist wrote, why would the US want to emulate Mexico's messed-up example on anything? Mexico was better off when they allowed more immigration.Daniel, the sarcism was difficult to catch at first, but once I caught on that was great. Nice touch with the gang raping thing too.
joe | June 14, 2007, 10:14am | #
Yeah, but what about Slovenia? Why don't immigration supporters ever insist that Slovenia change their immigration policy?Oh, wait, maybe it's because THIS ISN'T FREAKING SLOVENIA!
VM | June 14, 2007, 10:19am | #
This isn't Slovenia???? DAMMIT, Man.But when I took that left at Albuquerque... but.
d'oh.
*turns up "White Trash, Second Generation" by Bad Religion...
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 10:26am | #
the sarcism was difficult to catch at firstIt should have been apparent by the second line where he claims to be a "libertarian".
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 10:26am | #
"RS Jake-so if we tried less to keep folks out then it would make it harder for the terrorists to get in. Okey-dokey..."We would check them at the border. Those coming over to work would be allowed to come over. Known terrorists and those smuggling bombs would still try to sneak over at other points. With fewer trying to sneak over, it would be an easier task to target that smaller number than the big mass that is currently coming over illegally.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 10:30am | #
"the pathologies that result from creating a criminal subculture only compound and worsen any already existing ones.""Like laws against child porn my Baked Friend?"
No comparison! The first is a victimless crime.
Keith | June 14, 2007, 10:30am | #
I'm moving to the southwest in 2 weeks (phoenix). do I need to be concerned about being gang-raped? I'll get a taser if so.joe | June 14, 2007, 10:32am | #
"RS Jake-so if we tried less to keep folks out then it would make it harder for the terrorists to get in. Okey-dokey..."Yes. Compare how effective the government is tracking imports of liquor vs. cocaine.
Ken | June 14, 2007, 10:34am | #
JimmyGeek-My point is that it is foolish to say "we can't make that illegal because that ALWAYS leads to a crime tariff that makes things worse" and my example was child pornography. Making it illegal creates a crime tariff no doubt, but do you wanna make it legal? Overall the fact that it is illegal does mean less of it goes on."The third world is a state of mind: they bring it with them when they come to this country."
That wins the thread IMO. Culture counts brother (this is why capitalism is not booming in the 3rd world, or say Russia). And guess what, it's portable. Like TB.
RS Jake-why wouldn't they (the terrorists) just come in with the mass of workers pretending to be workers? And you don't think this would be a massive government program to equal the border patrol, checking the millions (and millions, if ya smell what I'm cooking) of migrants that would surely come if we threw open our borders? That's quite a wave for a trickle of 'evildoers' to get lost in...
MikeT | June 14, 2007, 10:36am | #
So much for that myth about the strong illegal immigrant family life they bring here...bob mologna | June 14, 2007, 10:40am | #
Hey, you coming to Phoenix. Why not buy yourself a real gun?Ken | June 14, 2007, 10:41am | #
"Yes. Compare how effective the government is tracking imports of liquor vs. cocaine."Joe, does that analogy hold? The way I follow it liquor/legal migrants are easy to track, cocaine/illegals are hard. But we're talking about tracking a very small subpopulation within a much larger one (terrorist within either legal or illegal migrants). So this would be like trying to track some small subset of the liquor, like a few bottles of tainted tequila. Let's say we knew that terrorists were tainting 100 bottles of tequila a year and trying to mix them with larger untainted shipments to enter the US. Under what situation do they have a better chance of slippling in, under an open borders tequila policy or a total tequila ban?
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 10:43am | #
JimmyGeek-My point is that it is foolish to say "we can't make that illegal because that ALWAYS leads to a crime tariff that makes things worse" and my example was child pornography. Making it illegal creates a crime tariff no doubt, but do you wanna make it legal? Overall the fact that it is illegal does mean less of it goes on.I still don't see your logic here. No offense meant.
I said (basic summary), "illegal immigrants can't find work - thus possibly leading them to crime such as gangs or drugs for income". How does illegal child porn equate to that?
Allow them to find work legally, and maybe (yes, maybe) they'll be less likely to turn to crime.
Allow people to view child porn freely, and, hey guess what, they'll continue to view child porn - legally or not...
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 10:46am | #
"this is why capitalism is not booming in the 3rd world, or say Russia"It's not culture, it's government policies and lack of property rights.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 10:50am | #
"RS Jake-why wouldn't they (the terrorists) just come in with the mass of workers pretending to be workers? And you don't think this would be a massive government program to equal the border patrol, checking the millions (and millions, if ya smell what I'm cooking) of migrants that would surely come if we threw open our borders? That's quite a wave for a trickle of 'evildoers' to get lost in..."The workers will only come as there are jobs to fill. When the job market gets saturated, why would they still come?
joe | June 14, 2007, 10:50am | #
Ken,Your tequila ban won't stop the importation of tequila.
It would be easier to track a few bad bottles when every case is given a batch number and its paperwork checked, than if the tequila was being bootlegged.
We don't have to theorize about this - how much bad booze went around during prohibition vs. today?
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 10:50am | #
...Let's say we knew that terrorists were tainting 100 bottles of tequila a year...That would be a very terroristic thing to do. I know I wouldn't want their taints all up in my tequila.
I'm sure Urkobold® would approve of their ways, however.
Jason Kennedy | June 14, 2007, 10:52am | #
This is a total Strawman argument. The problems that people have with illegals is:1. They came here illegally, and jumped the line of all the people wating to get in legally.
2. They are lowering the wages of all the people who are here trying to earn a living.
Let's talk about that.
MikeP | June 14, 2007, 11:03am | #
They came here illegally, and jumped the line of all the people wating to get in legally.The implication that a single legal immigrant was prevented from immigrating because of illegal immigrants is wrong.
They are lowering the wages of all the people who are here trying to earn a living.
