Anchor Babies Away?

Fertile illegal immigrants are good news for the country.

President Barack Obama’s administration said in July that it would give immigration officials more leeway to choose not to deport people who came here illegally, but have lived in the United States for most of their lives, committed no other crime, or have family here—particularly those who are active duty service members.

Republican soup of the day Newt Gingrich has promised something similar: A “path to legality” (but not citizenship) for illegal immigrants who have “deep ties to America, including family, church and community ties,” plus jobs, English skills, and their own health coverage.

Republican nominee wannabe Mitt Romney has roused from his slumber to attack Gingrich for supporting amnesty, but is on record having backed an awfully familiar sounding proposal in 2006 that “those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

But for now, deportations are on the rise, with the Obama administration recently celebrating its 1 millionth booted immigrant (an impressive increase over George W. Bush’s record—he managed only 1.5 million deportations total during his presidency), even as overall immigration has declined in the last three years, likely as a result of less appealing economic conditions. The total population of illegal immigrants is tough to measure (for obvious reasons) but sits somewhere between 8 and 12 million people.

Two new reports give a clearer portrait of the people who come to the U.S. illegally, and what they mean to their adoptive country.

The first, a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of Census data, finds that 65 percent of illegal immigrants have been in the country for 10 years or more, with only 15 percent residing in the U.S. for less than five years. And the share of longhaulers has increased, doubling since 2000.

Nearly half of unauthorized adult immigrants have a minor child, compared with just 38 percent of legal immigrants and 29 percent of U.S.-born adults. Most of the difference is explained by the fact that illegal immigrants are mostly young adults in their prime childbearing years.

Those facts combine to create a situation where 9 million people are in mixed-status families—which include at least one illegal immigrant adult and one U.S.-born child. There are also 400,000 illegal immigrant children who have U.S.-born siblings.

In other words, a significant majority of illegal immigrants likely fit neatly into the “good illegals” box created by various major party candidates. They’re people who have come to the U.S. to stay and raise families. And whatever services they take from the government, those families provide the U.S. with the ultimate resource, more people. 

Or at least they do for now. Hispanics make up 81 percent of the population of illegal immigrants in the U.S., which makes a second set of findings highly relevant: Data from the National Center for Health Statistics reveals a dramatic drop in births among Hispanics. The number of babies born to Hispanics is down 11 percent since 2007. Hispanics account for a quarter of all U.S. births and half of the country’s population growth. USA Today reports that in 9 percent of the nation's 3,141 counties, the population would have declined if Hispanics had not moved in, citing University of New Hampshire demographer Kenneth Johnson.

The astronomical fertility of illegal immigrants has been presented as a menace, but the presence of illegal and mixed-status families within our borders is the only thing keeping U.S. fertility figures bobbing around at replacement rate. But the drop in birthrates in the face of declining economic conditions suggests that opening our borders wider may be the only way to maintain that record.

A May Pew study found that 72 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship (not just legality) for illegal immigrants who have jobs, pass a background check, and are willing to pay fines—which is a better deal than either party’s politicians are willing to offer at this point. 

Katherine Mangu-Ward is managing editor of Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    LOL. The link for the Pew study has the number you quote buried on page 8. I'll look into the actual questions asked, because it claims 49% of "staunch conservatives" support a path to citizenship, which I have a hard time believing.

    Of course, Reason won't quote the number immediately below, which states 78% of those polled favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws. I guess Ms Mangu-Ward stopped reading just before that cause her eyes were tired or something.

  • Um||

    I don't think you understand how propaganda works.

  • MWG||

    "Of course, Reason won't quote the number immediately below, which states 78% of those polled favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws."

    Yes because Reason would never openly support/oppose something contrary to the 'will' of the majority. Reason's all about staying in the mainstream.

  • Sidd Finch||

    So it's okay for Reason to use majoritarian arguments when it fits the agenda?

  • MWG||

    Nope. That, and calling for the legalization of all drugs, criticizing bad cop behavior, etc... Aren't exactly popular with the majority.

  • Sidd Finch||

    A May Pew study found that 72 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship (not just legality) for illegal immigrants who have jobs, pass a background check, and are willing to pay fines—which is a better deal than either party’s politicians are willing to offer at this point.

    The part before the dash is IMO a majoritarian argument. The part after is deceptive because of the other question Tulpa mentioned.

  • MWG||

    It is wrong to argue in terms of authority (the law is the law) as well as in terms of mob rule.

  • ||

    MWG rejects your reality and substitutes his own.

  • JohnD||

    I automatically discount anything this stupid woman writes. Reason needs to clean house and get some better "jounalists" on staff.

  • I||

    I like her cooking column.

  • purple||

    Her sex advice column is better. A combination of the two would be ideal.

  • I||

    I am thinking cucumbers would be the stars of that show, for the self-involved as well as the commentators.*

    Also acceptable, for the kinky: okra.

     
    *Redundant, I know.

  • purple||

    Raw liver warmed slightly above room temp is a special treat, or so I hear.

  • ||

    Of course, Reason won't quote the number immediately below, which states 78% of those polled favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

    How many fucks should libertarians give? 83% say none!

  • Um||

    You gave one. Else why comment?

  • ||

    Hmm so my comment means I care that the majority of people disagree with libertarians?

    Try again, and this time use your brain.

  • Um||

    Well, genius, you (presuming to speak for all libertarians) claim that most libertarians "don't give a fuck" what Tulpa wrote, then you contradict yourself by commenting on what he wrote, thereby "giving a fuck" (to borrow your elegant prose). You're like "Episiarch," who goes out of his way to tell people he doesn't care about how much he doesn't care about them.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yawn.

  • ||

    +1 me!

  • ||

    I care. I really care!
    +2 meeeee!

  • ||

  • ||

    Since you are apparently incapable of comprehending this, I will spell it out for you. Libertarians do not generally care whether the majority agree with them. We are not majoritarians, ok? My replying to what Tulpa said does not make me a majoritarian. Sheesh kid, learn to read before you make a fool of yourself again.

  • ||

    KMW apparently gives a fuck since she quoted poll results to favor her side. I guess that means she's not a libertarian. Your position, not mine.

  • ||

    So if she had mentioned that 78% favor stronger enforcement, that would be her arguing against her position?

    Tulpy-poo, I know you think citing poll results has to be an argument for or against something, but not everyone agrees with you.

  • ||

    If she thinks poll results are important, she shouldn't mention them in this case because they offer no support for her case when taken as a whole.

    If she thinks poll results are unimportant, she shouldn't mention them because they're not important.

    Truth is more important than making one's case, at least that's the way I was raised.

  • ||

    [chirp?]

  • ||

    Nice cheerleading, tard.

    Some people have more important things to do than sit at a computer all day.

  • ||

    Once again, why do you think mentioning poll results has support an argument? Reason mentions poll results that show people disagreeing with them all the time, but you wouldn't say they are trying to argue against themselves.

    This is not because poll results are "unimportant," it's because knowing the mood of the populace is sometimes relevant to political discussions. Notice the last part of that sentence:

    which is a better deal than either party’s politicians are willing to offer at this point.

    I know this simple distinction is hard for a majoritarian asshole to understand, but just try your best mkay?

  • SigP226||

    Look how well it's done for California ...

  • purple||

    Hell, look how well it has worked for Europe. The same arguments have been used over there with regard to population replacement.

    Somehow, reversing the downward fertility trend of the native population never gets mentioned as a solution. I guess encouraging people to get abortions and to focus on their own personal gratification and "fulfillment" more usefully serves the needs of a political class which maintains and extends its power by promising handouts to voters.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Abortion is banned in Nicuragua and the political class there is quite content to keep up the handouts and it's working for them.

    Europe's mess would be even worse if not for the immigration same with California.

  • purple||

    Europe's mess would be even worse if not for the immigration

    That's debatable. The rate at which immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, are unemployed and on government assistance is much higher than for natives in Europe.

  • fun fact||

    Muslim immigration is good for automobile sales in France.

  • Broken Window||

    Fallacy

  • Mike E||

    The person said good for automobile sales, not good for the economy. So, no, not the Broken Window Fallacy.

  • DLM||

    reversing the downward fertility trend of the native population never gets mentioned as a solution

    Yes. Just pass a mandate that all women must bear at least 2 children. In response to those that might deem this a bit authoritarian, I'm sure the state will be kind enough to allow them to choose the father(s).

  • MomO'Two||

    Population would continue to decline. Each woman has to give birth to 2.1 children to keep population steady. As soon as someone tells me how to give birth to .1 child, I'll get to work.

  • jacob||

    Mine's chambered in the recently discontinued .357 sig. Your's?

  • ||

    It's not the immigrants that are fucking up California. It's the nanny stating, boot licking, nimby, fucktards who keep voting for people to do stupid shit with their tax dollars.

  • MWG||

    ^This. California's problems have a helluva lot to do with the teachers union for example and very little to do with TEH MEXICANZ.

  • ||

    This is interesting (from the Pew study):

    When interviewers reach someone on a landline phone, they randomly ask half the sample if they could speak with “the youngest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home” and the other half of the sample to speak with the “youngest female, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home.” If there is no eligible person of the requested gender at home, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender, who is now at home. This method of selecting respondents within each household improves participation among young people who are often more difficult to interview than older people because of their lifestyles.

    So to remove one bias, they just bias it the other way and hope for the best, with apparently no quantification of the effect of either. Gah.

  • ||

    Total bias. I am suspect of anyone with a landline in this day and age. Furthermore, who answers their phone and co-operates with a complete stranger by turning it over to the youngest male or female in the household over 18? What real data could come of that?

  • ||

    Oh, I don't know, probably a college town, perhaps people in Champagne-Urbana?

  • ||

    get lost you fucking twit!

  • Chief Illini||

    May I please come back

  • Local Wit||

    from the Pew study...

    Everything Pew does stinks.

  • jtuf||

    Tulpa, selecting a "representative sample" instead of a "random sample" is a standard polling technique. There are pros and cons to this, but a full discussion of the statistical theory behind it is beyond what can fit in a comment.

  • Overpopulation||

    What a crock of complete shit this article is: "And whatever services they take from the government, those families provide the U.S. with the ultimate resource, more people. "

    Bull SHIT! If this were true, then the richest countries on the planet would be India and China, and they are fucking hellholes.

    If this were true, then we should invite the entire world, pack them all in here like sardines, because it would create some kind of resource-rich nirvana.

    This kind of inane thinking in a publication called "Reason" defies explanation. I can only assume the author is another one of these open borders anarchists.

  • Gojira||

    This kind of inane thinking in a publication called "Reason" defies explanation. I can only assume the author is another one of these open borders anarchists.

    Do we get two drinks for this?

  • ||

    Officer, am I free to gambol through the liquor cabinet?

  • Gojira||

    I dunno, Commodore, are you of age?

    If yes, and your liquor cabinet is large enough to gambol through, then I envy you sir.

  • ||

    No, Jim...+10 drinks!

  • Gojira||

    Well, it IS happy hour...

  • ||

    Ten drinks?! But I already had 10. Oh, well, I do believe in following the law.

  • ||

    Tell ya' wut, mate...let me bugger you and we'll call it even.
    Deal?

  • Rhywun||

    India and China are hellholes for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the size of their populations.

  • JohnD||

    Sounds to me like you are the one that had 10 drinks. What a stupid comment.

  • ||

    My sarcasm meter is broken so I don't know if you were being serious in your response. If you were, it most certainly has more to do with the authoritarian governments and centrally planned economies than the number of people.

  • Hong Kong||

    ...and who are we? Chopped liver?

  • Atanarjuat||

    The birthrate here in the US is more like countries in Europe or Japan. While their population is decreasing, we maintain ours with immigrants. I'm not sure why a population decline is a bad thing by itself though. I guess it hurts some small towns and brings Social Security to collapse faster, but who cares?

  • jtuf||

    Actually, the population of major cities has plummeted. I'm not concerned about a population decline, but I am concerned about the oppressive policies that lead to a population decline. Restricting the construction of new homes and warehousing young adults in colleges to keep them from competing on the job market are two policies that make it difficult for people to start families.

  • Atanarjuat||

    If this were true, then we should invite the entire world, pack them all in here like sardines, because it would create some kind of resource-rich nirvana.

    So having more people in close proximity freely trading and living their lives as they choose wouldn't create wealth and prosperity?

  • shamalamadingdong||

    "So having more people in close proximity freely trading and living their lives as they choose wouldn't create wealth and prosperity?"

    This is America. What country are you talking about?

  • Atanarjuat||

    Well, compared to India and China, we're pretty free.

  • Realist||

    Intelligent population is what we need.

  • ||

    Plus looking at the participation data reveals that by far the largest group polled was "solid liberal" (14.76%) followed by "postmoderns" (12.91%). "Staunch conservatives", by contrast, formed only 10.83% of those polled.

    Anyone here think that represents the population in general?

  • ||

    Tulpa, one almost doesn't even have to "go inside the numbers", to quote Chris Berman, to know that the thing stinks.

    However, thank you for checking out the study's assumptions and methodologies.

  • Overpopulation||

    We don't need more people, and the US population is not at "Replacement rate" anyway, which is not where it should be. It should be negative. In the last 40 years the population has increased by 100M, nearly all of that growth due only to immigration, and this has been incredibly destructive of our living standards and environment.

    The government is also importing more than 1M new people per year.

    Since we have more people already than we can feed, house, educate, and manage, why do we need even one more incrementally new person?

  • ||

    And all the good gamboling spots are taken!

  • ||

    Apropos of something, have you noticed that Pat Buchanan has been saying some rather nice things about RP? More so than any of the other declared GOP hopefuls.

  • pmains||

    Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have known each other for a long time. RP gave a talk on Pat's bete noire -- the New World Order -- back during the Clinton administration, and I believe he mentioned Pat by name in the speech.

  • Sarah Palin||

    Hey, you should have noticed that I've been saying nice about RP lately too.

  • Reason Mag.||

    Shut up you frosty illiterate hillbilly. Nobody wants to listen to your yammering.

  • ||

    Oh, god, more "overpopulation" bullshit. Tell me, what population should we be at?

  • shamalamadingdong||

    150 million.

  • Sevo||

    Naah.
    3.5, total.

  • ||

    BETTER NOT BE A FUCKIN ANCHOR BABY

  • Sidd Finch||

    Since we have more people already than we can feed, house, educate, and manage

    LOLWUT?

  • purple||

    Since we have more people already than we can ... manage

    I especially liked that part.

  • Sevo||

    Overpopulation|12.2.11 @ 6:19PM|#
    "We don't need more people,..."

    "We"? Is that a turd in your pocket?

  • jtuf||

    Overpopulation,

    We currently only allow half a million immigrants in each year. Over 40 years, that comes to 20 million immigrants. Your facts are off by 80%.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Importing a 3rd world culture will only make the US slide into the 3rd world even faster. No thanks. We need at least a 30 year moratorium on immigration of all kinds.

  • ||

    KuLtUr WaRz!!!!!!1

  • Sevo||

    Chatroom Crank|12.2.11 @ 6:24PM|#
    "Importing a 3rd world culture will only make the US slide into the 3rd world even faster."

    Spoof or stupidity? You decide.

  • Yes||

    Here's my path to amnesty.

    Go back to your own country. Admit when you came, and document it. Pay whatever fines and back taxes you owe.

    Then you get to wait for the same length of time you were actually here, and you can then be added to the list of prospective immigrants.

    What, you want a fucking bonus cause you broke the law?

  • ||

    No, just more welfare. Which I know the gringos will continue to provide due to their addiction to flag and federales.

  • ||

    The solution is indentured servitude. At the end of it is citizenship. Cheap-ass labor, legal avenue to citizenship without all of the paperwork. Winning for everyone!

  • Yes||

    not terrible

  • purple||

    Military conscription of illegals. We need cannon fodder for all the wars.

  • cynical||

    If any unauthorized immigrant gets naturalized ahead of someone that was obeying the rules, regardless of length of stay, I'd say that's unfair.

  • jtuf||

    + 1 to cynical

  • Shorter Yes||

    Teh law is teh law!!!!!1!1!!!!!!

  • .||

    whewn it comes to beig considered for citizenship

    people who follow the law > illiegals

    why is that so hard for your tiny mind to grasp?

  • ||

    Fuck your law.

  • Um...||

    Amnesty doesn't have to equal citizenship moron.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The astronomical fertility of illegal immigrants has been presented as a menace, but the presence of illegal and mixed-status families within our borders is the only thing keeping U.S. fertility figures bobbing around at replacement rate.