This is wrong too. They are lowering the wages only of those they are directly competing with -- effectively high school dropouts and the prior wave of unskilled immigrants.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 11:04am | #
"2. They are lowering the wages of all the people who are here trying to earn a living."Some companies would go out of business if it weren't for the low wages they are paying their illegal immigrant workers. They are helping us to be more competitive on the international market.
Cab | June 14, 2007, 11:07am | #
1. They came here illegally, and jumped the line of all the people waiting to get in legally.Personally, I don’t think this is a great argument. I’ll just come out and say it....I think a Mexican has more of a right to be here than, say, someone from the far east. The reason is twofold; 1) because they are our neighbors, and as such should receive special treatment and 2) they are already here, contributing.
2. They are lowering the wages of all the people who are here trying to earn a living.
Not all people, Billy Gates is doing alright. Even so, they also suppress prices so that those that are “trying to earn a living” can do so easier.
MikeT | June 14, 2007, 11:14am | #
As we all know, government policies and lack of property rights have no basis in culture...
It's not culture, it's government policies and lack of property rights.
Could it be that these cultures have demonstrated through hundreds of years that they prefer rule by strongmen and monarchs? Nah, perish the thought. That might force cultural libertarians to realize that many cultures have no use for things like the rule of law that we take for granted in formulating defenses of liberty.
Those helpless Russians and third worlders. Yearning to be free, have the rule of law, separate but equal branches of government and free market enterprise. If only less than 1% of their population, their ruling classes, wouldn't stop the 99% from exercising their choice to like us.
LarryA | June 14, 2007, 11:19am | #
Say that the laboring classes in Latin America can be broken into three groups: (1) those who do not have the gumption to migrate to the US, (2) those who do have the gumption to migrate to the US and are willing to break the law and live in the shadows to do it, and (3) those who do have the gumption to migrate to the US but are not willing to break the law and live in the shadows to do it.Actually there’s a huge forth group, perhaps the majority, that’s left out when all the talk is framed as “immigration.” Those who want to come here and work, then return to Latin America, including those who would travel North seasonally to, for instance, pick fruit. This group would tend to be too busy to get into trouble, and wouldn’t “become a burden on our welfare system” either.
Also, current rules make it almost impossible to enter as your group three.
Right now, the terrorists can come in with the flood of immigrants illegally coming across the border.
And with the drug smugglers who are the main source of border violence. The border won’t be secured until both black markets are legalized.
RS Jake-so if we tried less to keep folks out then it would make it harder for the terrorists to get in. Okey-dokey...
Is it easier to spot a terrorist among ten illegals, or among ten thousand?
The most notorious gang in America now is the Hispanic gang "MS13"
Which is funded by the illegal drug black market. Any type of prohibition leads to black markets leads to gangs serving the black markets. Note that MS13 is a huge problem even with today’s strict legal immigration controls. Harsher controls result in more violence, not less.
I'm moving to the southwest in 2 weeks (phoenix). Do I need to be concerned about being gang-raped? I'll get a taser if so.
Tasers are one-shot devices. “Gang” = several targets.
Let's say we knew that terrorists were tainting 100 bottles of tequila a year and trying to mix them with larger untainted shipments to enter the US.
What can you add to tequila that makes it more deadly than 100% tequila? ;-)
Remember the recent problems with pet food? Because the trade was legal we very quickly traced the contamination back to a specific factory in China. If all pet food come over the illegal drug pipeline, we’d still be trying to figure out where it came from. Even if we did, there wouldn't be anything we could do about it.
1. They came here illegally, and jumped the line of all the people waiting to get in legally.
You have it backwards. There is a long line waiting because it’s effectively impossible for an unskilled person to get in legally. The problem is the U.S. government, not illegal immigration. If the U.S. would let the line in legally, there wouldn’t be illegals.
2. They are lowering the wages of all the people who are here trying to earn a living.
It would be easier and in the long run cheaper for the industries that use illegal immigrants to employ legal workers, if any were available. Are you willing to spend eight hours a day digging holes to plant trees in 100 degree summer weather, for any reasonable wage?
Jake Boone | June 14, 2007, 11:20am | #
Is there actually a "line" to get into the US legally? I'm under the impression that it's more like a lottery, but I'm not at all sure that this is correct. If you don't get in this year, does that mean you "advance" to have a better chance next year, or do you just roll the dice again?joe | June 14, 2007, 11:23am | #
1. There is no "line" for Mexican lettuce pickers to jump.2. The lack of legal status is to blame for much of the wage-reducing effect, as being vulerable to arrest, deportation, and imprisonment prevents undocumented workers from being able to negotiate effectively, such as by joining unions, raising a public stink, or even leaving to find a better job.
Both of these problems can be solved merely by legalizing the workers' status.
Scooby | June 14, 2007, 11:26am | #
MikeT- why should those Russians & other third worlders who yearn to breathe free risk life and limb to liberate their apathetic neighbors, when they could just emigrate to the US?If being raised in a statist culture is a threat to our liberty, maybe we should ban internal migration from California and New England. The Latin American migrants I know aren't nearly as statist as the mass of Californians that have swarmed Central Texas in the past 15 years.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 11:38am | #
this is why capitalism is not booming in the 3rd world, or say RussiaAnd yet if you look at what happens to the 3rd world when it moves to America, they seem to be embracing capitalism quite nicely--if the hundreds of shops owned by Arabs and Chinese and Hispanics in the streets around me are any indication. Try again.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 11:41am | #
Joe and Larry make lots of good arguments.Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 11:49am | #
"And yet if you look at what happens to the 3rd world when it moves to America, they seem to be embracing capitalism quite nicely--if the hundreds of shops owned by Arabs and Chinese and Hispanics in the streets around me are any indication. Try again."Good point! They don't bring their political culture here. If they liked their political culture, they would stay there. Their attracted to our system of freedom. That's one of the reasons they come here. I saw a special about Muslims in Europe. They had no desire to bring Sharia there. They loved the freedom they had in Europe.
Live Free or Die | June 14, 2007, 11:50am | #
the Irish, Italians and Jews. Yet those groups are now as safe, sane and successful as you can get.Can we stop pretending that the arrival of these groups in the USA was a good thing? I think most of us old New Englanders would agree that all three of these groups have had a very negative influence on this country. Irish and Italian-Americans to this day are lazier and more slovenly than people of English or German descent. And the Jews show no respect for the values of thrift and modesty that were once held in high esteem here. The decent hard-working world of 19th century New England is now almost a vanished memory, replaced by shallow, materialistic sots. Immigration is a true plague.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 11:51am | #
Could it be that these cultures have demonstrated through hundreds of years that they prefer rule by strongmen and monarchs?Just by coming here, most immigrants demonstrate that they prefer freedom and the rule of law. Those who demonstrate less respect for the rule of law typically do so for religious reasons.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 11:52am | #
Jeez, if only I didn't have work to do, I wouldn't be making the same points others have already made before me.....shecky | June 14, 2007, 11:53am | #
1. They came here illegally, and jumped the line of all the people wating to get in legally.Unless you have a really valuable skill or relatives already in the US to sponsor you, there is no line to jump. Thus the incentive to enter illegally.
2. They are lowering the wages of all the people who are here trying to earn a living.
Are they? Adding low income workers to the economy lowers the average wage, but not necessarily the wages of established residents/citizens.
For example, lets say your country has ten people. One makes $100k a year. The rest make $10k a year. Add ten immigrants making $10k or less. One can be aghast that the newcomers have lowered the average income, even if the original ten didn't make any less. And the immigrants may have had a significant increase in earnings. This simplified scenario demonstrates how immigration can benefit everyone.
There are some credible studies showing how illegal immigrants can lower actual wages. But these effects are in fact rather small and generally affect a small segment of population that can't compete with low skilled, non English speaking people. Even under a scenario with no immigration whatsoever, these folks are in some dire circumstances.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 12:04pm | #
Even under a scenario with no immigration whatsoever, these folks are in some dire circumstances.And you could argue that it's better to provide such folks some competition. Some of those unskilled Americans (and immigrants too) are going to be motivated to gain skills. For the life of me I can't understand folks whose main argument against immigration rests on keeping unskilled Americans unskilled.
Hey, how many on here know that Ireland, Italy, and (believe it or not!) Sweden and Norway used to be "third world countries"?
Its not "culture" that makes a place "third world", its lack of industrialization.
Live Free or Die | June 14, 2007, 1:01pm | #
Hey, how many on here know that Ireland, Italy, and (believe it or not!) Sweden and Norway used to be "third world countries"?No one, since it's a ridiculous assertion. Sweden and Norway have had literate populations since the 11th century. Their descendents in the US have made Minnesota/Wisconsin one of the safest and most pleasant places in the US. Southern Italy was a third world country, and still is today. Sicilians have not assimiliated into mainstream American life - but have become a cancer on this nations soul. Irish-americans are for the most part still loud, drunk and stupid, just like their ancestors. Wherever these Celtic spawn roam, crime and disorder follow in their wake.
Cesar | June 14, 2007, 1:03pm | #
"No one, since it's a ridiculous assertion. Sweden and Norway have had literate populations since the 11th century."Uh huh, you do realize Sweden and Norway still had famines until 1912?
Mexico at least doesn't have widespread famine!
rob | June 14, 2007, 1:08pm | #
Cesar - The "third world" is often also referred to as the "developing countries," which are defined not solely as lacking industrialization but as having "a relatively low standard of living, an undeveloped industrial base, and a moderate to low Human Development Index (HDI) score. In developing countries, there is low per capita income, widespread poverty, and low capital formation."(According to wikipedia, anyway).
I'd argue that many also have low education and literacy rates as well, but you're right that very little of the negatives associated with such countries are specifically cultural. But the cultures of those countries often seem to be limited by these kinds of issues. (For example, some African cultures cause real problems for attempting to get people vaccinated.)
rob | June 14, 2007, 1:11pm | #
"Wherever these Celtic spawn roam, crime and disorder follow in their wake." - LFODYeah, and I'd love to see them bring some of that to you ASAP!
Heh...
Cesar | June 14, 2007, 1:12pm | #
Rob, I'm aware of what a third world country is.My point was, using those standards many lily-white European countries used to be exactly in the same boat (if not worse off) when they had their populations migrating to America.
Tacos mmm | June 14, 2007, 1:14pm | #
This is a total Strawman argument. The problems that people have with illegals is:1. They came here illegally, and jumped the line of all the people wating to get in legally.
Then why is there so much opposition to increasing legal immigration?
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 1:19pm | #
Sweden and Norway have had literate populations since the 11th century.It didn't stop the Norwegians from immigrating in mass quantities to my Brooklyn neighborhood in the early 1900's. I'll bet their country sucked at the time.
This thread went down the toilet faster than anticipated.
I think everyone's all tired out from yesterday's battles. Hell, YouKnowWho isn't even here.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Then why is there so much opposition to increasing legal immigration?Because people are ignorant.
VM | June 14, 2007, 1:27pm | #
Rhywun is AWESOME!!!!!Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Then why is there so much opposition to increasing legal immigration?
Because people are ignorant.
You da man! :)
cheers!
and Live Free is still a total twaddlenock.
rob | June 14, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Sorry Cesar, while I agree that some of the connotation of "third world" is bad (hence my reference to "developing world,") it's not standard, lily-white European standards that conclude that people living in the slums of Port au Prince, Haiti, are far worse off (by any standard) than folks who are literate, educated, relatively disease-free, whose average age is almost double that of Haitians (18), where a long life is about 51 years old.I agree that trying to attribute cultural or racial causes for that is skeevy, though.
Cesar | June 14, 2007, 1:33pm | #
Rob-I think you misunderstood. I wasn't comparing the Scandinavia or Ireland of today to the developing world of today. I was comparing say, Ireland circa 1848 around the time of the potato famine to the developing world today. I think the quality of life is about equal between those two circumstances.