    But you're replacing good, wholesome red, white and blue with brown. That's the problem. Duh.

    No, give the male illegals cell phones and tell them they have to put them in their front pocket. Or wireless laptops and they have to update their Facebook status at least three times a day.

  • Gojira||

    I'd settle for a cut of their drugs.

  • ||

    You already do.

  • No||

    the cabinet i have in the back room disagrees

  • cynical||

    Maybe just require them to marry shrewish, emasculating white middle-class women? Plus, means more sexy latin ladies for us white guys.

  • DLM||

    Sounds good to me.

  • John Rohan||

    "The astronomical fertility of illegal immigrants has been presented as a menace, but the presence of illegal and mixed-status families within our borders is the only thing keeping U.S. fertility figures bobbing around at replacement rate. But the drop in birthrates in the face of declining economic conditions suggests that opening our borders wider may be the only way to maintain that record."

    Setting aside the numerous problems in essentially replacing one cultural group with another, can someone tell me why anyone doesn't want the population to decline?

    Fewer people mean more resources available to everybody and much less strain on the environment. Yes, it makes it harder for current workers to support senior citizens, but then maybe we need to change the pension system from the ponzi scheme it is to a separate fund, and then it won't matter whether the population goes up or down.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And maybe we can pay for the pensions with a tax on unicorns.

  • John Rohan||

    It's cute how when some people have no way to refute something, they resort to sarcasm or insults instead. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh God the irony!

  • ||

    The xenophobic nativists mostly come out in these threads. Mostly.

  • ||

    I made a similar Aliens-themed joked on a thread last night.

    It may have been the one you called me an asshole in :-(

  • ||

    I didn't call you an asshole, that was rectal spoofing me. That's why I got 10 points for it.

  • ||

    I was wondering WTF that was all about.

  • ||

    The points prove it. I win!

  • purple||

    Yes, we must keep the ponzi scheme solvent for a little while longer, at least until I get my cut.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So that's why the world, with a population much higher than 50 years ago, has such a lower living standard now right?

  • ||

    That's due to improvements in crop yields for the most part, but there's a limit to how far you can push that. Though fertility is declining pretty much worldwide, so it will take care of itself.

  • ||

    You're so right! Buy my book!

  • John Rohan||

    Actually, many Africans suffer a lower standard of living now than they did at independence.

    But anyway, the "green revolution" of the 1960s that produced such a surge in crop yields, has stalled out, and even if we had another green revolution, there probably isn't enough fresh water available to support it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Africa's problems have everything to do with an inferior culture and nothing to do with population.

    2) We are IN a second green revolution; it's called GM.

    3) There's lots of water, ways to desalinize water, ways to improve water efficiency (by GMO), and increased CO2 makes plants less water needy.

  • John Rohan||

    1) "NOTHING" to do with population? So it's just a coincidence that the poorest countries on Earth are the ones where women have the highest fertility rates. Totally coincidental. Right.

    2) GM is better than starving, but it has other issues, too numerous to list here.

    3) Most scientists seem to disagree with you. If the Earth was an apple, the water would be thinner than the skin. And fresh water is less than 1% of that. Desalination is extremely energy intensive, so it's not feasible right now for most nations, especially for populations living far from the coast.

    Here's a graphic depiction that will probably shock you:
    http://www.lifeslittlemysterie.....html-1082/

  • Gojira||

    You need to check your corralation and causation guy. Having higher fertility rates may be indicitive of a poor society, rather than being it's cause. More kids = more potential workers to take care of mom and dad, more to replace those lost to substandard hygiene or endemic war, etc.

    There are plenty of places that are poor as shit for various reasons, but not overcrowded.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes thank you. And that stuff about about the Earth and the Apple doesn't matter we're still pissing away water we could tighten up easily if we needed to. It's not like we burn the stuff it's perfectly reusable!

  • John Rohan||

    Water is reusable in a controlled environment, but the Earth is anything but. It doesn't always rain back down where you want it to. A lot is dispersed in outlying regions or over the ocean, essentially turning it into saltwater. The disappearance of the Aral Sea is a perfect example of this problem. Lest we forget:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

  • ||

    Indeed, never forget:

    In the early 1960s, the Soviet government decided that the two rivers that fed the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya in the south and the Syr Darya in the northeast, would be diverted to irrigate the desert, in order to attempt to grow rice, melons, cereals, and cotton.

    This wasn't a natural occurrence and had nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change or whatever other crud you're pushing. It was a government decision, plain and simple.

  • Rhywun||

    1. Fertility rates drop as countries get rich - not the other way around. Until your economy has more to offer than subsistence farming, you need all those kids to work the land. And that isn't going to happen in any of the African countries that are still ruled by despots who load their pockets with the treasury.

    2. You could at least list one. Otherwise your retort is rather pointless.

  • Sidd Finch||

    1. Fertility rates drop as countries get rich - not the other way around. Until your economy has more to offer than subsistence farming, you need all those kids to work the land

    Where do you people come up with shit?

  • Rhywun||

    Observation of the world around me + paying attention in history class. What part of my answer is "shit"?

  • Sidd Finch||

    The recent rapid population growth in Africa is pretty fucking clearly not because of a need for more subsistence farmers.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The drop in death rates is lagging a drop in fertility rates. That's the reason for the population boom. The fertility are declining however. Rhywun's statement is a well observed fact.

  • Sidd Finch||

    The drop in death rates is lagging a drop in fertility rates. That's the reason for the population boom.

    The population of Nigeria has quadrupled in the last half century, probably because of the lack of subsistence farmers.

    Rhywun's statement is a well observed fact.

    TFR reduces when having more kids is unappealing. That's often the case in populous technocratic states. It wasn't however the case in wealthy frontier era US and Canada when TFR dwarfed that of Western Europe. After all rich Daddy Bin Laden had almost 50 kids.

  • Rhywun||

    In what way is the situation of pampered Saudi quasi-royalty at all comparable to the average European or American? You're not making sense.

    As for Nigeria, sixty seconds of wiki-research has revealed to me that "[a]bout 60% of Nigerians work in the agricultural sector". In other words, folks are still having kids to work the land - as I said. The population boom is easily explained by improved health care and longer life expectancies, combined with lingering corruption that hinders personal freedom and prosperity. This phenomenon is well-known to be prevalent in many of today's developing countries in a manner that did not occur in Europe or America, which went through the same phases rather more slowly.

  • Sidd Finch||

    As for Nigeria, sixty seconds of wiki-research has revealed to me that "[a]bout 60% of Nigerians work in the agricultural sector". In other words, folks are still having kids to work the land - as I said.

    Um, Nigeria is a net exporter. They're not subsistence farmers.

    The population boom is easily explained by improved health care and longer life expectancies, combined with lingering corruption that hinders personal freedom and prosperity.

    Innumerate people are funny. Life expectancy changes don't result in a four-fold increase in population in two generations. And corruption has historically limited population.

    Look this is simple. People have as many kids as they comfortably can, adjusted for how many will die young. That number is influenced by many things. Wealth isn't one of those things directly, but indirectly it seems to be the best predictor.

  • Rhywun||

    Are you arguing that prosperity doesn't lead to lower birth rates? Because that would contradict, well, all of history.

  • lolwut||

    A lot is dispersed in outlying regions or over the ocean, essentially turning it into saltwater.

    Yeah, that's what I love about California winters. All that salt water rain.

  • Rhywun||

    To be fair I'm not fully aware of the extent, other than I think it's hitting some countries (Botswana, Zambia?) much harder than others. I'm not any kind of "expert" in this area, just bloviating like everyone else, but it shouldn't be too hard to control for the effects that the plague has had in these areas, in order to determine if the pattern I described holds.

  • Sevo||

    rather|12.3.11 @ 2:13AM|#
    "Africa's AIDS plague literally wipe out a generation-"

    Population of Sub-Saharan Africa, 2007: 800,000,000
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa
    Sub-Saharan AIDS deaths, 2009: 1,300,000
    http://www.avert.org/africa-hi.....istics.htm
    You're full of shit, rather.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Are you arguing that prosperity doesn't lead to lower birth rates? Because that would contradict, well, all of history.

    Because I really think you might be at the cutting edge of evolutionary theory I have to ask: what exactly is the mechanism that points directly from more wealth to fewer babies?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The mechanism is as follows: more wealth = babies have greater survival = need less babies. Also, people want to do stuff other than have babies.

    Nigeria: just because it's a net exporter does not mean there isn't a lot of subsistence farming.

    AIDS: devastating and unbelievably prevalent in southern Africa (1/3 Bostwana is infected I believe) elsewhere the impact has been grossly exaggerated.

  • Sidd Finch||

    The mechanism is as follows: more wealth = babies have greater survival = need less babies. Also, people want to do stuff other than have babies.

    Holy Shit.

    Nigeria: just because it's a net exporter does not mean there isn't a lot of subsistence farming.

    So now we're 100/(60-x%)x4 = at least ~ 8 fold increase in population in a half century due to the need for subsistence farmers. I mean, just, well, you know, I guess, umm, WTF is wrong with your brain.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I never said that you dipshit. I just pointed out that there is still plenty of subsistence farming.

  • Rhywun||

    Agricultural innovation + the freedom to apply it => fewer farmers => less need for fieldhands. Throw in the industrial revolution, increased specialization, education, and innovation, all of which => more prosperity => freedom to rinse and repeat the whole process. Countries like Nigeria seem to be characterized by a combination of forces that ensures a population which grows more rapidly than was the case in Europe or America: they already have access to better health care (fewer deaths), and they have more-or-less corrupt leadership that tends to take for themselves whatever prosperity the country is able to generate, rather than recognize the rights of the people to pursue their own course. So you've got advanced industrialization in the main cities, and burgeoning wealth for a limited few - and a huge mass of peasants that, yes, are still farming (more kids). Fewer deaths + continued need for lots of kids => rapid population growth. A result of, not cause of, the shitty conditions that persist in such countries.

  • ||

    Because I really think you might be at the cutting edge of evolutionary theory I have to ask: what exactly is the mechanism that points directly from more wealth to fewer babies?

    It's not wealth per se, but rather the productivity of an adult versus a child. As societies grow wealthier -- i.e., more productive and specialized -- children change from capital goods to consumption goods.

    In other words, if a woman is not much more productive than an 8-year-old, then it increases her household wealth considerably to spend 20 years having and raising kids rather than working. After 8 years she breaks even, and then it's all greater productivity from there.

    It's hard to believe you find this difficult or controversial.

  • Sidd Finch||

    It's absolutely fascinating that you retards believe more wealth=less offspring is the norm in human, or any other animal, history.

  • ||

    It is true that the effect of increased wealth decreasing the number of children may be very unique to our age.

    Before now, women and children were not different enough in productive capacity to change the "more children means more wealth" equation. Today in developed societies, they are vastly different, more children may well mean less household wealth, and children are consumer goods. But there are already signs that the number of children is rising in the highest earning households, as children become conspicuous consumer goods.

    In the post-scarcity age to come, it may well be that families will use their surplus wealth to choose again to have more children, and that the decades we are living in today are an exception in a longer trend.

  • ||

    GM is better than starving, but it has other issues, too numerous to list here.

    Perhaps you could give us a small sample. Heck, even one "issue" with GM food would be an improvement on what every other anti-GM fanatic is able to come up with when you actually put them to the test.

  • John Rohan||

    Tulpa, one issue with GM is "thirstiness". Higher yield crops require higher yields of fresh water, which, as i pointed out above, is more and more scarce. Some crops require much less water, however, so if you plan on feeding a continually exploding population, it might lead to much less diversity on the dinner plate.

  • ||

    Higher yield crops require higher yields of fresh water

    That's not an issue with GM per se; producing greater amounts of food requires greater amounts of water with traditionally-bred crops too. And of course some GM crops are specifically designed to require less water per yield than traditionally bred ones.

  • purple||

    Higher yield crops require higher yields of fresh water

    ... or more efficient water usage, but, whatever ...

  • ||

    If the Earth was an apple, the water would be thinner than the skin.

    Uh, what is this analogy supposed to show? I mean, you're counting the core and mantle and stuff in the apple. No water is present or needed in those regions; indeed the regions of the earth where anyone lives are even more miniscule than those regions filled with water.

  • jtuf||

    John,

    If the Earth was an apple, how many cubic mm would all the humans occupy in total? Let's see:

    Earth's volume = about 1 trillion cubic km ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pla.....hfact.html )

    Humanity's volume = about 10 billion people x 1 cubic meter per person = about 10 billion cubic meters = 10 cubic km

    So humanity represents about 1/100 billion of the volume of the Earth.

    Say the volume of an apple is about 1,000 cubic centimeters = 1 million cubic millimeters.

    Divide that by 100 billion to get 1/100,000 of a cubic millimeter.

    That's not a terrifying volume. The volume of the apple's skin is orders of magnitude greater than that.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Just to refute the apple skin nonsense: Quite a bit of Eastern US farmland, where rain and irrigation water is plentiful, lies fallow. Higher food prices could bring some of that land back under cultivation.

  • purple||

    Africa's problems have everything to do with an inferior culture

    Xenophobe! Xenophobe! Xenophobe! Bigot! Racist!

  • ||

    Fewer people mean more resources available to everybody

    No, it doesn't. In fact, it is human ingenuity which turns worthless things into "resources". The more humans, the more ingenuity, the more useful products (resources).

  • MWG||

    Fucking economics 101! How does it work!

  • ||

    Perpetual motion machines are perfectly consistent with Physics 101, you know.

  • ||

    I don't know what introductory physics course you took that did not include friction, but you should probably get your money back.

  • ||

    It included friction, but didn't prove that friction is always present in every moving system. Which is good, because friction isn't always present; often it's another phenomenon that drains mechanical energy out of a system, and most such phenomena are NOT covered in introductory physics.

  • ||

    Nice try Tulpy-poo, but the first and second laws of thermodynamics that I learned in Introductory Physics tell me that perpetual motion machines are impossible.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Nice try Tulpy-poo, but the first and second laws of thermodynamics that I learned in Introductory Physics tell me that perpetual motion machines are impossible.

    Why are you lying to people who obviously know better? (Thermo isn't covered in any real (not survey) intro physics class.)

  • ||

    Why are you lying to people who obviously know better? (Thermo isn't covered in any real (not survey) intro physics class.)

    Go online and you will see any introductory physics course does indeed go over fundamental thermodynamics, such as the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy in a closed system is enough to disprove perpetual motion, as you cannot create new energy in a closed system.

  • John Rohan||

    The more humans, the more ingenuity, the more useful products

    What you are talking about, in a roundabout way, is technology. Unfortunately, technology is a wild card in any equation. It almost always (not always) progresses, but in fits and starts, and is highly unpredictable.

  • ||

  • Sevo||

    John Rohan|12.2.11 @ 8:36PM|#
    "What you are talking about, in a roundabout way, is technology. Unfortunately, technology is a wild card in any equation. It almost always (not always) progresses, but in fits and starts, and is highly unpredictable."

    Nope. Just ask Malthus' ghost.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wow for a libertarian site their sure are a lot of nativists clinging to their The Law is the Law! BS, with a surprising sprinkling of Malthus. People don't share your xenophobia get over it.

  • MWG||

    First time on an immigration thread at H&R?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I never get used to the stupid. Actually I just get sensitized. Same thing happens with War Morality threads.

  • Rhywun||

    Immigration threads do tend to draw a lot of strangers and their vigorous counter-arguments (OK, insane rants). Usually they disappear the next day (OWS being the notable exception lately).

  • ||

    It doesn't help that KMW wrote an article riddled with bullshit and cherry-picked poll data.

    Not terribly consistent with a bastion of ratiocination, that.

  • ||

    Well you are the authority on bullshit and cherry-picking, so I will concede to your expertise on this matter.

  • ||

    Do you have any actual content to contribute, or just insults? So far the evidence is not positive.

  • ||

    Insults, mostly.

    Don't hate me 'cause I'm vapid.

  • ||

    Sorry Tulpa, I believe that you need to start arguing honestly before you can accuse others of lack of content.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Not really. There are some flaws but you're really just butthurt that more people are disbelieving your nativist bullshit.

  • purple||

    Nativist! Nativist! Nativist! People who don't agree with me are bad! Nativists!

  • ||

    I'm not even remotely nativist. I favor robust LEGAL immigration, just not the totally uncontrolled variety.