LarryA | June 14, 2007, 1:41pm | #
The Latin American migrants I know aren't nearly as statist as the mass of Californians that have swarmed Central Texas in the past 15 years.Ran into a guy from CA recently who actually said, “Texas needs to pass California-style gun laws because CA has so much more experience in dealing with violent crime.”
My answer, “But Texans don’t want experience dealing with violent crime,” went right over his head.
If only less than 1% of their population, their ruling classes, wouldn't stop the 99% from exercising their choice to like us.
It happens that way when the 1% has all the tanks and guns.
cliff | June 14, 2007, 1:54pm | #
"I saw a special about Muslims in Europe. They had no desire to bring Sharia there. They loved the freedom they had in Europe.".....To threaten people who would dare to draw Allah on a cartoon.
And to riot and burn cars in Paris when a policy angers them, I guess they do love their freedom.
Cesar - I think we essentially agree. But I think that even lily white Europeans tend to look at their pre-developed nation situations with a sense of "glad I live here and now, rather than back then or in one of the 'developing countries'." Of course, most people probably don't think about this stuff at all - which puts the people who (often contentioulsy!) post here in a weird little fraternity.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 1:58pm | #
And to riot and burn cars in Paris when a policy angers them, I guess they do love their freedom.When immigrants--from countries you used to colonize, no less--are shit upon by their adopted land--denied citizenship, marginalized into shitty ghettos--you have to expect a little blowback. Oh, but it's easier to blame their culture--"they can't help it".
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:12pm | #
"And to riot and burn cars in Paris when a policy angers them, I guess they do love their freedom."No need for me to answer, Rhywun gave a good answer to that one.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:16pm | #
"The Latin American migrants I know aren't nearly as statist as the mass of Californians that have swarmed Central Texas in the past 15 years."I hope they don't bring their "no growth" policies here.
cliff | June 14, 2007, 2:16pm | #
"denied citizenship, marginalized into shitty ghettos--you have to expect a little blowback. Oh, but it's easier to blame their culture--"they can't help it"."So if we apply this logic to our problem with Mexico, then we should expect a little blow back here and it'll be OK because it was our collective fault, that we as a nation treated our brown skinned brothers so shoddily.
IMHO the French and Europe brought a lot of grief upon themselves by inviting so many foreign people into their countries and acting surprised that those very people they allowed in got angry and rioted instead of going through legal channels with their grievances.
Now we want to allow the same thing to happen here. If we allow everyone in that wants to come here how long will it take before we have a standard of living which is considerably less than acceptable to most Americans and a Balkanized America.
Cesar | June 14, 2007, 2:19pm | #
"IMHO the French and Europe brought a lot of grief upon themselves by inviting so many foreign people into their countries and acting surprised that those very people they allowed in got angry and rioted instead of going through legal channels with their grievances.
"
Hey Cliff, why did they riot instead of going through the legal channels? I think I have an idea of what your answer would be, but I'd like for you to come out and say it.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:21pm | #
"Then why is there so much opposition to increasing legal immigration?"Racism!
cliff | June 14, 2007, 2:23pm | #
"why did they riot instead of going through the legal channels?"I would imagine it was because the immigrants felt it was their only recourse, but it still isn't right to destroy other people's property just because you don't get your way.
That same mindset brought the OJ riots to LA.
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 2:27pm | #
cliff,The OJ riots in LA were mostly by US Citizens...
So, rioting will happen...immigrants or not...
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 2:28pm | #
damn you! made me repeat "OJ riots"...:/At least Cliff admits the immigrants in France had real grievances instead of the riots being some grand conspiracy to bring Sharia to France.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:32pm | #
"Now we want to allow the same thing to happen here. If we allow everyone in that wants to come here how long will it take before we have a standard of living which is considerably less than acceptable to most Americans and a Balkanized America."Cliff, you should read Thomas Sowell's "Ethnic America: A History". He shows how immigration has economically benefitted just about every country which has allowed relatively open immigration.
cliff | June 14, 2007, 2:34pm | #
Yes, Cesar, you are right. I believe that any marginalized culture will strike back if the conditions degrade for them enough. The problem is allowing conditions like that to exist in the first place.I think that allowing a culture which will not aspire to blend into our society and speak our language is a recipe for the exact same thing that happened and is happening in Europe, and they brought that on themselves.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 2:35pm | #
So if we apply this logic to our problem with Mexico, then we should expect a little blow back here and it'll be OK because it was our collective fault, that we as a nation treated our brown skinned brothers so shoddily.We don't have any collective guilt over Mexico--we didn't colonize it. Also, we don't marginalize Mexicans into ghettos as national policy. I live in a nice neighborhood with a lot of Arabs and Mexicans: I've never seen a single car set on fire. Not once.
Cliff, I don't think you can compare Latin American immigration to the United States to Muslim immigration to Europe. Its very different on many levels.
cliff | June 14, 2007, 2:38pm | #
From what I understand about immigration, I think it is great to get people from all over the world to come here and live and work.When I was growing up in Texas, I knew many people from Mexico who said that it was their goal to be an english speaking American and to take part in American society.
Now I see La Raza and their ilk in California spreading hateful rhetoric about how the Hispanic race will overwhelm the evil gringos. How is a rational person supposed to react to this?
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 2:43pm | #
Now I see La Raza and their ilk in California spreading hateful rhetoric about how the Hispanic race will overwhelm the evil gringos. How is a rational person supposed to react to this?By not making mountains out of molehills. "La Raza" poses about as much danger to America as ANSWER.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:43pm | #
"No one, since it's a ridiculous assertion. Sweden and Norway have had literate populations since the 11th century. Their descendents in the US have made Minnesota/Wisconsin one of the safest and most pleasant places in the US. Southern Italy was a third world country, and still is today. Sicilians have not assimiliated into mainstream American life - but have become a cancer on this nations soul. Irish-americans are for the most part still loud, drunk and stupid, just like their ancestors. Wherever these Celtic spawn roam, crime and disorder follow in their wake."Generalizing about races and nationalities is racism.