    The nativists of the late 1800s and early 1900s that you're trying to associate myself and others with were against LEGAL immigration.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Given that it's nearly impossible to legally immigrate into America today, there's no distinction.

    I also favor controlling immigration but only to the extent that we keep out the dangerously infectious, criminals, and terrorists. Anything else is a no-no.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I see the Malthus too.

    Seriously, anyone who might subscribe to even an iota of Malthus cannot consider themselves a libertarian. The ideologies simply are not reconcilable.

  • purple||

    Xenophobe! Xenophobe! Xenophobe! People who don't agree with me are bad! Xenophobe!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    When people say things like "Importing a 3rd world culture will only make the US slide into the 3rd world even faster. No thanks. We need at least a 30 year moratorium on immigration of all kinds", you're a xenophobe.

    When you're arguments amount to "Ewwwww, Mexicans" you're a xenophobe.

    Try again.

  • purple||

    Cyto wasn't responding to the post calling for a 30 year moratorium, he was suggesting that anyone supporting the rule of law was a Xenophobe.

    How's that? Is that better?

    Even someone who worries about cultural differences is not necessarily a xenophobe. Some cultures are more compatible with a country's way-of-life than others. Acknowledging that is not xenophobic, which implies an irrational and uninformed fear of those who are different. Immigrants from a country like Canada or England to the U.S. assimilate easily and slot right in. Immigrants from Latin America do so less readily, especially if there is no expectation that they should do so.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Culture is a valid concern, however, the endless stream of BS regarding the latinos that are going to swamp us (and never do) points to xenophobia. Ditto more so for Muslim immigration = Sharia.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wow for a libertarian site there sure are a lot of nativists clinging to their The Law is the Law! BS, with a surprising sprinkling of Malthus. People don't share your xenophobia get over it.

  • Realist||

    Look, the bottom line is, you get more of what you reward (incentives). I'd expect libertarians to understand this.

    Therefore, if you reward criminal rule-breaking by those already here, you incentivize them to break rules. They will have no respect for an orderly society of laws.

    I'm sympathetic to their plight. But you can't get into the mode of rewarding criminal behavior.

  • MWG||

    It's actually NOT a crime.

  • JD||

    Overstaying a visa is not a crime but a civil infraction. Illegal entry is a crime.

  • MWG||

    Around half the illegal immigrants are visa overstays, but you do have a point, though those who enter illegally are rarely (if ever?) prosecuted.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Look, the bottom line is that illegal immigration is not criminal so long as the laws against the immigration are asinine as they currently are. I'd expect libertarians to understand this, but then again I'm an Objectivist for a reason.

    If you criminilize something that is victimless and highly incentivized by economics, you just get more of it on a black market.

    I'm sympathetic to the nativists...actually no I'm not at all. In spite of once being one...or maybe because of that.

  • Realist||

    The definition of something being criminal is that it's against the law. It is impossible for illegal immigration to not be criminal.

    That has no effect on the question of if those laws are ultimately just or not, which I understand is the thrust of your argument. But illegal is illegal, regardless of whether that's right or wrong.

  • John Rohan||

    You are both right and wrong. Crossing the border without a visa is a criminal act. But the simple act of being in the country afterwards, is, in and of itself, not criminal. Technically.

  • ||

    So a person who commits a crime and then goes about their business afterward is not a criminal? Thus, to be a criminal, you have to be constantly committing crimes every moment?

    We're playing some seriously intricate games with definitions here. Worthy of Daily Kos, perhaps.

  • John Rohan||

    Well, they are still "criminals" because they broke the law to cross the border. I'm only saying that technically they aren't continuing to break the law after that point simply by being in the country. Of course, most of them do end up using fake SSNs, lying to employers, working for cash off the books, etc, all of which is illegal also.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The only meaningful definition of 'criminal' is a moral NOT legal one. ie violating someone's rights.

  • Wayner G||

    Does every discussion on reason have to be from first principles?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Without principles, we have no way to know what is right and wrong.

  • Realist||

    In modern, wealthy nations, what is right and wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what the law says. Laws are passed by a popularly elected legislature.

    Unless you're proposing some sort of dictatorship or anarchy, as Robert Bork says, the majority gets to decide what is right simply because they are the majority. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

    I suggest learning to deal with reality the way it is, or moving to libertarian paradise in Somalia.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Authority fetish much, chump?

  • Gojira||

    HA, I finally successfully trolled you.

    I had to tone it down a bit. I was afraid I was going to give the game away with the "love it or leave it" angle there at the end.

    What's great is I got two other randoms in the convo as well. I retire as champion.

  • DuncePhy||

    crap

  • ||

    OK, Jim, you got me. But just a laugh.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Congratulations, you've put both Randroid Cytotoxic and Anarch-asshole Episiarch into a state of agreement and side-splitting laughter.

  • Gojira||

    Hey, I'm all about the love and bringing people together.

  • I||

    Anarch-asshole Episiarch

    [snigger]

  • ||

    Episiarch|12.2.11 @ 9:30PM
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Authority fetish much, chump?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • DuncePhy||

    Preach it, sister

  • Gojira||

    I didn't think about it until you posted, but it DOES kind of sound like something Dunphy would say, now that I think about it.

  • ||

    I judge a region's standard of living by the quality of mexican food available.

  • ||

    I don't think I've ever USED the term "first principles"

  • Rhywun||

    Heh, amusing trollery, but the obvious counter-argument - I think it was even written down a while ago somewhere - is that man is granted certain rights that can't be taken away, even by an asshole majority....

  • ||

    Without principles, we have no way to know what is right and wrong.

    And thus there's no way of knowing whether a set of principles themselves are right or wrong.

  • Ice Nine||

    I think you missed the part where he gets to decide that they're right because they are his.

  • ||

    So he's imposing his own arbitrary principles on everyone else.

  • ||

    Tiresome troll is tiresome.

  • ||

    I agree you are.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Actually they're mine because they're right.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They are derived from a logical framework.

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa.....vism_intro

  • ||

    A logical framework with a healthy dose of question begging added in.

  • ||

    The only meaningful definition of 'criminal' is a moral NOT legal one. ie violating someone's rights.

    Things that are not criminal under this definition:

    1. perjury that helps a criminal defendant

    2. bribery

    3. treason

    4. counterfeiting

  • Apatheist||

    I'll take an uneducated stab at this:

    1. This one is hard. You can argue that avoiding responsibility for your rights violation is continuing the violation. Or you could argue that in a hypothetical world where human error didn't have such an enormous effect on our justice system it wouldn't matter. I'll concede it is a toughie.

    2. Depends who you are bribing and in what context. Bribing can often be in furtherance of violating rights such as bribing a public official. I think many of the things we consider bribery shouldn't be crimes in the same way insider trading shouldn't be a crime.

    3. If by treason you mean going against the government without any rights violation then sure I don't see why it should be a crime. Especially by his standard which may very well contemplate there being no government to be treasonous against.

    4. Same as 3. Faking a fake fiat currency is arguably acceptable. You can't counterfeit gold for example. If you include fraud then that is a crime on its own.

    Just an attempt, I don't think that at least attempting to limit crimes to only rights violation is a good goal and certainly immigrating shouldn't be a crime.

  • Apatheist||

    In addition fraud or grounds for a civil action could be involved in bribery (or insider trading) without there being a criminal offense. Similarly giving someone fake currency is fraud and probably a contract violation but merely creating it is not.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Depends on the 'criminal' involved. You can't morally commit perjury to help a real criminal, because then you are hurting the state's ability to do its job. But you can try to sabotage the ability of the state to charge say a non-violent drug dealer-you're just taking a huge risk.

    2) Depends who you're bribing and why. If you're bribing an official to smuggle drugs, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a lot like #1.

    3) Depends if the government you're treasoning is generally rights-protecting (ex America, Israel, Canada) or generally rights-violating (PA, Zimbabwe, Syria).

    4. I would say this is stealing from anybody with whatever you're counterfeiting. Just because the BenBernank does it doesn't mean you should.

  • ||

    1. Hurting the state's ability to do its job != violating rights. So it's not criminal by your original standard.

    2. You can't pick and choose cases. There are cases where it doesn't violate anyone's rights; for instance, bribing a govt official to sell you govt property at a discount. Your formulation implies this is not criminal.

    3. Same as above. You have to deal with the cases where you think it's criminal.

    4. When I build a bookcase, am I stealing from everyone who owns a bookcase?

  • ||

    The last example was kind of contrived, so here's another one:

    When New Line imprints more LOTR DVDs, does that mean they're stealing from the people who already own copies?

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's not a fucking currency!

  • ||

    Your definition of stealing is getting pretty complicated then. Now there's a special category of items that are "currency" and can be stolen by simply producing more of them.

    It's gonna be hard to fit that in the ol' logical structure of Objectivism.

  • ||

    I mean, in some societies there are items that are both currency AND used for some other purpose -- like cigarettes and porno mags in prison, for instance. So is it stealing to produce those things?

  • purple||

    The only meaningful definition of 'criminal' is a moral NOT legal one

    I would think that spending time in prison has meaning, even if you believe the law you were incarcerated under is not moral. The same is true for the difficulty you may experience getting a job once you get out of prison.

    If you live with other people, you have to follow some rules. Grow up. As imperfect as it may be, we have a system by which to define those rules. Advocating the idea that everyone should just decide for themselves what is and what is not criminal is not terribly bright.

  • Shorter Purple||

    Stop thinking and get in line.

  • ||

    I'm an Objectivist for a reason.

    I'm betting on inconsistent diaper changing.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Someone's getting fisked and they're pissy about it.

  • ||

    Right, just like if you reward criminal pot smokers by legalizing drugs, you incentivize them to break rules. They will have no love of the authority that you crave.

    Idiot.

  • aCTUAL iDIOT||

    ePISIARCH IS OUR hERO!

  • ||

    I think that we should encourage more immigrants from Mexico.

  • Atanarjuat||

    At least two reasons that's a great idea 1) we seem to be getting the hardest working among them, which offsets our huge supply of OWS weenies and 2) Mexicans in the US aren't dying in droves due to the drug war.

  • Brittanicus||

    In the news--the Rasmussen poll that indicates that majority of Americans opposes birthright citizenship. NumbersUSA has pressed to abolish birthright citizenship since the founding of the pro-sovereignty organization 15 years ago. They have shown in the strong support Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, which would stop this misinterpreted practice.

    So what does Gingrich, Perry, Romney, Cain, Santorum, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman, Johnson have to say about the ‘foothold’ instant citizen baby act? Then what is Eric Holders plan to keep intimidating the states. First the vanguard driven by Arizona, followed closely by Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana with suing in such arrogant Liberal oriented courts as the Ninth Circuit in the Leftist progressive stronghold of San Francisco.

    The bill is a concrete proposal and has a lot of support in the U.S. House, with 80 co-sponsors. It is one of the "five great immigration solutions" many politicians are standing for this year. THE GENUINE 2006 SECURE FENCE ACT; double 15 foot high fence, for fast track lanes in between for the US Border Patrol to use. However, they need a lot more momentum to win. Rep. King's bill, H.R. 140, that would require Congress to elucidate the meaning of the 14th Amendment and thereby ending the practice of automatically granting U.S. citizenship to all U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. We don't need a Constitutional amendment. Without an amendment the US taxpayers are the recipients of the law, which allows an estimated 340.000 babies to become instant citizens annually adding to the growing deficit, to support these children and the Mother.
    Now there's more proof that Americans want to abolish automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. .A new Rasmussen poll shows that 65% of likely U.S. voters oppose birthright citizenship. That means two-thirds of all voters want to end this absurd practice, as most industrialized democracies have already done. Although the tourist from other countries comes to have their babies in clinics this is a story in itself, is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands cross the border, while others come through air terminals on a visitor’s visa, with full intentions to stay and allow taxpayers to cover their baby care from their time in hospital, to the child’s life as a so-called citizen under the wrongly interpreted law. While American mothers are hunted down by credit collectors for the 6-$ 8.000 dollar care. The impoverished foreign nationals easily slip away from debt accountability, by giving force information and either no personal ID or procured documents, that the emergency hospital has no choice but to accept, or by federal laws must treat the patient.
    Just because an illegal alien mother gives birth in the U.S. doesn't mean the baby should be a U.S. citizen. Don't you agree? In fact, this form of birthright citizenship is destructive to the rule of law. American citizenship is one of the most precious and desired privileges on earth. People wait in line for decades to receive a coveted U.S. green card, if they can get one at all. But we've corrupted the whole process by handing out citizenship and residency to people who do not deserve it.
    Rep. King's Bill will solve the problem, but we can't push it through without more help from Patriotic Americans. Why is this sovereign nation being forced to not only support any individual or family group who slips across the border, but must subsidize the whole family?
    As to birthright citizenship policy, you cannot blame the kids, the so-called "anchor babies." Naturally they have no say in the matter of where they are born. Nonetheless, their unearned U.S. citizenship has terrible consequences for this country. Billions of dollars are swallowed up, that should be going US children for their education, health care.
    Here's what's so clearly wrong with birthright citizenship.
     Rewards lawbreaking. If people break into this nation only long enough to give birth, they are rewarded with a U.S. citizen child and the cost is substantial and adds to even more American poverty.
     Increases chain migration. There are about 340,000 ‘foothold babies’ born here each year. Their families often use them to bring more relatives into the country, starting new family "chains." Immigration continues to skyrocket as a result. And the billions of dollars grow?
     Adds to government social costs. Illegal aliens aren't eligible to welfare benefits, open-borders, corporate welfare and special interests advocates often point out. That's generally true (with the significant exception of emergency room healthcare). Their U.S. citizen children are entitled, however, for a galaxy of social benefits. We taxpayers are stuck with the tab for Medicaid health benefits, free education, food stamps, etc. Each year the dollar figure rises and taken from your income, state pensions, even Medicare and retirement benefits. The cost doesn’t end, not does the barrage of people slinking through the border or lying to the agent at airport inspection entry..Please—how can a traveler from Europe, South America tell if the women are carrying a fetus? Immigration doesn’t even have a tracking system like other sensible countries.
     Misuses the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment, on which birthright citizenship is based, states that people born in the U.S. who is also "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country are automatically citizens. Yet children born of parents illegally residing in the U.S. generally have automatic citizenship, voting privileges, and a passport from their home countries. The 14th amendment law was meant for slaves, not foreign females smuggling babies or fetuses into the United States. Why should they also receive automatic citizenship from a country where their mother lives illegally? Absurd! Despicable to the taxpayer upon people who wait for years for an entry visa.
    The biggest goal for in the upcoming weeks remains bringing co-sponsors on E-Verify to 100 of which we need 35 co- sponsors and getting this bill passed in the House of Representatives. But we continue to press for other long-time goals as well, such as abolishing birthright citizenship. Yet we can't do any of this without your help.
    It is this point in time you should contact the Ways and Means Committee responsible for bringing ‘The Legal Workforce Act’, bill H.R.2885 to the House floor in Congress. Only the American voter or legal resident has a say in this urgent matter, which will produce large numbers of jobs STOLEN by the 8.2 illegal workers as estimated to self-deport. The number to call for the Washington political phones is 202-224-3121. The legislators need to listen to the People, instead of misleading us anymore. If you have further questions read about the widespread corruption in the federal and state governments at Judicial Watch.
    Attn: Keep an eye on Democrats as they are intentionally pushing non-citizens to vote in all coming elections, that includes the 2011 presidential. They are also trying to change electoral laws, so you can register and immediately vote, using groups like the fraudulent canvassing of the ACORN group, that’s reappeared under another name. Additionally the Left is introducing legislation, so you don't even need a picture ID; this to me is as close to fraud as you can get.

  • Gojira||

    Keep an eye on Democrats as they are intentionally pushing non-citizens to vote in all coming elections, that includes the 2011 presidential.

    I wasn't aware we were having a presidential election this year. I am disappoint.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not to mention that non-citizens can't vote.

  • ||

    When there are little to no enforcement and/or legislative checks on their doing so, they most definitely can and do. It is true that they can to do so LEGALLY

  • purple||

    Not to mention that non-citizens can't legally vote.

    FIFY. Also, since according to Cyto, laws don't really mean anything if you don't like them, then non-citizens should just vote no matter what the law says.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh they means something. They mean there's work to be done for freedom.

  • Cytotoxic||

    TL;DR

    More hyperventilating about those damn Mexicans (brown peril!).