Cesar | June 14, 2007, 2:48pm | #
"So the concept of "Reconquista" is a myth by a bunch of racists?"Pretty much.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:49pm | #
"I think that allowing a culture which will not aspire to blend into our society and speak our language is a recipe for the exact same thing that happened and is happening in Europe, and they brought that on themselves."But they are adapting to our language. I know Hispanics that don't know a word of Spanish.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 2:55pm | #
"the Jews show no respect for the values of thrift"The generalization of Jews is usually that they're very thrifty.
Scooby | June 14, 2007, 2:56pm | #
There are people who would like to see a Reconquista just as there are people who espouse the ideas in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That doesn't mean that the flood of immigrants from Mexico are conspiring to steal Aztlan back from RealAngloAmericans.cliff | June 14, 2007, 2:57pm | #
"But they are adapting to our language. I know Hispanics that don't know a word of Spanish."As do I. But if so many of them are English only speakers, then whay have the number of Spanish language papers, radio and TV stations grown so much in the last 10 years or so? There must be a large market of for people who want to either keep speaking Spanish or don't want to learn English.
Why are ballots and drivers license tests being printed in English and Spanish if they are taking up the English so fast?
Why aren't there Italian radio stations like there are Spanish stations? It's because the Italians adopted English as thier language, not Italian.
rob | June 14, 2007, 3:03pm | #
So why all the Paris rioting? (It's not like the U.S. doesn't have rioting on occasion in its major cities...)Rhywun says its a natural reaction to "immigrants--from countries you used to colonize, no less--are shit upon by their adopted land--denied citizenship, marginalized into shitty ghettos--you have to expect a little blowback. Oh, but it's easier to blame their culture--'they can't help it.'"
But I find myself wondering which group of immigrants to the U.S. didn't find themselves in this exact same situation for a generation or so... Of course, those folks rioted, too...
Besides, can't we just write off the riots as over-zealous identification with the traditions of Paris? (The Mob Rules!)
But I wonder if, coming from countries with no real respect for fair rule of law makes it more likely that you'll riot in the expectation that fair rule of law isn't a realistic expectation, anyway?
jimmydageek | June 14, 2007, 3:05pm | #
But if so many of them are English only speakers, then whay have the number of Spanish language papers, radio and TV stations grown so much in the last 10 years or so?I think that has more to do with the capitalistic nature of our grand country, than with the intention of "reconquista", etc...i.e. With the growing market comes people willing and able to make money from it.
It is interesting to note, however, that some Spanish TV stations are incorporating English programming into their line-ups. I found this out not too long ago as I was flipping through the channels and saw a hot chick (which is usually the case) on the Spanish station. To my surprise, she spoke English throughout the segment...
I'm leaving the office now. I would like to thank Jake, Cesar, jimmy, rob and scooby for a good discussion that I really enjoyed being a part of. Good points by all.
Rhywun | June 14, 2007, 3:30pm | #
rob,I really don't care about a country's lack of respect for the rule of law. Only individuals'. My own observations have shown me that immigrants from such countries fit into American life just fine--when they are not discriminated against or put into ghettos.
DaveT439 | June 14, 2007, 4:05pm | #
My dad, a hardcore fiscal conservative (and republican who hasn't quite realized how unconservative the current gop is), always brings up this retort to the libertarian stance on illegal immigration:He says that millions of immigrants will put a huge burden on our social wellfare systems. Of course, libertarians would do away with such big government programs, but in the current context, perhaps it is a legitimate concern. The nanny state isn't going to dissappear any time soon.
Ken | June 14, 2007, 4:10pm | #
Joe1. Back to the terrorist thing (this personally is not my favorite argument against allowing more immigration, but here goes) my point is this: why wouldn't the terrorists just say they are coming to the US to work? I mean, currently they have no legit way to get in, so they sneak in with illegals. But in Libertopia they would just drive right in, since we now let in everybody, right? So what was difficult but doable would now be downright easy, right?
2. On other post you exhibted a concern for those near the bottom of bargaining power, which in the US is largely young black men, and expressed concern for policy to help bolster their bargaining power (minimum wage). But even pro-immigration economists admit that this is the very group most undercut by illegals.
"if you look at what happens to the 3rd world when it moves to America, they seem to be embracing capitalism quite nicely--if the hundreds of shops owned by Arabs and Chinese and Hispanics in the streets around me are any indication. Try again."
That's not much to generalize on. This is though:
http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=152
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm
So Rhwyun, try again ;).
To the many who have said "well, they demonstrate their love for our/disdain for their political culture by coming here" get real. These are mostly PEASANTS and they don't come for political reasons. More likely they want money (whether from work, welfare or what have you), freedom to move, safety, etc.. Mexico is a general shit-hole in comparison to the US, you don't have to love capitalism or checks and balances to want to leave it! But, as pointed out on the thread, many will bring the very values that either promoted or allowed their nations to become such crappolas...
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 4:22pm | #
"As do I. But if so many of them are English only speakers, then whay have the number of Spanish language papers, radio and TV stations grown so much in the last 10 years or so? There must be a large market of for people who want to either keep speaking Spanish or don't want to learn English."As mentioned in the article above, by the 3rd generation 96% of Hispanics speak English. It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks. That's why so many of the 1st generation don't speak English. Hispanics that don't learn English are only hurting themselves. Their opportunities of moving up in this society are limited. Having said that, I don't have a problem with those who don't learn the language and read Spanish language literature and watch Spanish language tv and listen to Spanish language radio. Like I say, they are only hurting themselves.
We don't have Italian language tv, radio, and periodicals because there aren't as many new Italians coming to this country as there are Mexicans.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 4:28pm | #
"many will bring the very values that either promoted or allowed their nations to become such crappolas..."It was not them that allowed their nations to become such crappolas, it's the corrupt government that keeps all the wealth for themselves and don't allow the public to increase the wealth of the country.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 4:31pm | #
"On other post you exhibted a concern for those near the bottom of bargaining power, which in the US is largely young black men, and expressed concern for policy to help bolster their bargaining power (minimum wage). But even pro-immigration economists admit that this is the very group most undercut by illegals."It is minimum wages that have knocked out lots of young black males out of the market.