  • ||

    Don't forget the... OMG ACORNSAULALINSKYAYERSANCHORFUCKINGHATEEMBABIEZZZZZ!!WEALLGONNADIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    What the fuck is your goddamn problem, Brit?

    You think stinkin' up the joint with your mush mouth fucking wall of text is going to convince anyone of anything?

    Jesus you're one stoopid bastard, and I hope an anchor baby shits on your grave.

    Good day, sir!

  • No Remorse||

    I once took a poop on the driveway of a guy I didn't like.

  • Sandi||

    That's my job.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THEY TERK R JERBZ!

  • ||

    When someone takes a revenge dump on my lawn they'd better be American, goddammit.

  • purple||

    Finally, the inevitable capitalized retard phrase which is only ever proffered by retards trying to ridicule those with whom they disagree with.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's a reference to a South Park joke you idiot. No need for me to ridicule you; you've got that covered.

  • ||

    Hey Cyto, calm down, man. Purple is taking the higher ground...

    by calling you a retard.

    *confusion*

  • Sevo||

    "Without an amendment the US taxpayers are the recipients of the law, which allows an estimated 340.000 babies to become instant citizens annually adding to the growing deficit, to support these children and the Mother."

    Missing the cite about the deficit. Care to offer it?

  • tarran||

    Well, unlike an illegal alien who typically pays social security taxes without receiving benefits, a kid born in the U.S. do get benefits over their lifetime.

    Every participant in MEdicare and Social Security strains the system. It's not the citizenship of the parents that causes the baby to add to the defecit. All babies do that.

    Brittanicus can't try to limit the number of kids born to citizens without being laughed off the forum. I presume he's going for the next best thing.

  • purple||

    unlike an illegal alien who typically pays social security taxes without receiving benefits

    There have been attempts to block grant U.S. tax dollars to the Mexican government to disburse to Mexicans who have gone back to Mexico for their later years. Want to bet that those grants wouldn't be supplemented by some estimate of the benefits "earned" by illegals who go back?

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    TL;DR

  • Steel||

    Why Reason criticizing immigration laws in US but not in other countries' immigration laws?

  • ||

    3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
    Suite 400
    Los Angeles, CA 90034

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

    And those are just from the past week.

  • ||

    Oh, and if it makes you happy, virtually all other nations abrogate migration rights too.

  • Fr33d0m F1ght3r||

    3\/3|\| 50/\/\4L14?

  • Sevo||

    Steel|12.2.11 @ 9:40PM|#
    "Why Reason criticizing immigration laws in US but not in other countries' immigration laws?"

    Uh, because it's published in the US? Just thought I'd point that out.

  • ||

    Weak tea.

    Reason criticizes the domestic policies of other sovereign countries all the time, so why is immigration an exception?

  • tarran||

    Because it's not?!?

    Just googling articles on British immigration had these pages up:

    http://reason.com/blog/2008/04.....g-were-sel

    http://reason.com/blog/2007/11.....war-on-fat

  • tarran||

    Oh and server squirrels? Fuck you for only allowing me to post two links at a time.

  • ||

    So once a year they do such an article.

  • ||

    Hey guys, I'd just like to remind everyone that Tulpa is a tiresome troll with no interest in honest discussion.

    kthxbye

  • tarran||

    Tulpy, I am amused that you consider what you do Socratic method. It reminds me of when my son was a year old and would scrawl on my dry erase board and babbble a "lecture".

    I took a very quick search of Immigration and England, Britain and British and posted a handful of the links that came up.

    So, your original thesis (that they don't do it ever) has been falsified.

    Now we go to your next thesis (that they do it rarely). Except that what I posted doesn't show that. To make that assertion, one would have to do a survey of all the hit and run posts and find the ones that talk about foreign immigration laws.

    Moreover, that has nothing to do with their stance. I think Reason Magazine does not invest a great deal of text criticizing rape. That does not mean that they think rape is OK, or not a problem.

    Now, I vaguely remember something to the effect that you teach math. From your comments above, I know you know a little about statistics.

    Which means this post that I was replying to was not the result of being ignorant, but a willfull attempt to mislead.

    Which leaves me baffled... Why bother?

    Did some central american kid take your spot on the soccer team in high-school? Or did the girls like the Irish kid's accent better?

  • ||

    My thesis was that they don't run foreign immigration policy articles as often as they do about other issues with foreign countries' policies. Not that they have never run such an article in the history of H&R going back to 2002.

    Which would seem to be substantiated by the fact that I looked at the past week's posts and immediately found 3 blog posts about foreign countries' domestic policies, while your google search goes back through 9-10 years worth of the blog yet only found 2. You're right, the statistics does come in handy.

  • tarran||

    No you utter twat, I found a whole bunch.

    The squirrels limit the number of links in a comment to two.

    You are so pathetically disingenuous.

  • ||

    The squirrels limit the number of links in a comment to two.

    I posted three links. Can you guess how?

    And if those were the BEST two links, that's a pretty sad collection considering the most recent one is 3.5 years old.

  • tarran||

    HEy, the error meswsage told me to cut them down to two, and that's what I did.

    And those weren't the best two links, they were two I grabbed semi-randomlhy off the first page of results after 5 seconds of consideration.

    Doesn't it embarrass you to be so disingenuous? You are smart enough to know that people are going to call you on it, right?

  • ||

    Your laziness in selecting the best links for your case is not my problem.

  • tarran||

    Suuuuuure, that's the problem here. It's not your disingenuous goal-post moving.

  • ||

    Oh, and I'm not doing the Socrates thang now, just poking holes in sevo and MikeP's smartassery.

  • ||

    So you went from "Reason makes an exception for other countries when criticizing America for immigration" to "but, but... Reason only criticizes other countries once a year!"

    Disingenuous twat.

  • EDG reppin' lBC||

    Boo-yaa!!!

  • Rhywun||

    Immigration law sucks everywhere else too. Doesn't mean I can't advocate for increased personal freedom at the level where it makes practical sense, which in this case is the national level.

  • ||

    In Mexico, it's a 2 year felony to enter illegally. We should AT least get reciprocity

  • ||

    Yes, yes, reason is all over that. They ran an article about it back in 2004. Maybe they'll get around to another one in 2017.

  • ||

    See, Reason doesn't post certain articles every year, so Tulpa is right!

    DERP.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Our freedom should never rest on another country reciprocating.

  • ||

    our freedom doesn't rest on giving natives of OTHER countries carte blance to enter without qualification, and stay however long they like

    if there is any nation on earth that does not exercise the authority to protect its borders and sovereignty and to choose who gets the benefits of citizenship, i'm not aware of one

  • ||

    I've heard there's an East African country that doesn't control its borders. I forget the name...

  • ||

    "whogivesaflyingfuckistan (because we don't have any resources and shit)?"

    that would be a cool name for a country, actually

  • Cytotoxic||

    And that country's main problem is being overrun by hordes of outsiders right?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Actually, Dunphy, our freedom does rest on having open borders because anything else is a violation of the freedom to associate.

  • ||

    Nothing's stopping you from going over to Tijuana and "associating".

  • Chortles||

    Rules are fun, because otherwise we would have to think.

  • Sosnowski||

    Why would it be bad for our fertility to bob around replacement level? It has to happen eventually anyway; why not now while we still have a fairly comfortabe margin of resources to needs?

  • Sevo||

    Sosnowski|12.2.11 @ 10:14PM|#
    "Why would it be bad for our fertility to bob around replacement level? It has to happen eventually anyway; why not now while we still have a fairly comfortabe margin of resources to needs?"

    OK, and that relates to the article how?

  • Sidd Finch||

    And whatever services they take from the government, those families provide the U.S. with the ultimate resource, more people.

  • Sevo||

    Which, if you'll forgive, reminds me of the ultimate communist contradiction:
    Mao swore that more Chinese meant more "power" in his lexicon; more innovation and prosperity in the libertarian lexicon.
    And then he used the communist economy to prove that (under that economy), more people meant more starvation.
    So the 'liberalizers', led by Deng Xiaoping, proceed to loosen government controls of the economy and restrict the number of children.
    No need to beat on Chi Com government stupidity; that charlatan Ehrlich tried to do the same here.

  • Sidd Finch||

    You're forgiven.

  • John Rohan||

    So Sevo, you think the population can go to infinity then, without any deterioration in quality of life?

  • ||

    Do I have a book for you!

  • OK tumbleweed||

    you think the population can go to infinity

    Come visit me sometime. There aren't people for miles and miles around. Or indians either.

  • Sevo||

    John Rohan|12.3.11 @ 9:55AM|#
    "So Sevo, you think the population can go to infinity then, without any deterioration in quality of life?"

    Quite amazing how Malthusians project their stupidity.

  • Beavis||

    Living off my tax dollars!

  • Butthead||

    You don't have any tax dollars.

  • dfojaq||

    i'll shit on your face

  • Butthead||

    heheh you said shit.

  • Beavis||

    heh heh oh yeah heh

  • ||

    5 jobs that everyone should have at one point.

    I'm 3.5/5, others?

  • PantsFan||

    Everything but the power.

  • ||

    I've been a restaurant manager, so I got that one (kinda).

    Never worked with kids.

    I sold electronic equipment for a Monkey Wars, and half of that job was doing tech support for customers; hence the '.5'.

  • Apatheist||

    Only 5 and 1 but only for a summer each and they weren't so bad. I was a waiter/cook/cashier at a organic grocery/hot sandwich/pizza/bar general store drinking 90 schilling all day for #5. The work was shitty but most of the hippies that came in there weren't so bad. #1 was a file clerk at a giant law firm so it wasn't manual labor but it sure was menial.

  • ||

    Yep, I was a cook for a long time and needed a job so I took one waiting tables. 99% of people are kind, polite people that are a pleasure to meet, however the remainder are such insufferable shits as to make the profession completely miserable. I drank soooo much for the time I was employed thusly.

  • Apatheist||

    Also I read that article right before coming here. Cracked fucking rules.

  • ||

    Yes, Cracked does indeed fucking rule.

  • PantsFan||

    I loved Cracked magazine as a kid. They were way cooler than Mad.

  • PantsFan||

    Although my older brother had a book of Don Martin comics. The only time I laughed harder was the Calvin & Hobbes books.

  • ||

    I've wondered if the online Cracked is the same people that did the magazine, or did they just buy the name?

    Either way it's pretty good site, especially Punchmaster

  • ||

    Ah, Popsicle Pete

  • ||

    I want to buy the Outrageous Trumpet Insult Cards!

    Hilarious prank! Attach to nearly any trumpet to give its owner what he deserves! "All" the classics! "YOU LOOK LIKE AN ASSHOLE," WHY THE TRUMPET? WAS YOUR MOM'S PENIS BUSY?" Plus "6" more!

  • Rhywun||

    4 out of 5 - all but the kids. I hated every restaurant, cashier, and hotel desk clerk job I ever had but when you're a college kid with no discernible skills in anything, they sure are easy jobs to get. And with hindsight, learning how to deal with getting yelled at by strangers for 40 hours a week seems like a character-building exercise now, rather than the torture it was then. Even a short stint of managing gave me a valuable lesson - the manner in which I was completely blindsided by the combination of tedium plus mind-games that I had to contend with convinced me to steer clear of any such work ever again.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    1- Worked on a dairy farm daily until 16, then whenever my dad went on vacations after that. Also was a stockboy.

    2- Manager of a grocery store my senior year of college.

    3- My current position in a software company is 50% tech support (luckily it's only engineers who use our products).

    4- Camp counselor for an engineering camp.

    5- Nope.

    TLDR: 4/5, and I'm only 23.

  • the lady E Warren||

    I work to expose how banks and wall street are crushing the middle class.
    It's not fair.
    Washington is still rigged for the big guys, and that's not fair.
    Vote for me, and I'll fight for families.

  • ||

    I'll vote for you only if you promise to fight real families.

  • ||

    God, I hope she flops hard.

    On the other hand? Doesn't she represent just about everything there is to hate about Progressives?

    A limousine liberal and Harvard professor, who thinks she's all about the common man--and oversaw TARP?

    If you're lookin' for someone to run against nationally, it's hard to imagine a better opponent. She could be like the Nancy Pelosi of the east coast--but more elitist.

  • Josh||

    Thanks for your complete lack of facts on this. Why is immigration (and illegal immigration) a good think for our country? Harvard economist George Brojas has found that it is a net drain of about $200/person in the US, and over $1k/person in California. Immigrants also receive social assistance at a higher rate than natives. They also never wind up making close to the national average even after being here more. Why should we be happy with this? Also, why do you fail to mention the obvious possible reason illegal immigrants are having more babies: they want a stronger chance of staying in the country.

    http://www.econlib.org/library.....ation.html

    PS Watch Brojas on this, you Ron Paul-hating, wannabe hippie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k6oUOPmaaI

  • Shorter Josh||

    Blah blah I don't like Mexicans

  • ||

    That's pretty much the theme of Borjas's 2005 paper -- which seems to postdate the reference to the EconLib article cited by Josh -- "The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States".

    In this paper Borjas corrects his earlier work to find that immigration is on total a small net positive for the economy as a whole, but that Mexican immigration in particular has the effects of lowering the wages of the lowest skilled natives thus raising the wage differential among natives.

  • ||

    Amazing the way many libertarians make the same arguments, for loose definition of arguments, against those who are against illegal immigration, as liberals make to libertarians about racial preferences and affirmative action

    Liberal: if you oppose affirmative action, you are a RACIST. YOU JUST HATE BROWN PEOPLE

    doesit not give you pause to recognize that you use the same ad hom bullshit against those that support the concept. Of borders and enforcement of laws against illegally crossing same?

    If your argument boils down to you are a RACIST, you lose

    Granted, SOME who oppose BOTH affirmative action, and open borders are racist. But that doesn't mean one who opposes either IS racist.

    Logical consistency... How does it work?

    Oh,also... If you oppose welfare, according to LIBS, you are a racist!

    Ironic

  • ||

    Personally I prefer the argument that the immigration laws are racist AND result in legal inconveniences for rich white European executives.

  • ||

    i'm against illegal immigration from canada (overwhelmingly pasty white people) and mexico.

    mexico happens to be "the problem" because they happen to be a third world country.

    any time you have a first world country abutting a third world country, people from the latter necessarily want to enter to the former.

    duh

    east germany didn't have a big problem preventing illegal immigration, because who the fuck would want to leave west germany to enter east germany, spies excepted.

    i mean... bleh

    regardless, the racial ad homs are stupid, and below anybody who claims to be about rational, reason-based (drink) policy stances, as so many who use the racial ad homs claim.

    you can't have a rational discussion about the reasons affirmative action (specifically racial preferences ) are bad policy, if your political opponent (a liberal) is just calling you "racist" over and over again

    and yet, many libertarians are eager to jump on that train (cue robert smith reference) when it comes to illegal immigration.

  • ||

    immigration laws are no more 'racist' than bank robbery laws are sexist.

    sorry, disproportionaste impact theory doesn't fly with me, and it shouldn't fly with any libertarian.

    if mexico HAPPENED to be a third world country that was filled with lilly white people, it would make exactly zero difference as to the wrongness (imo) of open border policy.

  • ||

    "Immigrants also receive social assistance at a higher rate than natives."

    I guess it depends on what you mean by social assistance.

    Do they receive Social Security and Medicare at higher rates than native born Americans?

    I doubt it.

    And talking about higher rates than native born Americans is a little deceptive too.

    If the rate of people from Swaziland on public assistance has gone up from one quarter of one percent of the population to one half of one percent of the population, then their rate of participation in public assistance programs has gone up 100%...

    Oh, noes! Batten down the hatches?!

    So, even if you're just talking about assisted housing and food stamps, illegal immigrants make up a minority of people on those programs, nationally.

    If you want to cut social services across the board--I'm all ears! But I resent the hell out of the suggestion that people like me are gonna feel better about being ripped off by welfare queens--if only a higher rate of the welfare queens were native born Americans?!

    I don't care where the welfare queens come from--do you?

    Some anti-immigrant people imagine that they're somehow entitled to a chunk of my paycheck--because they're native born Americans. And that's a sick twist on what it means to be an American. Being American means I get to vote. It means I have an obligation to respect other people's rights to liberty and justice.

    Being American shouldn't mean I get to help myself to your paycheck to send my children to school for free. So why differentiate between native born Americans and immigrants that way?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Immigrants also receive social assistance at a higher rate than natives.

    That's just categorically wrong. Cato's study was quite definitive. Troll harder!

  • purple||

    Bullshit. Immigrants make less money, on average than natives, and, thus, qualify for probrams like welfare, food stamps and emergency medical care more easily. You really should apply a sanity test to think-tank studies that you believe just because it validate your preconceptions.

  • ||

    How much of a share do they make up of people who use food stamps and government financed healthcare?

    They're a small portion of the problem--and freeloading native born Americans make up the overwhelming majority of people getting food stamps free healthcare.

    There's nothing about my money being squandered on freeloading, deadbeat native born Americans that makes me feel any better about the freeloading deadbeats.

    So why bring immigration up at all in this context?

    Do you imagine that being born in the United States entitles you to food stamps and free healthcare?

    Because I'm of the opinion that being born in the U.S. only entitles you to the right to vote. Just like everybody else? You get the benefit of the obligation everyone else has to respect your right to liberty and justice as well. If you think being born here (unlike immigrants) entitles you to food stamps, free healthcare, etc.?

    Then maybe you'd rather go live in a socialist country--like Sweden or somewhere? They're all about that!

  • DLM||

    Immigrants make less money

    We should either deport anyone who makes less than the median income or raise the minimum wage so everyone makes more than the median income.

  • ||

    All American children are above average.

  • ||

    But MSNBC and the mainstream news on Limey Island and in France and in Iran say America sucks. Why would all these lucky-not-to-be-American people want to come to this HELLHOLE where public school teachers don't earn enough for meat and mead?/??????

  • Anarch-asshole [redacted]||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  • ||

    Liberals: Global Warming DOOOOOOOOOOOOM

    Conservatives: Overpopulation DOOOOOOOOOOOM

  • ||

    I think the liberals are more concerned about overpopulation--and that's in ecological terms with them too.

    Conservatives are more worried about the nature of our population.

    Can't have German, Irish, Italian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, Chinese Mexican immigrants ruining the country, you know?

    'cause they're not like the rest of us!

  • Apatheist||

    Your historical examples are a good reminder that progressives haven't exactly been saints about "the nature of the population" either.

  • ||

    "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians."

    ----George Orwell

  • ||

    Case In point...

    Liberals... Oppose affirmative action or welfare. ... RACIST

    ken et al.... Oppose open borders... RACIST

    the same as hom illogical rubbish. Amazing the way ideologues will use the same bullshit arguments whe it suits them, that they decry when they are used against them

    Adults can discuss illegal immigration and affirmative action, and welfare and.... Without calling opponents racists. It's instant fail.

  • ||

    I didn't say everybody who oppose open borders is necessarily racist.

    I was pointing out that conservative* (*people who want to keep things the same) anti-immigrant fears about integration have proven historically baseless.

    Irish and Italian people are now as American as St. Patrick's Day parades and Joe DiMaggio.

    But thanks for asking me to elaborate.

    Oh, and if that racist shoe fits, though, feel free to wear it! I'm happy to call anyone out for racism when I see it, but that wasn't what I was going for there.

  • ||

    LOL, this is the same argument Krugman et al make about deficits. It's never led to bad things in the past, so it won't this time either, they claim.

    Claiming that because something played out a certain way in the past, in a very different landscape, it must have the same effect now is the epitome of sloppy thinking. We need to consider how things are likely to play out given the current landscape, not the one that existed in 1900.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Haha well I guess you accept Krugman's premise that deficits never lead to anything bad in the past even though .that's fucking wrong. It's the imperative of the nativists to come up with a reason why it's different this time and they got nothing.

  • ||

    For starters, we don't have an emerging industrial economy (or any other emerging economy) like we did in 1900. We also have much less potentially useful unoccupied land.

    Not sure what you're claiming has happened directly due to deficits in the past. So long as we can continue to borrow relatively cheaply, deficits really aren't a problem; they become a problem only when we can't, which hasn't happened yet.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Uh...we got tons of land. This isn't Singapore. And our economic problems require cheap labor. Guess what's good for that.

    Also, deficits require interest payments, so that sucks. And it DID lead to problems in the '90s. Interest rates were going up and that's what got Clinton and Congress to agree on some restraint. All of the progress and wealth we'd have if not for deficits-that's the hidden cost.

  • ||

    All of the progress and wealth we'd have if not for deficits-that's the hidden cost.

    Quite possibly, but counterfactuals aren't the "historical" evidence Mr Shultz was claiming on ImmigrationMatters.

  • ||

    The unemployment rate was better when we had more illegal immigrants five years ago.

    The economy was healthier when we had more illegal immigrants five years ago.

    If cheap labor is a hindrance to economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the past 20 years.

  • ||

    I never said cheap labor was a hindrance to growth. I said when you have rip-roaring growth like we had in 1900, massive immigration is less of a problem.

    And I'm pretty sure the causation works the other way with your comparison to 5 years ago.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Here in Canada we had a similar economy in the early 2000s and looser immigration. Now we're on top.

  • ||

    conservative* (*people who want to keep things the same)

    That's what the word originally meant, but the political sense has been dislodged from that meaning since the 1930s. Conservatives certainly don't want the status quo on immigration to continue.

  • borders||

    I was pointing out that conservative* (*people who want to keep things the same) anti-immigrant fears about integration have proven historically baseless.

    Irish and Italian people are now as American as St. Patrick's Day parades and Joe DiMaggio.

    When previous waves of immigrants came, they were expected to assimilate and to work. Now, there is a vigorous and active effort to prevent or slow assimilation and there is a massive welfare teat for immigrants to suck on.

    The conservatives, in the old sense of the word which included most progressives with their eugenics propensities, were right about new immigrants changing the nature of America and, sometimes in a bad way. Immigrants from southern and eastern European Catholic countries brought a moderating influence on the more restrictive aspects of Protestant culture, but they also brought illiteracy and a fondness for hierarchical authority as well as for the kind of widespread handout programs that the Catholic Church had been running for centuries. Those cultural differences, except for the illiteracy, can still be seen in ethnic enclaves in the U.S. and in Europe today.

    For the most part, immigrants in the past did assimilate, but the promotion of multiculturalism, bilingualism (really monolingualism in non-English) and racialism today is having a poisonous impact.

  • ||

    Just like those awful Catholics made Scandanavia and Britain into welfare states, corrupting the native hardworking Protestants with their popish predilections. \

    Or something.

  • dev advo||

    Immigrants from southern and eastern European Catholic countries
    ...
    can still be seen in ethnic enclaves in the U.S. and in Europe today.

    Just like those awful Catholics made Scandanavia and Britain

    PIIGS.
    Portugal, Italy, Ireland, ..., Spain

    I won't bother to post links to studies showing that Protestants are more productive than Catholics whenever they live together in the same societies (with Jews more than productive than either) or links comparing the GNPs of Scandanavia and Britain to those of countries in Southern and Eastern Europe.

    Love of the welfare state has migrated throughout the Western world, but it didn't start in Britain, what with its debtors prisons and such.

  • ||

    "When previous waves of immigrants came, they were expected to assimilate and to work."

    When previous waves of Irish immigrants came, they were expected to assimilate?

    They were treated like shit--for being Catholic among other things.

    The impetus behind Prohibition was in no small part a knee jerk reaction against German immigrants.

    Don't get me started on Chinese immigrants being expected to integrate.

    It's absurd.

    If General Tso's chicken, pizza, beer and St. Patrick's day are all a part of American culture now, it isn't because Chinese, Italians, Germans and Irish people, respectively, were expected to integrate.

    It's because they integrated despite all of the hostility that was leveled against them.

    And as far as a willingness to work? Are you saying that Mexicans who come here aren't willing to work hard?

    Are you kidding?!

  • ||

    That borders sure sounds like a cunt, right Ken?

  • ||

    What are you, obsessed with that word now?

    Want a new word to fixate on for next week?

    How 'bout "weenie"?

  • ||

    Lighten up Francis. I'm just having a little fun with you.

    And I find weenie offensive, as it is a sexist epithet akin to calling me a nigger or a gook.

  • ||

    Lighten up Francis. I'm just having a little fun with you.

    And I find weenie offensive, as it is a sexist epithet akin to calling me a nigger or a gook.

  • ||

    Lighten up Francis. I'm just having a little fun with you.

    And I find weenie offensive, as it is a sexist epithet akin to calling me a nigger or a gook.

  • ||

    You need to lighten up on that submit button. Just sayin'.

  • ||

    I know, right? WTF happened there? The times of the posts don't make sense.

  • ||

    Why are you even bothering with a clueless idiot like Ken? He'll get your jokes at about the same time Hell freezes over. He's denser than a neutron star.

  • ||

    again, it's an irrelevant comparison

    irish immigrants were treated like shit

    and then there's indentured servitude.

    regardless, irish immigrants were LEGAL immigrants (in general)

    the current issue is ILLEGAL immigration

    and i agree with ken that OF COURSE the mexicans who come here are willing to work hard. ime, they work damn hard, for (usually) shit wages.

    i have also seen no evidence they are any more prone (if anything, they are less prone from what i have seen) to engage in criminal activity than people here legally.

    again, tangential to the issue, but i agree with you

  • ||

    Actually, the Irish in the US got better treatment than the ones in UK-controlled Ireland.

  • MWG||

    "regardless, irish immigrants were LEGAL immigrants (in general)"

    Irish immigrants were LEGAL because there were almost 0 laws on the books restricting immigration unless of course your skin was of a yellowish hue.

  • ||

    well, duh. and now there are laws.

    again, it's that pesky thing called "rule o law"

    there is nothing in our constitution that requires us to let every person who crawls, runs, leaps, or whatevers over our border into the US to be able to say "home base" and be afforded all the benefits etc. of being a citizen, or even the benefit of being allowed to stay.

    iow, that was then, this is now.

  • MWG||

    You're arguing from the point of view that might makes right or the law is the law. Would you have defended the fugitive slave act or Jim Crow on the bases that those are the laws and should therefore be enforced?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Uh yes thank you MWG that's what I've been clumsily trying to convey since yesterday.

  • dev advo||

    it isn't because Chinese, Italians, Germans and Irish people, respectively, were expected to integrate

    Were there State laws mandating that Chinese, Italians, Poles and Germans be instructed in tax supported schools in their native languages? Were there political agitators teaching the new arrivals to march in the streets complaining about discrimination and whining about the loss of their cultures, demanding taxpayer handouts for ethnically themed parades and cultural events? Were they taught to demand minority set-aside programs and affirmative action quotas? Were they taught to demand rigged voting schemes to guarantee that members of their own ethnic group would be elected to office? Were schools in America teaching the new arrivals that they were and are being treated horribly, that America generally treated anyone from a different culture horribly, that America itself was a horrible country? Were there phalanxes of lawyers ready to file lawsuits claiming racial discrimination for real or fabricated grievances?

    There has been a concerted effort to slow or prevent assimilation in order to keep new immigrant groups alienated and isolated and in order to form them into America-hating, liberal voting blocks. That effort didn't exist during past waves of immigration. Previously, it was just assumed that immigration was a privilege and that new immigrants should learn English as quickly as possible and try to conform to the behavioral standards of the rest of society. Now, it is all about ethnic grievances and preserving the ethnic culture rather than adopting the American one.

    Assimilation doesn't mean giving up ethnic foods.

    The fact that hostility was sometimes leveled against new immigrant groups has nothing to do with the expectation to assimilate, except insofar as the hostility was motivated by the fact that new immigrant groups didn't conform to the behavioral standards of native society.

    And as far as a willingness to work? Are you saying that Mexicans who come here aren't willing to work hard?

    Some of them are. Some of them aren't. If you drive by a construction site, you frequently see a bunch of Latinos busting their humps. If you go to a bad neighborhood, you see a bunch of Latinos looking like thugs and laying around doing nothing in the middle of the day. If you go to a publicly funded hospital, you will see the emergency room lined up wall-to-wall with Latinos who speak no English with many of the Latinas pregnant.

    Those who support an open border policy tend to focus on the hardworking Latino immigrants and pretend as if the much less visible sponges, layabouts and criminals don't even exist.

  • ||

    "If General Tso's chicken, pizza, beer and St. Patrick's day are all a part of American culture now, it isn't because Chinese, Italians, Germans and Irish people, respectively, were expected to [assimilate].

    The point isn't that those people gave up their native foods--it's that they (and their native foods) became part of American culture despite all the hostility leveled against them.

    And all that hostility was pointless. They were assimilated anyway--resistance is futile.

    One of the reasons we need fresh infusions of immigrants is because the birth rate among Hispanics who move here drops with succeeding generations. As Latin women are assimilated into American culture, their birthrate likewise drops closer in line with the average American population.

    "Were there State laws mandating that Chinese, Italians, Poles and Germans be instructed in tax supported schools in their native languages?"

    The last time I checked, the people most upset about having their children taught in bilingual schools were the parents of immigrants whose primary language wasn't English.

    Hispanic parents want their children taught in English! Most of that bilingual crap is inflicted on students by public school administrations. And are there still schools where Spanish language instruction is required? Where students are forced to learn in Spanish against their will?

    I wanna see it. Show me the link!

    "The fact that hostility was sometimes leveled against new immigrant groups has nothing to do with the expectation to assimilate, except insofar as the hostility was motivated by the fact that new immigrant groups didn't conform to the behavioral standards of native society."

    My point was that these people assimilated despite the expectation that they couldn't be assimilated. You want to see people resist assimilation--try forcing them to assimilate. I can't think of any better way to slow the assimilation process down. ...although keeping their residency status as cloudy as possible might come pretty close.

  • DLM||

    They were treated like shit--for being Catholic among other things.

    They took it too personally. That was all really just the usual hazing.

  • BigT||

    Earlier immigrants wanted desperately to assimilate, to become Americans. Not so much today.

  • ||

    Ethnic groups back then were far more segregated and insular than Mexican immigrants are today.

    ...and the immigrants back then? They were assimilated anyway. That's the point! It didn't matter whether the immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th century wanted to be assimilated--or not. There was no way to resist.

    That's one of the biggest absurdities of this. Anti-immigrant types would have us so scared that Mexican immigrants won't assimilate into American culture. Everywhere else in the world--including Mexico--the people are afraid that their local cultures are being inundated and overwhelmed by American culture...

    I lived in Merida for about a year--about a year and a half ago I came back to the U.S. Things there has become so Americanized. The fear that Mexican immigrants aren't assimilating is absurd. Mexicans in Mexico are assimilating into American culture!

    The fear of immigrants not assimilating into American culture here in the U.S. is the very last aspect of the immigration issue we should be worried about.

    Immigrants living here couldn't resist assimilation en mass--even if they wanted to.

  • ||

    yes. i concede you didn't say that. you referenced conservatives and then implied that.

    what i am saying is people should be able to discuss illegal immigration, borders (open or not open) , sovereignty etc. without claiming a racial animus or bias.

    the reason i oppose (and i assume you oppose) affirmative action is not because i am racist against "people of color" but we know damn well SOME people who oppose AA *are*.

    iow, those who oppose affirmative action are in the same "camp" as white supremacists. they also oppose it

    do i really need to point out the logical fallacy of assuming that there is a racial bias to any given person who opposes AA?

    let's also remember, some of the strongest arguments i have heard against illegal immigration come from immigrants from mexico and other "people of color" who went through all the hoops to gain citizenship (in many cases, serving in our military) and strongly resent those who broke the law being given the same benefits they had to work for.

    for those lucky enough to be born here, you don't HAVE to work for the benefits of US citizenship

    for those unlucky enough to be born a poor mexican (rich mexicans are doing fine), you don't just get it for free.

    is that fair?

    no, not in the cosmic sense, to paraphrase tom sowell

    but neither is it cosmically fair that if you are lucky enough to be born of rich parents, you get certain benefits that you don't get if you are born to poor parents

    life isn't fair, nor is citizenship

  • ||

    What would a country run by people immersed in current Mexican culture and current Mexican legal expectations look like? Would it be a good, prosperous place to live?

    Hmm. If only we had an example....

  • Cytotoxic||

    We'd call it Mexico. It would have lowish inflation, decent growth at 5% despite drug violence, and an emerging middle class. Not my favorite place, but not bad. They got Mariachimen at least.

  • ||

    We've been hearing about Mexico emerging for 20 years. It's a shithole.