Rattlesnake Jake | June 14, 2007, 4:33pm | #
"He says that millions of immigrants will put a huge burden on our social wellfare systems. Of course, libertarians would do away with such big government programs, but in the current context, perhaps it is a legitimate concern. The nanny state isn't going to dissappear any time soon."That's the position that Ron Paul takes and it does have merit.
Do you think these corrupt governments just beamed down from outer space and didn't spring forth from the cultures they now rule?
MikeP | June 14, 2007, 4:44pm | #
why wouldn't the terrorists just say they are coming to the US to work? I mean, currently they have no legit way to get in, so they sneak in with illegals. But in Libertopia they would just drive right in, since we now let in everybody, right? So what was difficult but doable would now be downright easy, right?So in your vision of a closed-border hell-state, there are not even student, business, or travel visas?
Wow! What an awesome place!
cliff | June 14, 2007, 6:03pm | #
I have a relative who is in ICE, this is what he had to say about our immigration problem:Points on immigration
I’ll start this with an unnumbered paragraph about President Bush. I believe that the President has let the debate on immigration get away from him, and now in typical Bush fashion he is in a reactive damage control mode. Here is some advice for the President…get control of the debate. We (United States of America) have an extremely immigrant and visitor friendly border environment. To say otherwise only shows an ignorance of the facts. With 81 visitor visas and 147 immigrant visa options available there are plenty of avenues for prospective legitimate visitors and immigrants. Imbedded within the 81 visitor visas are numerous “guest worker” visas, notably H2A and H2B. Now, the debate should be about enforcement of the borders. Sovereign nations that do not control their borders will not remain sovereign nations long. Is it practical to deport every illegal alien from our shores…no. Should we detain and prosecute illegal aliens whenever they are encountered…yes. We will always have an element of the population that is here illegally. But we should not ever give anyone amnesty, or forgiveness for breaking the sovereignty laws of our nation. So, Mr. President, you need to get on the border enforcement bandwagon. You need to recommend to Congress to increase the cap number on guest worker visas issued (if we have such a shortage of workers), and increase the number of border enforcement officers.
Now for my talking points:
1. There is no need for another guest worker program. At this time there are ample non immigrant visas for guest workers including unskilled workers (H2A – agriculture, H2B – non agriculture). USCIS Press release April 6, 2006 – H2B worker visas have met the “Congressionally mandated cap.” This raises the question…Doesn’t congress read USCIS press releases relating to upcoming legislation? Or…Doesn’t congress know about the existing guest worker program????????
2. The fence is a waste of time and money. A basic principle in warfare is that no obstacle is effective unless it is covered by fire. The same applies to a fence along the border. To be effective it must be observed and covered by some sort of reaction force. Otherwise it is simply some sort of hurdle to be jumped or crawled under. Besides the first time an illegal is hurt negotiating the fence we will be sued…resulting in automatic residency and a lottery jackpot as the prize, but sleazy lawyers is another subject. Besides the northern border is as much of a risk as the southern border and perhaps a greater risk for Al Qaeda guerilla fighters. Although the videos of Mexicans running across the desert in Arizona is compelling.
3. Use of National Guard as a force multiplier. Here I am not speaking about having armed guardsmen rounding up illegals in the desert. I would envision National Guard air assets providing lift capabilities to border patrol to get them to the scene of illegals. Use helicopters and fixed wing to patrol the border to look for bands of illegal crossers in the desert. Helicopters can be utilized to insert border patrol quick reaction force to the location of illegals. Those same helicopters can be used to transport the illegals to detention facilities. The guard can construct and maintain life support areas for the detainees while they are awaiting judicial hearings, or deportation as appropriate. The guard can be utilized to install, maintain and monitor unattended ground sensors along high risk border crossing sites.
4. Enforcement of existing laws and penalties for those hiring undocumented workers. Increase funding for the hiring of more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. There needs to be regular and systematic checks of employer records. Those who are not in compliance need to be fined, or prosecuted as appropriate. Fear of prosecution and loss of property is a great motivator.
5. Increase the number of border patrol officers on the borders (the territory between regularly manned crossing points)…is 6,000 enough? Increase the number of customs and border protection manning the crossing sites. The more officers at these sites the more conveyances, and documents that can be reasonably examined for smuggled goods and people, and fraudulent documents.
6. With regards to our relationship with Mexico. This is a mystery. Mexico is a member of OPEC, and we import more oil from them than Saudi Arabia. Yet it seems that Mexicans are leaving their homeland in fairly large numbers. In current news reports Fox is claiming great social strides in the quality of life in Mexico. However it would appear that the Mexican people are voting with their feet. If the Mexican government is not enjoined into the solution of this problem, then we are doomed to a long and contentious border relationship with them. (see Fox news link - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196859,00.html – Fox news (John Gibson) questions to Vicente Fox.
7. Lastly I would challenge the electorate of this country to get informed, stay informed and write your elected officials about this. I fear this is more about election year political rhetoric than legislatures looking for real solutions to real problems.
References for the above; Fox news, USCIS website, military training and experience, and CIA World fact book.
I agree with everything my relative says about the situation on the border.
MikeP | June 14, 2007, 6:26pm | #
see Fox news link - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196859,00.html – Fox news (John Gibson) questions to Vicente Fox.Lonewacko is right... They are taking over our media!
rob | June 14, 2007, 6:34pm | #
"I really don't care about a country's lack of respect for the rule of law. Only individuals'. My own observations have shown me that immigrants from such countries fit into American life just fine--when they are not discriminated against or put into ghettos." - RhywunFunny, my observations have also led me to the conclusion that "immigrants from such countries fit into American life just fine" EVEN "when they are not discriminated against or put into ghettos."
cliff - I hate to tell you this, but joe is about to show up and pummel you... Immigration is one of the few issues joe is usually right about.
The welfare system crunch is a troubling concept (joe is wrong on this topic - he rarely meets a gov't program he doesn't defend), but it is a system whose very design ensures it will implode (see also, economic failures of socialism - USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba...) The question is not whether immigrants are going to drag the system down, but how long it's gonig to be before the system either drags down the U.S. or the U.S. gets out of the business of trying to centrally plan and provide retirement for all of its elderly citizens.
Scooby | June 14, 2007, 7:26pm | #
So, are the brown hordes going to overburden the welfare system, or are they going prop up the Social Security system (by providing additional SS-tax-paying workers to support the baby boomers who didn't spawn enough workers to support them in their old age)?cliff | June 14, 2007, 7:38pm | #
rob;joe can pummel away. My last post is verbatim from a person who is in the immigration system with about 15 years Customs / ICE experience, he knows all of the regulations and the story from both sides. He is also an active Catholic and lives in the LA area, so he hears first hand the rhetoric comming from the illegals and their proxies.
MikeP | June 14, 2007, 7:51pm | #
cliff,Thanks for the first hand input, but I am about as likely to accept an ICE official's take on immigration issues as I am to accept a DEA official's take on drug issues.
cliff | June 14, 2007, 8:17pm | #
MikeP,I share your distrust of the government, but our country does have laws regarding immigration that are controlled by the US Congress and the only congressman in Washington asking the hard questions about immigration is Tom Tancredo and he has been marginalized as extreme.
We, as a country, have to come to grips with the fact that:
1) Mexico, our southern neighbor, is a racist nation controlled by the ancestors of the white (Spanish) conquistadors and it is using its northern border as a pressure valve to encourage poor disaffected brown skinned people to leave rather than change the system they are living under.
2)Congress needs to grow a pair and really change the visa requirements or just abolish them all together because they are inconvienent, but they need to come clean with us as to what they wish to accomplish with whichever decision they go with.
3)As the system is right now, people who apply for visas must have a JOB before they come here legally (and it must be determined that a US citizen will not do the work), if that means wait your turn, then tough, join the club. How many times have you had to wait in line? Did you enjoy it? Probably not, but you waited your turn.
4)Employers who hire illegals need to do the perp walk right along with all of the illegals rounded up. If the employer can prove he or was duped by the crafty illegals he walks, if not, he gets time in the slammer.
I think our country has one of the most liberal legal immigration policies in the world. If you doubt that, try to enter Mexico from their southern border and see how well you are treated compared to here in the mean ol'USA.
MikeP | June 14, 2007, 8:27pm | #
cliff,First of all, Tom Tancredo is extreme.
Second, there is no one standing in the legal immigration "line" that is displaced in any way by the illegal immigrant who ignores the "line".
Third, why do you insist on turning employers into agents of the state, under pain of imprisonment? Do you think that employers should be required to prove that their employees do not use illegal drugs, and, if they are not in compliance, they should "get time in the slammer"?
Finally, why do you want to model US immigration policy on Mexico's?
Jim Walsh | June 14, 2007, 8:41pm | #
While we're on the subject: don't buy into all that bullsqueeze about how "talk radio made a difference." Political squawk radio doesn't lead, it follows. It's best at preaching to the converted.(Disclosure: the poster is an on-again, off-again radio talk host who specializes in "lifestyle" and non-political issues. See my blog for opinions on the state of the spoken-word radio format).
cliff | June 14, 2007, 8:50pm | #
1) Tom Tancredo is asking questions that need to be asked and that makes people uncomfortable.2)Those who cut the line may not be displacing another person, but they are coming over here with no assurance of a means of support or income. Often if they lose the ability to work, they become a social welfare problem. One of the responsibilities of being legal is that the immigrant will not go on social welfare services. I think that is about as Libertarian as you can get, to agree not to burden the system in writing.
3)With the way the war on drugs is being fought, I think it would be good if these big corporate types got in trouble for their employees drug use, then maybe the war on some drugs would end along with drug testing. I also think that every company who thinks it is a good idea to test their employees, should randomly test everyone, including management and stockholders.
As for persons knowingly hiring illegal workers in order to reduce costs and responsibility for those employees, taking unfair competitive advantage in the workplace under the existing system is wrong. As a business owner I would be very irresponsible to hire an illegal if another worker could do his job for a fair and competitive wage.
Barry Bonds was cheating baseball by using steroids to get an unfair advantage. Employers who use illegal immigrants are doing the same thing to the workplace, cheating to get ahead.
Our immigration system does have it flaws, but it is the best we have right now.
tommy | June 15, 2007, 12:40am | #
The evidence is surprising but clear: Foreign-born Hispanics are far less likely to end up in prison than native-born whites. They also have low divorce rates.Unfortunately, the native-born children of Hispanic immigrants must also be accounted for and they have rates of criminality, gang activity, and illegitimacy (about 50% and growing) well above anything native-born white Americans have. They also have poor intergenerational educational performance (even fourth generation Mexican-Americans perform abysmally in school), meaning that unless you think the United States can base a First World economy off lawn-mowing and running fruit stands on street corners, then you've got serious problems:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002109.html
Rhywun | June 15, 2007, 1:36am | #
I think our country has one of the most liberal legal immigration policies in the world.Not exactly. My ex-boyfriend, who chose to leave America rather than become illegal--due to the insurmountable hurdles placed in the way of highly-educated but not highly-connected folks--informs me that it's easier to get into Canada, Australia, and various European countries. He enters the American visa lottery every year but otherwise doesn't put any effort into getting back into America--where he spent 9 years and acquired 2 masters degrees--because it would be wasted.