  • ||

    it's also somewhat specious to refer to "mexican culture" to the extent that it varies widely from region to region and also from those who tend to identify with spanish heritage (mostly paler skinned and lily white people who statistically speaking are much more likely to be wealthy in mexico) vs. those who tend to identify with native heritage.

    mexico is actually a pretty racist country. one thing i noticed that when you see billboards etc. for resorts, they almost always show light skinned and even blonde etc. people.

    it's actually a rather tense dynamic.

    furthermore, you have the whole zapatista etc. dynamic and those who identify more with the pre-invasion culture vs. those who want to ignore the pre-invasion culture etc.

    just like the culture of a redneck growing up in alabama is different from the culture of a surfer growing up in orange county is different from the culture of a passive aggressive liberal seattle nitwit growing up in seattle is different from the culture of a downeaster growing up in a fishing village in maine, etc.

    mexico is a large, and very diverse (culturally speaking) country. a much smaller, more homogenous country like france etc. has a much more singular culture than mexico does. (it also helps that france has a ministry of culture that can fine and impose other sanctions on individuals and companies that it sees as diluting their sacred french culture)... e.g. using "le weekend"in an advertisement

  • MWG||

    It depends. It's a big country and calling it a shithole would be like calling the US a racist shithole because of rual Mississippi.

  • hepto||

    except that Mexico really is a shithole. people immigrate from Mexico to Mississippi, but not the other way around

  • ||

    my roomate's aunt made $189458 so far just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site...dd77.ulinks.net

  • ||

    What is she doing to make all that money?

  • ||

    I never even thought about it liek that before.

    www.invisi-www.tk

  • ||

    Sandbanana tells his side of the story in today's NY Times.

    Direct quote:

    "I never diddled them kids. Them kids diddled me!"

  • ||

    Jerry Sandusky was spotted at Wal-Mart today. He was confused by a sign that said "Boys' pants half-off"

  • ||

    Man that joke is from the Michael Jackson case... the first one.

    This country needs some new pederast jokes, we're rehashing the same molester jokes from 1993. I'll bet the Chinese come up with new jokes every time a famous person over there is caught molesting kids. They're probably not funny, as humor is impossible in Mandarin, but at least they're new.

  • aldsjf||

    i'll shit in your mouth for a dollar

  • ||

    Wait, who gets the dollar?

  • ||

    What's the difference between Niel Armstrong and Michael Jackson?

    ...Niel Armstrong WALKED ON THE MOON...

    and Michael Jackson....fucked little boys in the ass.

  • ||

    See, that's okay, but I feel that as a nation we can do better.

  • Mike E||

    What is the difference between Jerry Sandusky and Chris Berman?

    When Sandusky says, "He could...go...all...the...way!" he isn't referring to football.

  • ||

    Okay, we're getting closer, but that wasn't really pedo-specific. I do believe, though, that we are on the road to recovery.

    I wish I had a greater knowledge of college football and could help more, but I don't. The only thing I've got is 'Sandbanana' which I stole from Fist of Etiquette.

    Here's Handbanana: the murky origins of Sandbanana.

  • Mike E||

    Change it to this?

    "When Sandusky says, "He could...go...all...the...way!", he is about to touchdown on a little boy.

  • ||

    Much better. We're beginning to heal, as a nation.

    I've been trying to incorporate a 'Jerry's Kids' reference into a joke all morning, but am totally blanking.

  • Mike E||

    What is the difference between Jerry Sandusky and the TSA?

    Nothing.

  • ||

    That's a low blow , man.

    Sandbanana might be a monster, but comparing him to the TSA is going over the line.

  • Mike E||

    I am just reaching for the low hanging fruit.

  • Mike E||

    I am just reaching for the low hanging fruit.

    Which, now that I think of it, is what Sandusky does.

  • ||

    Damn I almost posted the same thing, but f5'd the bitch.

  • ||

    What is the difference between Jerry Sandusky and the TSA?

    Jerry Sandusky will buy your kid a present after he fondles them.

  • ||

    Q. How is Jerry Sandusky like global warming?

    A. He's not. Global warming doesn't fuck little boys in the ass.

  • Mike E||

    But the government will in order to fight global warming.

  • ||

    You know what Jerry Sandusky says about little kids...they're all pink on the inside.

  • ||

    What did Jerry Sandusky say to Bernie Fine?

    "I'll trade you two fives for a ten."

  • ||

    That was pretty good. You make it up?

  • ||

    I tweaked an oldie a little for the double-pedo angle.

  • ||

    What did Jerry Sandusky say to the 8 year old boy?
    Hey, little boy, want some free candy?

    What did Bernie Fine say to the 8 year old boy?
    Hey, little boy, want to buy some candy?

  • ||

    Here's an article for all of you racist, xenophobic, aborto-Jesus freaks.

    The topic: Rising black atheism.

    Discuss.

  • ||

    How's this for atheism: The NFL announced that they're going to flag the Broncos' offense for 12 men on the field every play if Tebow doesn't leave Jesus on the sideline.

  • ||

    Have you always made this many football related posts, or is this new? Maybe an attempt to "fit in" with the "guys"?

    'Cause it seems a little forced.

  • ||

    Being in the fantasy football league with fellow H&R people may have caused the lines to blur, though I don't think I'm making that many football posts.

    I've been a football fan since I was little, not that it matters. And I suspect you know how little "fitting in" here means to me.

  • ||

    It is not forced as Tulpa has both engaged in football discussions and employed football metaphors in other posts.

    If you were referring to Epi, you would have a point.

  • ||

    I don't know, man. We'd need to do some analysis on the posts. The Tulpster has seemed uber-bitchy of late and consumed with this Tebow fellow. I'm wondering if the two aren't somehow connected.

  • ||

    I can vouch for Tulpa's football fandom. He posts regularly incessantly on the Reason Hit&Run; J sub D Memorial Fantasy Football League.

    Oh, and the cocksucker (sorry Tulpa) is 11-1 and has locked down the #1 seed. Meanwhile, my "draft a kicker in Round 4" strategy has not paid off as planned.

  • ||

    Thanks for the good word, sloopy. I take back what I said about your ass not being "Sandusky-worthy".

  • ||

    And don't feel bad -- my trade of Steven Jackson and Cam Newton for Peyton Hillis and Andre Johnson has to go down as one of the worst in history. I really wish I still had Cam in case the Pack sits AR during the fantasy playoffs...

  • ||

    He may be uber-bitchy of late, but I can vouch for the bona fides of his football posts.

    As some others have pointed out, there are multitudes of NFL players who are openly Christian. Every time I go to an NFL game, the most recent of which was last month in Indianapolis at Lucas Oil Stadium, there are at least two dozen players who gather near mid field, kneel, hold hands and pray after the game. My wife and I always make a point to see the whole game and to check out who fraternizes with who after the game.

  • ||

    the most recent of which was last month in Indianapolis at Lucas Oil Stadium,

    I call bullshit. There's not an NFL team in Indianapolis.

  • ||

    At least they have an NFL offense!

  • ||

    You're using an awfully loose definition of the word "offense."

  • ||

    The Tulpster has seemed uber-bitchy of late and consumed with this Tebow fellow.

    It's not just me, though. Tebow is easily the biggest story in the NFL this year...a fact I absolutely hate, but it is a fact. We have an 11-0 team, an 0-11 team, and a really exciting young QB in Carolina, for chrissakes, so I don't get the attention he gets for ekeing out a few of wins against bad teams.

  • Old Mexican||

    This certainly deserves its own post.

    Re: John Rohan,

    Setting aside the numerous problems in essentially replacing one cultural group with another, can someone tell me why anyone doesn't want the population to decline?


    A decline in the population would mean a lowering of the standard of living. See below.

    Fewer people mean more resources available to everybody and much less strain on the environment.


    You can't get to those more "resources" with fewer people. What has increased people's standard of living has been division of labor and specialization. Besides, this "better for the environment" is a fallacy: If fewer people is "better for the environment", if follows then that NO people would mean the best possible scenario for the environment, right? Who would be left to appreciate the result?

    Yes, it makes it harder for current workers to support senior citizens, but then maybe we need to change the pension system from the ponzi scheme it is to a separate fund, and then it won't matter whether the population goes up or down.


    You're talking about two separate problems: welfarism and population. Whatever scheme politicians come up to keep a pension plan, the reality is that retirement is a very recent invention which is based on consuming savings, something that in economic terms will always be counterproductive as it leaves less capital for the following generations to tap from.

    When it comes to population, less is not necessarily more. The population level of a region tends to stabilize when people's standard of living and wealth increases, as children's survival rate increases. But saying that the population has to necessarily decrease is a notion based on bad or wrong economic ideas.

  • purple||

    +>0

  • Old Mexican||

    The astronomical fertility of illegal immigrants has been presented as a menace, but the presence of illegal and mixed-status families within our borders is the only thing keeping U.S. fertility figures bobbing around at replacement rate.


    Well, let's get one thing straight: Liberal fools are not replacing themselves, because I see plenty of corn-fed, rosy-cheeked, God-fearing, Bible-thumping Southerners with litters of blonde, blue-eyed babes alongside Hispanic families.

    Which is all right for me. Let them Liberals die off...

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's true! We need immigration to accelerate the process here in Canada. Great points all of them.

  • ||

    Are anarchist assholes welcome?

  • ||

    if we could scoop the population of eugene oregon up and dump them in calgary, it would be awesome

  • purple||

    Let the Hispanics come in droves, but keep it legal and don't make them wards of the welfare state.

  • ||

    Yes, let's legalize open migration and get rid of the welfare state. That's what a lot of posters here would ultimately advocate for.

  • purple||

    Ultimately, yes, but in the mean time many of them see nothing wrong with unrestricted immigration, advocate ignoring the rule of law, insist that illegal immigrants don't negatively impact welfare state budgets and call anyone who disagrees with them racist.

  • *||

    all without ending the welfare state

  • ||

    however, GIVEN the welfare state we have, that's a pipe dream.

    we are a LOT more likely to legalize illegal immigration, at least in a de facto sense than we EVER are to dismantling the welfare state.

    heck, even repubs have proposed and/or voted for "amnesty " bills etc. whereas even the idea of dismantling the welfare state is simply a faraway dream.

    so, let's accept that whatever one's stance is vis a vis immigration (legal or otherwise) it is within the context of a welfare state. that much will not change

  • ||

    Cain just announced..he's out.

  • ||

    That Ginger White is a real ken[t]!

  • ||

    At least he wasn't stealing the white wimminz. The lynching in the press would have been worse.

  • Mike E||

    Only Bill Clinton can get away with lying like that.

  • ||

    Is he going to marry Newt as Rick Perry suggested in that debate?

  • ||

    Well, his campaign said he will make his endorsement in the near future, so I'm sure Newt has proposed.

    I eagerly await the bowing and scraping from Newt, Romney, Perry and Bachmann to get that endorsement.

  • Mike E||

    If American's knew how screwed Social Security and Medicare are, they would be begging immigrants to move here and start paying payroll taxes.

  • purple||

    Sure, let future generations deal with a problem that will be even bigger than the one today instead of fixing the problem with the programs. As long as you get yours and don't have to deal with the issue, I guess everything will be all right.

    The idea that immigrants should be used to temporarily prop up bad government programs is so self-serving. No rational person of good will should ever adopt that argument.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Obviously, Mike E is not rational and not of good will. No sense responding to his points.

  • ||

    It looks like Houston is getting ready to do the BCS a huge favor by choking.

    Jesus, I sure hope scUM doesn't get that last at-large bid.

  • purple||

    You Who for the Fail!

  • boy or girl||

    wow!

  • shamalamadingdong||

    "The astronomical fertility of illegal immigrants has been presented as a menace..."

    Why are they astronomically fertile? Bigger dicks, do they fuck more, do their women ovulate 24/7???

  • chinaman||

    No needa big dick to maka baby. Chineseah peoples know this.

  • ||

    i am changing my assessment of the UC davis pepper spraying. i said it appeared to be clearly excessive force.

    UNLESS this video is somehow doctored or not representative of what really happened, based on this info, it DOES appear justified.

    this video demonstrates yet again, how the media (oh, the media that allegedly is so prone to fawn over police lol) can create a false impression of police force.

    if you can watch this video, and come to the conclusion the pepper spraying was unjustified - groovy...

    encircling the police , and telling them you won't let them leave unless they release previously arrested police, and refusing to clear a path after being warned repeatedly you will be pepper sprayed if you don't move?

    sorry.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ture=share

  • ||

    One question: who initiated the force?

    Being "afraid" or "surrounded" is no reason to initiate violence on someone else. And at 1:10, the cop on the bullhorn threatens them with arrest, not with violence. Then goes on to say at 2:00, regardless of their reason for remaining, they are unlawfully assembled. He then orders the line forward to arrest people...who were not actively resisting arrest.

    Fucking nonaggression principle, how does it work? (Hint: it doesn't have to for the cops.)

    Oh, and the video jumps around, so I'll say what you usually say here: it could have been doctored so your "evidence" is useless.

  • ||

    They are gathered on property whose owner's agents have requested they leave. That's initiation of force, unless you propose making trespassing legal.

  • ||

    The school is public right? And these students ostensibly paid tuitions so shouldn't the universitys hands be tied as long as the protest stayed non-violent?

    And was the UOF really necessary here? Even after the multiple warnings?

  • ||

    The difference is, that this video shows that the video you believed in was itself doctored. If you can produce a video that disputes the authenticity of this one you are free to do so.

  • ||

    right. and also this video (unless a remarkably well done fabrication) clearly shows MENS REA , specifically that the students outright stated their intent - to block the cops in and not let them leave unless their demands are met

    sorry sloopy, but that's a HUGE factor in assessment of reasonableness of this force.

    they knew exactly what they were doing, they were given AMPLE warning (and time) to stop doing it, and they were even warned what would happen - pepper spraying ... if they didn't comply.

    that's about as "textbook" a justification for pepper spraying, as you could want.

    heck, one could make the argument that the cops were TOO restrained (that's subjective obviously) in using force... because they waited too long, which tends to often embolden people .

    note they don't use the pepper spray until after backup arrives (on the other side of their circle and they refuse to comply still.

    again, this isn't even a CLOSE question

    and yet another great example of how , when cops do the right thing, video can help them.

    and of course, that's with the understanding that it may not help them if disingenuous fucksticks only show a very truncated video.

  • ||

    this video (unless a remarkably well done fabrication) clearly shows MENS REA , specifically that the students outright stated their intent - to block the cops in and not let them leave unless their demands are met

    One disadvantage of being part of the people's mike: if the person you're repeating makes a threatening statement, then you just did too. If that professional anarchist guy who was leading the chants* had said that stuff about "if you let them go we will let you leave" but no one else said that, the police would have had a harder time justifying force. Ouch.

    The overwhelming feeling I get while watching this is, how. fucking. stupid. the protesters who sat in the cops' way was. They couldn't POSSIBLY be stupid enough to think the police were going to let the arrested people go.

    *and suspiciously absent from the area getting pepper sprayed, I might add)

  • ||

    based on my experience, both in being part OF protests, and in seeing it from behind the shield of my helmet, people in a protest get caught up in the drama, the glory, the spectacle of it all. intellectually speaking, they all KNOW the cops are not going release the people back at the station based on their demands. they could do a hunger strike, but that would require actual discipline and mental and moral strength.

    and of course, they also WANT to create martyrs and view themselves as victims. it's all about framing.

    there's a certain cachet amongst liberals in being a victim. it gives you cred. VICTIM CRED.

    "i survived police brutality"

    notice how they start referring to the protesters as "children" when the whole pepper spray thing comes up

    iow, they are no longer adults, they are helpless CHILDREN

    this is similar to the seattle incident, where they got extra "victim cred" with the OH SO SYMPATHETIC 80-something year old woman and the fake pregnant woman

    and women in general. the same libs who are all for equality, will ALWAYS concentrate on the gender issue "they pepper sprayed a defenseless WOMAN" etc. when these kind of things happen, like the person's gender is at all relevant

    victim cred!

  • ||

    I assume they were able to individually identify people chanting and pepper sprayed them exclusively, as they were the ones "initiating force."

    Or did they just spray indiscriminately, going on a guilt-by-association-is-good-enough-for-use-of-force mentality?

  • ||

    again,the initiation of force thing is a non-starter.

    the issue is that the crowd surrounded them, they offered AMPLE warnings to the people to disperse and clear the way or they would be pepper sprayed and they subsequently refused... and they were pepper sprayed.

    the fact that the "leader" expressed intent verbally is not dispositive. it's merely very relevant. it just makes it oh the more justified, because if you were in the crowd and heard that shit, you could go "oh fuck. i'm not going ot be any part of this shit. unlawfully restraining police is one form of "protest" i aint down with. passive resistance: yes. blocking the right of ingress/egress of LEO's?: fuck no

    again, i don't know what your point is vis a vis the "initiation of force" (for whatever your definition of force is). it's not relevant to UOF under the law

    are you continuing to make a normative argument? if so, why can't you qualify it as such?

    i am well aware that in the sloopyverse, the rules of force would be different.