Rhywun | June 15, 2007, 1:48am | #
the native-born children of Hispanic immigrants must also be accounted for and they have rates of criminality, gang activity, and illegitimacy (about 50% and growing) well above anything native-born white Americans haveAnd this has what to do with immigration, exactly...? The same problems are faced by poor people in general. Rather than focusing on how awful Hispanic people are, maybe you could come up with some suggestions on how poor people can better themselves. I'm sure there are some hints here and there on this very website.
Au standard | June 15, 2007, 2:19am | #
once again Chapman gets something wrong using relativist agruments...the issue is not whether illegals are more prone to high social costs than others, although it is part of it.. (not just crime stats here,....but costs of schools for their children, police in general, medical costs to hospitals forced to see them in ERs because of government laws, etc) but whether everyone else in society has to pay these costs for these people at all and why?...boy there was a time when libertarians got mad over explicit and implicit taxation imposed by force...and god, the point about Sweden in 1912 being 3rd world might be the stupidest thing ever pronouced on reason blogs...the mere fact that a country like Sweden had a famine at that time is irrelvant to its status as a first world country ...at that time!...i think you are confusing first world status now with first world status then.....Venice was probably first world in 1350...doesn't mean something like a bad cold wouldn't wipe out 10% of the population
Jim Walsh | June 15, 2007, 3:13am | #
...illegal immigrants are prone to all sorts of destructive behavior—committing crime, having children out of wedlock, dropping out of school and refusing to learn English.Steve forgot to add "and vote Democratic." That's a major part of the issue, eh?
SP_Immortal | June 15, 2007, 5:59am | #
"And this has what to do with immigration, exactly...? The same problems are faced by poor people in general. Rather than focusing on how awful Hispanic people are, maybe you could come up with some suggestions on how poor people can better themselves. I'm sure there are some hints here and there on this very website."HAHAHAHA I love blank slaters. They reverse cause and effect at a whim. They couldn't possibly be poor because of criminality, illiteracy, poor performance in school, etc. Its being poor that makes them that way!
And then what causes them to be poor in the first place, generation after generation? Uh...um...discrimination or something... They are forced to live in a society that so despises them that special set asides are put in place to help make up for the general lack of high achievers that they produce. Oh wait, it looks like they're not discriminated against at all.
And what about the countries they come from? Why are they so poor? Uh...dictators...command economies...will of the gods...
No matter what the situation, paper thin excuses are erected in order to keep people from noticing racial and cultural disparities in achievement. People are the helpless victims of circumstance no matter if "The Man" is around to fuck with them or not. How convenient.
Rhywun | June 15, 2007, 10:05am | #
HAHAHAHA I love blank slaters.?!
Ha ha ha. I love racist bigots. "They" are this. "They" are that.
rob | June 15, 2007, 11:34am | #
"So, are the brown hordes going to overburden the welfare system, or are they going prop up the Social Security system (by providing additional SS-tax-paying workers to support the baby boomers who didn't spawn enough workers to support them in their old age)?"Good question, I think it needs to be answered. I'm sure that the gov't could come up with a 5-person blue-ribbon panel of sociologists, scientists and engineers who could produce a study that guesstimates an answer to that with some reasonable degree of accuracy. But they probably won't be able to finish the study in time and inform Congress regarding its conclusions before immigration reform bills are signed. (Unless they already have the study on file...)
"My last post is verbatim from a person who is in the immigration system with about 15 years Customs / ICE experience, he knows all of the regulations and the story from both sides." - cliff
The guy in the trenches rarely has a wide enough view to make decisions above the trench-level. I'm a nominally Hispanic guy by heritage and surname (I'm nominally a bunch of other things by heritage as well - as are most Americans whose families been here for generations), so it's pretty clear to me (as a living example) that all of the disparate immigrant groups in my family history were able to make the adjustment (because demographically and appearance-wise I'm about as "average white guy" as it gets).
Au standard | June 15, 2007, 4:03pm | #
wow..those who worry about wealth transfers are now bigotstommy | June 15, 2007, 6:04pm | #
And this has what to do with immigration, exactly...?Think hard. Think real hard.
The same problems are faced by poor people in general.
But why should we want a growing population of people who remain poor and uneducated generation after generation? Merely identifying them as poor does nothing to make them less poor or alleviate the problems that come with having low IQ Hispanics in our society.
Rather than focusing on how awful Hispanic people are, maybe you could come up with some suggestions on how poor people can better themselves.
No, my solution is to keep them out. Your crowd is the one that needs to come up with solutions if you are advocating increasing the number of Third World immigrants with stubborn social pathologies.
I'm sure there are some hints here and there on this very website.
This website needs a clue.
The article stated that Italians, Jews and Irish immigrants had violent pasts in this country and got over violent tendencies. Well, the hispanics have been illegally comming to this country far longer than all other groups yet they still have not gotten over violent tendencies.
John B | June 17, 2007, 2:48am | #
" Our immigration system does have it flaws, but it is the best we have right now. "Flaws? It is totally broken. You fix broken things, that is the whole point of why it is under discussion. The current rules are a mildly adjusted version of a 1960's reform that was focussed on European immigration, not Latin America, Asia, or elsewhere. The laws manifestly do not work. There is a net flow of about 600,000 illegal immigrants per year (about 1.2M arrive, but half that number go home every year, mostly voluntary). Our economy happily absorbs them, indeed the parts of the country with the most illegal immigrants have low unemployment and fast growth.
The system in place now simply does not work. It was already not working by the early 1970s and never has matched reality.
The work visa (Hx) systems have quotas way too low, too narrow, and too bureaucratic. The residency (green card) visas are also way too small in numbers (lifetime waits on some countries, just a few months on others) to function. It has to change, leaving the current system in place ignores a 40 year track record of failure.
Simply ramping up the bureaucracy and enforcement won't work either. You can't make a bad system work well by forcing it. First you need to figure out a system that CAN work, and then sure improve the enforcement. Enforcing something practical is likely to work a lot better than enforcing proven failure.
John Rohan | June 20, 2007, 4:25am | #
I'm a little late here, but I have to nip one common misunderstanding about a study that Steve Chapman r