  • ||

    It hurts, sloopy, to know that you did not read the thing I wrote about the People's Mike, even after I labored for several minutes on crafting it.

  • ||

    Shit, man. I completely missed that comment.

    And it's a very valid point, but doesn't counter what I commented. I just said unless they were able to identify the people who were doing it, they were initiating force based on association...in this case based on the proximity of where they heard "people" making threats.

    It would be akin to arresting everybody in a section of a football stadium when 50 people (out of 1000) throw bottles at the field.

  • ||

    The one cop also individually went to each person blocking the path and told them they were liable to have force used against them. Several minutes before the force was applied.

  • ||

    Are those the people who got sprayed? Because I didn't see any of them actively resist when they were being dragged away.

    Being heavier than what someone can easily pull =/= actively resisting.

  • ||

    If you tell a person to leave your property, and they just sit down where they were, that's not passive.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Tulpa and Dunphy are right. Sometimes the cop-scepticism here mutates into presumption of guilt.

  • Riggs is an idiot||

    "people in a protest get caught up in the drama, the glory, the spectacle of it all"

    They also start to believe that they won't be held personally responsible for their own behavior, i.e. they acquire the mob mentality.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Seems more like a party mentality turning into a mob mentality, but many still think it's a party.

    Authorized employees of the property owner - who also happen to be cops - make three demands that the crowd disperse. Rather than dispersing, they hem in the cops and ("nonviolently" of course) threaten to keep hemming them in until some arrested protesters are released.

    (if they wanted their buddies released, why not chip in and raise some bail money?)

    The cops stand around for a while, after the crowd "nonviolently" refuses to disperse after being ordered to do so, and traps the police inside the crowd. Try that in NY and see what happens! Good thing for them it was campus cops, the easygoing kind of cops despite their scary face-shields.

    In NY and Oakland, they would have read the literal riot act and started smacking some people on the head and other body parts.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But I expect that the mainstream histories and documentaries of this event will be heavy on the "OMG pepper spraying these peaceful idealistic students!" It's like the &^%$ing Sixties all over again.

    I suspect that at least some of the "leaders" knew what they were doing - congregate after being ordered to disperse, block cops, and it's all "peaceful" protest against some previous arrests - and they not only provoke an incident but *forcing* an incident to happen - then hold another protest to protest the new arrests and so forth.

    They are finally finding a cause - protest the arrest of their members in previous occupations. Protest the arrests at the protests against the arrests, lather, rinse, repeat.

    Then the documentaries about idealistic protesters fighting The Man and getting brutalized by police - dear Lord, the power of propaganda!

  • ||

    I suspect that at least some of the "leaders" knew what they were doing

    Which is why they were nowhere near the pepper spray area.

  • ||

    1) my assessment is predicated on the assumption that the video is an accurante representation. that same assumption (and explained as such) was why i came to initial assessment that it was UNjustified.

    regardless, it is clearly MORE comprehensive than the original video, since it shows a lot of extra information, such as the numerous warnings given about the pepper spraying IF the protesters didn't clear a path and the video does show them stating explicitly they would not let cops leave if they didn't release arresteees, etc.

    UOF assessment, like poker, is often a game of limited information. after watching this video, i have FAR more information

    2) this "who initiated force" stuff may be nice for a college stoner bullshit session, but it's irrelevant as to UOF law and policy

    again, i am not making a normative argument . in your perfect world, UOF would be judged based on this assessment. however, in the world we live in... it's not

    my assessment is an assessment based on the law (case law etc. ) and also imo common sense.

    if you want to argue that SHOULD be the law, then fine. i disagree, but at least you qualify it.

    you never qualify it, so i'm not sure, but it seems you are saying the law SHOULD be as you propose and not that the law IS as you state (the former is an opinion, the latter is just factually wrong)

    officers are required to conduct themselves, and that includes UOF's in accordance with case law, policy, etc.

    what i saw in the previous video, in and of itself, clearly did NOT establish a sufficient fact pattern to be justified under UOF law

    what is presented in this video DOES.

    *if* the media had access to this video,etc. and only presented the truncated video, imo that was grossly dishonest (not surprising) and of course anti-police (despite the reason canard that the media is oh so pro police)

    however, i have no idea if thye had this video or not

    again, i don't subscribe to this "nonaggression principle" nor is it relevant to analysis of the law AS IT IS . because it's not ... the law.

    regardless, if you surround cops, make threats taht you are not goign to let them leave unless they release certain arrestees, and after repeated warnings/requests to let the cops leave by the cops and warnings that you are going to get pepper sprayed if you do not... you are most definitely BY MY DEFINITION of "aggression" being aggressive, but that's a semantical wank about the meaning of the word

    it's tangential to the UOF issue which is - if you do so, you can be justifiably pepper sprayed.

  • ||

    regardless, it is clearly MORE comprehensive than the original video,

    even though it is a cut-n-paste job.

    and the video does show them stating explicitly they would not let cops leave if they didn't release arresteees, etc.

    It does? I can hear it, but can certainly not identify the people consequently sprayed as stating anything.

    this "who initiated force" stuff may be nice for a college stoner bullshit session, but it's irrelevant as to UOF law and policy

    Or it would be a good supreme court case to determine if policy can supersede law IRT UOF.

    again, i don't subscribe to this "nonaggression principle" nor is it relevant to analysis of the law AS IT IS . because it's not ... the law.

    Obviously you don't. And it's not the law because that may jeopardize the monopoly on undiscriminate UOF cops currently enjoy.

    regardless, if you surround cops, make threats taht you are not goign to let them leave unless they release certain arrestees, and after repeated warnings/requests to let the cops leave by the cops and warnings that you are going to get pepper sprayed if you do not... you are most definitely BY MY DEFINITION of "aggression" being aggressive, but that's a semantical wank about the meaning of the word

    A couple of points here. 1) you can't determine if the ones who got sprayed were doing anything other than passively resist. 2) So sitting still while those around you is considered "aggression?" And 3) What you dismissively call a "semantical wank," many of us would call a care argument.

    I'm gonna leave alone the fact that at 2:00+, the cop says they will use force on anyone present, regardless of the reason. You can feel free to attempt a justification for that if you want to.

  • ||

    Oh come now. Only evidence that backs up police accounts should be subject to skepticism. It's literally impossible for non-cops to edit video.

  • ||

    EXACTLY. and note that it is astronomically easier to just show a truncated video (as in the first video) vs. fabricating all the statements made by the protesters about threatening to keep blocking the cops until the arrestees were released, etc.

    iow, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it MOSTL LIKELY is a duck

    could this video be a fabrication?

    sure... that's why i HEDGE my assessment based on an "assuming arguendo" thang. as noted.

  • ||

    I wonder what the chances are of Reason posting this longer video in an official blog post like they did with the other version.

  • ||

    it also pretty clearly demonstrates that sloopy and i occupy different universes in regards to perception of force.

    iow, if he doesn't believe that (given the assumption that this video is accurate representation) the fact pattern as presented in this video justifies pepper spraying, then we are simply always going to argue past each other, because ... again, to paraphrase thomas sowell... we have a different vision... different fundamental underlying assessment of how the world works

    and again, if he wants to argue that the world SHOULD be as he wishes and force SHOULD be assessed based on his "nonagression" principle... groovy, but he needs to understand that is not the law

    so, he can't argue that cops "get away" with brutality in cases like this, except with the qualification that what he defines as brutality is NOT what the law (case law) etc. defines as such

    and of course cops are going to "get away" with acting in accordance with the law" however much sloopy doesn't like that law.

  • ||

    For as much as it pains me to agree with a cop, even a libertarian one ;-), I've got to come down on the side of the law on this one (god that hurt). For as much as we'd like it to be otherwise, there can be differences between legal and moral.

    That aside, I think it could be justifiably argued, as Tulpa did, that the students initiated force by not complying with the wishes of the property owner (trustee).

    The only legitimate purpose for government is to protect the rights of the individual. In this case, the individual being wronged was the property owner.

  • ||

    Disclaimer: If this video is representative of the facts.

  • ||

    I'm just saying that this video is obviously edited and should be treated as such.

    And I will repeat: in no video did I see a policeman identify the individual culprits (re: threats, etc). What I did see was a cop spraying everyone in an area when there's no way he could have identified them as each being deserving of force. Also, I saw no active resistance when they were removed, leading me to believe the force was not necessary.

    And I will repeat: being too heavy to move easily =/= active resistance.

  • ||

    And Tulpa, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I'm getting ready to walk out the door to do what I do.* I'll happily continue it in the morning, though.

    *expect my FFL totals to be low tomorrow due to my actions last night and tonight.

  • ||

    That's the difference between me and you: I never let doing what I do get in the way of a night of H&R commentary.

  • ||

    jesus. again, the sloopyverse UOF continuum =/= the real world UOF continuum

    cops are required to adhere to the former

    when sloopy is king, he can rewrite the rules

  • ||

    Fuck you, dunphy.

    Your UOF contiuum is:
    cops= gods

  • ||

    sloopy, that's demonstrably false considering when all i had was the original video to go on, i claimed the cops USED EXCESSIVE FORCE based on what i saw. now, it's abundantly clear they did not

    unlike you, i am willing to criticize cops and call them out when they (appear to have done wrong) and applaud them when they appear to have done RIGHT

    this is now... the latter

    they exercised remarkable restraint, they had not only their egress to consider, but also had several arrestees in custody that they had both legal responsibility for, and had to take to the precinct for processing

    you are demonstrating that you are NOT willing to consider evidence.

    the cops are always wrong in your eyes

    this is about as blatant an example of justified force as you could ask for.

    surrounded by a crowd DEMANDING the release of prisoners in custody before they "let" the cops go.

    it's simply abhorrent, and illegal behavior on part of these scumbags. these are NOT protesters.

    i participated in protests, and i will again in the future (most recently for the CAO protests). but this is not protest. this is willful unlawful imprisonment, and if you were in the midst of a crowd restraining your movement and making demands to you (that you would not and should not submit to), you would be damn well justified in pepper spraying those assmunches too

    these lawbreakers got off EASY

    remarkable restraint on part of the cops and good tactics as well

    clearly, you are not interesting in rule of law, or even CONSIDERING an officer's (or anybody else's apparently) actions in light of both their legal duties and their legal rights

  • ||

    "i claimed the cops USED EXCESSIVE FORCE based on what i saw. now, it's abundantly clear they did not"

    Why didn't they just zip-tie them and take them into custody?

    If what the peaceful protestors did justified macing them in the face--while they were sitting on the ground? Then why didn't it justify a simple zip-tie and arrest?

    I understand that resisting arrest justifies the use of force to force compliance. But outside of that, it doesn't seem to me that disobeying a police officer justifies the police macing someone--in the face? Any more than a police officer disobeying a protestor justifies a protestor macing a police officer in the face.

    When you come across peaceful protestors sitting on the ground--like they want to be arrested--and they don't do what you tell them to do, why not just arrest them?

    Wouldn't arresting them likewise have broken their oh so scary, peaceful protestor sit-in circle?

    I read your defense and it still sounds like, "Civil disobedience is still disobedience-bonk, bonk on the head!"

    If what you're saying instead is that this cop was surrounded by sitting, peaceful protestors--and fighting for his life? I'm not buying that either.

  • ||

  • ||

    If what the peaceful protestors did justified macing them in the face--while they were sitting on the ground? Then why didn't it justify a simple zip-tie and arrest?

    That wouldn't be terribly simple surrounded by 20x as many of their friends. Do you have any idea how difficult and time-consumming it is to ziptie someone's hands together without their cooperation? Handcuffs are DESIGNED for that task. Zipties aren't.

    Oh, and of course you've got 200 of their friends surrounding you while you've got your back turned.

  • Ohio National Guard||

    Those UC Davis cops are such wimps.

    You can suppress student protests - ask us how!

  • Riggs is an idiot||

    I'm not ashamed to say that I was sure that the initial video severely distorted the incident in order to make the police look. That's standard practice for these kinds of idiot protests.

  • ||

    Yeah, even in the original video, it was plain for anyone to see--how those vicious protestors were bashing that peaceful stream of pepper-spray with their faces.

    Completely unprovoked too!

    Don't they have any compassion for the rights of pepper-spray at all?

  • not a cop hater||

    So in your world, if you wanted to rob a bank, you should get 55 people, have 5 of them go into the bank and get the money, then when the police show up, the other 50 should lock arms and stand between the police and the robbers with the money while the robbers made their getaway. Then, if the police used pepper spray or tried to physically break through the line of 50, you would bitch about the police initiating force against peaceful protestors, right?

    Even in the original video, it was obvious that the protestors were attempting to obstruct the cops in the performance of their duties and I have witnessed enough of these kinds of protest to know that there is always an attempt by the protestors to provoke a reaction from the cops. I also know that media reports invariably leave out the provocations and treat the protestors as innocent victims.

  • ||

    "So in your world, if you wanted to rob a bank, you should get 55 people, have 5 of them go into the bank and get the money [blah, blah, blah]."

    As I said above, I completely support the duty of cops to use force when people are resisting arrest.

    It is not clear to me that these protestors were resisting arrest. Rather, it looks to me like they wanted to be arrested.

    I don't think being convicted of murder justifies police brutality--why would peacefully protesting on a sidewalk justify being pepper-sprayed in the face when zip-tying them would have worked just as well?

    I'm not even saying that people shouldn't be arrested for peacefully protesting! But just because the cops are often right in arresting peaceful protestors, that doesn't mean the cops should pepper-spray people for peacefully sitting on a sidewalk and waiting to be arrested.

    In other words, expecting the cops not to use excessive force against peaceful protestors is not like expecting the cops not to resist armed robberies in progress.

    It just isn't.

  • ||

    Yeah, ^^this.^^

    Just because I disagree with the protesters being violently assaulted with pepper spray doesn't mean I don't think they deserved to be arrested. They did. It's just that the use of force wasn't used to execute the arrest. It was done to fuck with their heads and to terrify them prior to arrest.

  • not a cop hater||

    that doesn't mean the cops should pepper-spray people for peacefully sitting on a sidewalk

    So you would prefer that the cops physically manhandle the protestors in order to get out of their encircling ring? If they did that, they would complain about twisted arms and wrists, bruising and emotional distress and you would still side with the protestors. Admit it. You would condemn the cops no matter how they behaved. Using pepper spray in that instance was a very mild use of force. Nobody suffered any real injury and there was no risk of something really bad happening as there would have been if the cops had to physically pry the protestors apart.

    In other words, expecting the cops not to use excessive force against peaceful protestors is not like expecting the cops not to resist armed robberies in progress

    It is the same thing. In both cases, the cops were just trying to do their jobs. In the case of the bank robbery, apprehending the robbers would be their job. At the protest, transporting the arrested protestors was their job.

    Just say it. Go ahead say it. It will be good for your mental state, "I harbor an animosity towards the police and will condemn their actions whenever I can. But I reserve the option to call for their help should I ever need their assistance."

    God, I hate f*ing hypocritical liberal hippie poser libertarian f*kheads.

  • ||

    So you would prefer that the cops physically manhandle the protestors in order to get out of their encircling ring?

    I would rather the police use the required force against the correct people, and in the case of the Davis cops that would not be the people sitting across a sidewalk. (Watch the fucking video--there were cops walking freely in front of and behind the people getting sprayed and their cruiser was right beside the guy spraying them)

    It is the same thing. In both cases, the cops were just trying to do their jobs. In the case of the bank robbery, apprehending the robbers would be their job. At the protest, transporting the arrested protestors was their job.

    You sound like the kind of guy who shrugs his shoulders at "collateral damage" when places like Dresden are bombed into the stone age.

    Just say it. Go ahead say it. It will be good for your mental state, "I harbor an animosity towards the police and will condemn their actions whenever I can. But I reserve the option to call for their help should I ever need their assistance."

    I live on a private road for a reason, and yes, it is because I harbor an animosity for the police and will condemn their actions whenever I can applicable. And the reason? Because their wanton violence and set of double standards should be exposed because every other person out there not wearing a badge should be treated the same as the ones who do.

  • ||

    Watch the fucking video--there were cops walking freely in front of and behind the people getting sprayed and their cruiser was right beside the guy spraying them

    The cops on the other side of the human circle were coming from the paddywagon that had arrived to pick up the arrestees. The cops on the inside were blocked in by the protesters.

    You have to be really really stupid to have missed that, so I'll assume you're just engaging in spin.

  • ||

    Taking down violent bank robbers and pepper-spraying peaceful protestors in the face for sitting on the ground is not the same thing--in anybody's book but yours.

    "God, I hate f*ing hypocritical liberal hippie poser libertarian f*kheads."

    Name calling means you ran out of other ammunition, right?

    That's all you got left?

    If anybody's a poser libertarian? It's the guy who's arguing that the cops should have a free hand to assault peaceful protestors.

    We have something called due process in this country. All the cops have heard of it, why haven't you? You should read up on it. It's a very libertarian thing, I assure you.

    If you want to arrest peaceful protestors for breaking the law, there's already a way to do that. ...no pepper-spray to the face required.

    And name calling makes your argument look worse than it is.

  • ||

    Of course in your idiotic hypothetical, your "protesters" are part of the commission of the crime. In the Davis situation, there is no evidence that supports the equivalence (that the seated protesters were trying to hem in the cops).

    And if you think for a second that these OWS morons are smart enough to think that up, then you're fucking retarded to boot.

  • ||

    Well, like I said, a perpetrator being guilty of a crime doesn't justify police brutality either.

    And it's not like this is something new! A cop's job in the United States of America is to arrest perpetrators in such a way that they can be successfully prosecuted... That's part of their job! They get paid for that. ...for not using excessive force when apprehending suspects.

    Cops are responsible for protecting the rights of violent criminals too! Just because somebody's committing a crime doesn't mean a cop gets to do whatever they feel like to the perpetrator. They take college classes about this.

    That's why dunphy, presumably, is arguing that the cops was in fear for his safety--which would justify the use of pepper-spray. I see those peaceful protestors sitting there on the sidewalk though--not even retaliating against being pepper-sprayed--and I have a really hard time believing that cop thought he was in danger.

    And the objection that the protestors weren't doing what they were told? If I don't do what some cops tell me--and I'm not being arrested--that means they can pepper spray me in the face?

    Since when?! If the cops don't do what I tell them to do, what happens to them?

  • not a cop hater||

    In the Davis situation, there is no evidence that supports the equivalence (that the seated protesters were trying to hem in the cops).

    Oh please, you are saying that the protestors formed a ring around the cops and the protestors who had been arrested and did so by accident. Do you really think that is believable? The protestors formed the ring for the express purpose of preventing the cops from hauling those whom they had arrested off to jail. Why do you think that one of their demands was the release of those who had been detained.

    Fucktard.

  • ||

    Watch the video, you fucking idiot. If they're hemmed in by the people that are being sprayed, why are there cops both in front of and behind them?

    I wouldn't condemn the cops if they sprayed the actual people hemming them in. But the people they sprayed sure as fuck weren't "surrounding" or "penning in" anybody.

    Face it, they took steps of aggression against the softest targets that happened to be there in an attempt to instill fear in the others.

    In your eyes, they are guilty by association because they happen to be near the actual people preventing the cops from doing their jobs...just like the pig on the bullhorn saying they are gonna use force against anyone in the area "regardless of their reason for being there." By that logic, someone walking to class was fair game to anyone swinging a baton or opening up a can of pepper spray. Sinc when was that kind of indiscriminate violence acceptable?

    Shit-for-brains.

  • ||

    Watch the video, you fucking idiot. If they're hemmed in by the people that are being sprayed, why are there cops both in front of and behind them?

    The cops on the other side were coming from a paddywagon that had arrived to pick up the arrested protesters. They were different cops from the ones who were trapped inside the circle.

  • ||

    there is no evidence that supports the equivalence (that the seated protesters were trying to hem in the cops).

    So in the bank robbery example, the cops couldn't use force against any member of the circle of 50 people that was blocking them, since there's "no evidence" that any particular person was trying to block them.

  • Skip||

    Why would it be so horrible if our population was at the same number it was in 1950 or 1960 or 1970? I wasn't alive back then, but my parents seem to recall us being populated enough to function.

  • purple||

    Why would it be so horrible if our population was at the same number it was in 1950 or 1960 or 1970?

    Because somebody would have to murder a bunch of people to make that happen. Or, if you want to accomplish the reduction over several generations through "natural" attrition, somebody would have to coerce society in order to make that happen.

    The real question, Skip, is why you even think that a dramatic reduction in population is a goal that must be pursued. Why do you hate people so much?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Skip,

    I wasn't alive back then, but my parents seem to recall us being populated enough to function.


    They also had mostly black and white TV back then, Skip. And scratchy LPs. And bell bottoms... Bell fucking bottoms, Skip!

    Not even PONG, for crying out loud. Do you REALLY want to go back to that dark era?

  • Sevo||

    "Bell fucking bottoms, Skip!"

    'Nuff fucking said!

  • Sevo||

    Skip|12.3.11 @ 6:25PM|#
    "Why would it be so horrible if our population was at the same number it was in 1950 or 1960 or 1970? I wasn't alive back then, but my parents seem to recall us being populated enough to function."

    Well, we could 'function' with out-door cans, too, but I prefer that nice porcelain pot.

  • ||

    Well, we could 'function' with out-door cans, too, but I prefer that nice porcelain pot.

    If man wanted to live like that, they never would have left Great Britain.

  • ||

    Non sequitur. Are you arguing if the population was decreased (hopefully through natural means) our standard of living must decrease with it?

  • Sevo||

    F d A,
    I'm arguing that increased population has, without fail*, led to increased prosperity.
    (* Exceptions: Red China, India, certain portions of Sub-Saharan Africa; those places with thuggish governments)

  • ||

    Cause and effect or correlation?

    I agree with OM above, that a larger pool of minds leads to greater ingenuity, to a point. Common sense dictates that that curve ain't linear. I suspect there is a point of equilibrium which balances resources, quality of life and the ability to innovate.

    Put too many rats in a confined space and eventually they start eating each other.

  • Sevo||

    Francisco d Anconia|12.3.11 @ 9:13PM|#
    "Cause and effect or correlation?"
    Maybe. Got an opposite to compare?
    -------------
    "I agree with OM above, that a larger pool of minds leads to greater ingenuity, to a point. Common sense dictates that that curve ain't linear."
    Uh, "common sense"? Pretty sure that means "untested assumptions".
    -------------
    "I suspect there is a point of equilibrium which balances resources, quality of life and the ability to innovate."
    I do, too, but so far, the data says more people = more prosperity. Later data may disprove that, but not yet.
    ------------
    "Put too many rats in a confined space and eventually they start eating each other."
    Ehrlich fail!
    Rats don't invent, rats compete. Economics isn't a zero-sum game, or we'd all be eating smaller portions of lichen for dinner.
    Humans ain't rats; I'm surprised you made that error.

  • ||

    "Cause and effect or correlation?"
    Don't know myself. But I suspect correlation. The fact you point out exceptions suggests it isn't cause and effect.

    Yes common sense does mean untested assumption, but you would have to agree, there must be a holding capacity. At some point the planet stops being able to sustain more people without quality of life declining.

    Your last point is taken. I didn't quite mean it the way you took it. My old man had a theory, which I think makes sense. He said the more people you put together, the more rules you need to prevent each from infringing on the rights of others. e.g. In a small town you can let your dog shit in the park because when it's just a few piles of shit no one notices. When you live in the city, you need an ordinance, otherwise there would be dog shit everywhere.

    Hence I associate fewer people with more liberty. That's why I live in bumbfuck nowhere Montana. After living all over the country, I notionally believe my old man's theory is correct. Pretty laid back out here. (NO, I do not wish to gambol wherever I choose and hunt for all my food. I do like a grande latte now and again). I like being left alone.

  • Sevo||

    "Don't know myself. But I suspect correlation. The fact you point out exceptions suggests it isn't cause and effect."
    WHAT?
    I also pointed out co-factors which would explain the difference absent population growth.
    -----------
    "Yes common sense does mean untested assumption, but you would have to agree, there must be a holding capacity. At some point the planet stops being able to sustain more people without quality of life declining."
    Yep, and so far there isn't a hint that we're even approaching that number. Again, so far, increased population = increased prosperity.
    ---------
    "My old man had a theory, which I think makes sense. He said the more people you put together, the more rules you need to prevent each from infringing on the rights of others."
    Well, even if I didn't live in a city, I wouldn't be happy with *your* dog leaving crap someplace where I get to step in it. *You* clean it up; it's *your* dog.
    Now, if you owned acreage and you got to step in the crap, fine by me.
    But I don't think your Dad's theory is necessarily correct. I think (with no causation data to prove it) that cities (dense population areas) get the rules they do simply because cities elect politicos who must justify their activities by 'doing something'.
    See SF's 'ban' on Happy Meals; has nothing to do with population, has to do with ignorance and rent-seeking.
    Oh, and when I went to Alaska last year (population density 1.07/sq mi) I couldn't get a hamburger that was less than 'well done' (health laws), and a pack of smokes was ~$7.00.
    Maybe your Pop was, well, hoping rather than the alternative.

  • ||

    All fair points. Getting too drunk to debate further (and make a shred of sense). Check back tomorrow. G'night.

  • Sevo||

    No problem with that; I've done that often enough. But I'll give you your best argument and then beat it down:
    Europe lost ~1/3 of its population from the plague, and immediately found increased prosperity from nothing other than the product of the earlier, larger, population being captured by the survivors:

    "Economic Effects
    * A surplus of goods resulted in overspending; it was swiftly followed by a shortage of goods and inflation.
    * A shortage of laborers meant they were able to charge higher prices; the government tried to limit these fees to pre-plague rates."
    http://historymedren.about.com.....kdeath.htm

  • ||

    Okay Sevo, I’m back and only slightly hung over. Are you ready, this is going to be a book? Sorry. Disclaimer: The following is theory based on reason, as I have no citations to back any of it up, and I’m not sure how you’d prove it anyway. (I’m an idea man Chuck…feed the tuna mayonnaise...er…never mind…sorry).

    Where are we? You contend that “increased population has, without fail*, led to increased prosperity” and from your original post about outdoor cans, the inverse is also true. That if we were to decrease the population we would revert to our former (lesser) levels of prosperity. You also site exceptions, China, India…thuggish governments. So what you’re really saying is, increased population, COMBINED with a non-thuggish government, without fail, led to increased prosperity.

    I contend, that humans, when placed in an environment of liberty, will endeavor to improve their position and that population will vary to suit their phase of development. Population is an effect of the cause (liberty). (This would explain your exceptions and increased populations under thuggish govs could be explained by other means…boredom perhaps.)

    In the early stages of development, most societies are agrarian. Improving your position means producing more food. In this phase, children are an asset. You put them to work in the fields and you become wealthier for it. As the basic needs are met our economic growth shifts towards making our lives easier (industry). People want it easier so they migrate toward industry (the cities). At this point children become a liability, as you need to feed and clothe the little bastards without getting anything back from them (have I mentioned I hate kids?). This is why developed countries have 1.6 kids per couple.

    I put it to you that population is a self correcting (market based) system. Population is an effect of prosperity, not the cause. As the drive to better ones self will always exist (in a condition of liberty), I see no reason we’d become less prosperous with a reduction in population (to a point of course). We’ll just transition from a commodities based market (which relies on an expanding population to grow), to one that focuses on development (i.e. fewer people obtaining more and more stuff that makes their lives better). This might actually lead to exponential technological growth since, in order to make money, you will need to focus on developing new shit rather than just supplying a growing population with the essentials, as was the previous condition. Granted, at some point you’ll need to fuck more to avoid extinction, but that too will (may?) be self regulating if there are too few people to meet the needs of society.

    You may argue, which I’m sure someone will, that productivity has slowed as population growth has slowed in the US and Europe. True, but I contend a simple correlation and the cause is a decrease in liberty (making it harder to produce).

    BTW, my “park” is the Lewis and Clark National Forest (2800 sq mi). You’d step in bear shit 3 times before you found any dog shit. ;-)

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to drive (gambol) three miles down the road to see if I can shoot a couple of pheasants for the freezer. God I love living far, far away from people!

    Check back later.

  • ||

    Seattle: OWS scumbags attack anti-OWS protester... then run away like the little bitches they are...

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l.....51853.html

    also , trespass in building and refuse to leave...

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l.....66938.html

    yup, JUST like the tea party, libs!!

  • ||

    and the trespass has EXTRA SWAT team goodness. and spitting.

    no fake pregnant women, though!

  • news ticker||

    In international news, a British woman was arrested, had her children taken away from her and is being forced to undergo psychological testing after she peacefully expressed her disagreement with British immigration policy.

  • ||

    Propaganda...

  • jtuf||

    1) Raise the number of diversity visas to 1 million per year and open the diversity visa lottery to aspiring immigrants from all countries.

    2) The number of Americans who smoked marijuana in the past year is more than twice the number of illegal immigrants in America. We are not on the verge of collapse.

    3) At one time, America allowed unlimited immigration from the independent nations of Latin America but severely restricted immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. We've treated different groups differently depending on the decade.

    4) If we're going to give citizenship to an extra 10 million or so in one big plan, why do illegal immigrants currently in America take priority over the 8 million Coptic Christians currently in Egypt who face the prospect of violence in the near future?

  • jtuf||

    USA Today reports that in 9 percent of the nation's 3,141 counties, the population would have declined if Hispanics had not moved in, citing University of New Hampshire demographer Kenneth Johnson.

    From the USA Today Article:
    In 9% of the nation's 3,141 counties, mostly rural areas, the population would have declined if Hispanics had not moved in and had babies, Johnson says.

    This kind of cuts through the red state blue state stereotype.

  • Daniel||

    Free citizenship just because you crossed the border and have been here for a few years? No thanks. I'll take the constitution and rule of law over lofty libertarian ideas of utopia any day of the week. We already have the easiest immigration system in the world. Use it.

  • ||

    We already have the easiest immigration system in the world.

    I don't think so: no govt. sponsored immigration and no application for citizenship in 3 years. Canada has both.

  • ||

    This piece leaves on the table, of course, the matter of why replacement-level birthrate is a necessity, why human bodies are "the most important resource", or why we need to stuff more people into a given common geographical area as a matter of principle. The usual practical argument for open immigration as a path to replacement level birthrates is that it will sufficiently prop up the enormous welfare state that libertarians profess not to want anyway. As a "crash so we can rebuilt" strategy, advocating open immigration isn't bad from a libertarian standpoint. It utterly fails from a moral or practical standpoint until the welfare state is done away with though.

  • ||

    As a libertarian, I understand the temptation of pushing for the free movement of labor (immigration), but this view fails to take into account a variety of essential factors, for example:

    1)There are many great things about Latin American culture, but its political traditions are heavily infused with socialism, statism and corporatism, with little popular interest in limited government and free markets.

    2) So, it's not surprising that the majority of Latin American immigrants and their descendants will vote for candidates and parties that support statism and clientelism.

    3) The result being that it is virtually impossible to elect limited government candidates in cities and states that have been demographically transformed.

  • ||

    As a libertarian, I understand the temptation of pushing for the free movement of labor (immigration), but this view fails to take into account a variety of essential factors, for example:

    1)There are many great things about Latin American culture, but its political traditions are heavily infused with socialism, statism and corporatism, with little popular interest in limited government and free markets.

    2) So, it's not surprising that the majority of Latin American immigrants and their descendants will vote for candidates and parties that support statism and clientelism.

    3) The result being that it is virtually impossible to elect limited government candidates in cities and states that have been demographically transformed.

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

  • ||

    What the author recommends is an amnesty. An amnesty is good for the illegal but how good is it for the country as a whole? Certainly it is good to bring illegals in from the cold, so to speak. But the problem with an amnesty is that, absent from other measures, it guarantees the need for the next one. Once it is known that a country uses amnesty as the way to resolve its failure to manage its borders in accordance with its laws, then more illlegals will arrive ready to wait for their turn a the next amnesty. This is clearly the experience of those countries, including the US, that have found it necessary to resort to amnesties. Once you control the source of the problem you can turn to the qu estion of amnesty. In the past countries have used amnesties with promises that this would be the last time. That is why people no longer believe those who argue for amnesties as they know that each amnesty without effective control measures merely prepares the way for the next one.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement