Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Oog Wants Ugg to Keep Out of His Cave
For those who haven't encountered economist Paul Rubin's book Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom, I highly recommend (1) buying it now, and (2) tiding yourself over with this nifty mashup of econ and evopsych from The Washington Post:
Our primitive ancestors lived in a world that was essentially static; there was little societal or technological change from one generation to the next. This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero sum -- if a particular gain happened to one group of humans, it came at the expense of another.
This is the world our minds evolved to understand. To this day, we often see the gain of some people and assume it has come at the expense of others. Economists have argued for more than two centuries that voluntary trade, whether domestic or international, is positive sum: it benefits both parties, or else the exchange wouldn't occur. Economists have also long argued that the economics of immigration -- immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for money that they then exchange for the products of other people's labor -- is positive sum. Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy, native-born workers must lose.
Rubin touches on the fact that anti-immigrant sentiment is something that many people feel at a gut level. It's something more than prejudice--we've been wired that way. However, one of the important offshoots of evolutionary psychology is the insight that human beings wound up at the top of the food chain not because we have the best instincts hardwired in, but because our brains are the most flexible. As circumstances change, we adapt. We figure out new behaviors that serve us better than the ones our parents relied on. So don't despair over the immigration debate just because we're hardwired to be suspicious of The Other. To place two cliches head-to-head: Old humans can learn new tricks, even if old habits die hard.
Via Alex Tabarrok
Josh Elder|5.10.07 @ 8:03PM|#
This is actually pretty fascinating. Has there been any clinical research on this? It would certainly help explain the enduring appeal of folk-Marxism long after the real thing has been thoroughly discredited.
|5.10.07 @ 8:17PM|#
"So don't despair over the immigration debate just because
we're hardwired to be suspicious of The Other. To place two cliches
head-to-head: Old humans can learn new tricks, even if old habits
die hard."
The anti-immigration lobby. ...so easy a cave man could do it!
|5.10.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Immigrants are generally quite welcomed, provided they are young and look hot as hell. This is another universality to humanity.
|5.10.07 @ 9:09PM|#
I'm in favor of broad *legal* immigration, with some
reservations (like, why not have immigrants get sponsors to vouch
and post bond for their good behavior?). I'm not a big fan of
awarding lots of rights to illegal immigrants, or calling skeptics
racists or cavemen.
Are we hard-wired to be skeptical of a border-security and
immigration enforcement system so lax that terrorists can slip
through? Did evolution predispose us to be skeptical of combining
chaotic immigration with (distinctly non-chaotic) welfare-state
programs for lots and lots of immigrants? If so, then God bless
evolution!
|5.10.07 @ 9:33PM|#
Before you can have that kind of us-vs-them mentality, though,
you first need to divide the world into Uses and Thems.
I see no real explanations for why I should prefer that a random
American citizen get a particular job over a random Mexican
citizen, other than base racism or xenophobia.
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 9:37PM|#
I'm not a big fan of awarding lots of rights to illegal
immigrants...
Oooga-booga! Natural rights. Oooga-booga! Unalienable.
Oooga-Booga!
|5.10.07 @ 9:56PM|#
This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero
sum -- if a particular gain happened to one group of humans, it
came at the expense of another.
Prove it.
|5.10.07 @ 11:04PM|#
Mad Max,
We are hard-wired so that the concept of immigrants and immigration
provokes, as the first set of thoughts that pop into our heads,
images of foreigners coming to kill us in our beds ("terrorists"),
the anarchic rout of our defense by an invading horde ("chaotic
immigration"), and outsiders coming to sponge off the fruit of our
labor ("distinctly non-chaotic welfare-state programs for lots and
lots of immigrants").
Some of us embrace such impulses more than others, I guess.
God bless civilization!
|5.10.07 @ 11:11PM|#
joe,
Is the distinction between "legal" and "illegal" too subtle and
nuanced for you to grasp?
Is the distinction between a law-abiding shopkeeper, laborer or
doctor (on the one hand), or a group of jihadists plotting to
attack Fort Dix (on the other) too complicated for you to deal
with? Or do you think that the security procedures which let in
these apparent plotters was just about the right amount of
security?
|5.10.07 @ 11:14PM|#
Do you think that there is no relevant difference between a
hard-working immigrant who earns his/her way in life and becomes a
proud American, and a sponger?
If you deny that there are any spongers, then I assume you wouldn't
object to closing government welfare programs to this non-existent
class of persons?
|5.10.07 @ 11:20PM|#
What I think, Mad Max, is that neither the phoney distinction
the government enforces over paperwork, nor the fact that YOU
brought up illegal immigration when it didn't have anything to do
with the article, are remotely difficult for me to grasp.
As you're sitting around the fire tonight, maybe you should ask
yourself why you decided that terrorists, people getting around the
"border-security and immigration enforcement system," and welfare
slackers were the most relevant topics for you to write about in
response to this piece.
The legal/illegal distinction is relevant to your point about
immigrants coming here to get welfare, how, exactly?
|5.10.07 @ 11:35PM|#
Mad Max,
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" is subtle, nuanced,
and largely irrelevant here. Much of what is "illegal" should not
be. Many illegal immigrants are violating no one's rights.
|5.10.07 @ 11:57PM|#
joe,
The point I was trying to make was the very point you're
demonstrating - that the concerns many Americans have about U.S.
immigration policy can't simply be brushed off as the instinctual
reactions of cavemen. You see, there actually are valid concerns to
be raised. You appear to be aware of this on some level, since you
wish to drown out such concerns with name-calling.
Then there's the familiar joe trait of projection. First, saying
that other people are prejudiced bigots who make sweeping
generalizations about entire groups and don't let the facts get in
the way. Second, saying that people are changing the subject.
When you see me criticize immigrants who break the law and commit
terrorism, you assume that I'm talking about *all* immigrants.
You're the one drawing the connection, not me. Who, then, is the
insular caveman?
My father and most of his colleagues were immigrants. I'm afraid
they wouldn't be your kind of people, though, joe. They were not
proper objects of liberal sympathy. Although they weren't big fans
of American culture and government, they somehow managed to avoid
rioting and burning the American flag. Nor did they go around
committing crimes and plotting terrorism. I guess they never found
the time, what with earning a living and raising their families and
all. People like you wouldn't be able to turn them into a victim
group to serve as props in a liberal morality play. So they would
basically be invisible to you and yours.
This reminds me of the liberals when they saw the rapist killer
Willie Horton and immediately said, "look at that black guy!" And
they thought this proved that their *opponents* were racists.
Urkobold®|5.11.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Urkobold SEES NO EVIDENCE OF joe CALLING NAMES.
PUNISHMENT FOR Mad Max:
SLEEP UNDER THE STARS TONIGHT.
IN THE DESERT.
WITHOUT A SLEEPING BAG.
WHILE PEOPLE WITH GUNS HUNT FOR YOU.
Urkobold HATH THUS BEEN DISGUSTED.
WHAT, ARE YOU A PHYSICIST OR SOMETHING?
Urkobold®|5.11.07 @ 12:07AM|#
INCIDENTALLY, Urkobold CONSIDERS THE REST OF YOUR LAST COMMENT EQUALLY DISAPPOINTING. PLEASE SLEEP ON IT BEFORE YOU TRY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN.
|5.11.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Is the distinction between a law-abiding shopkeeper, laborer
or doctor (on the one hand), or a group of jihadists plotting to
attack Fort Dix (on the other) too complicated for you to deal
with?
You jumped the shark on what could have been, I think, a better
argument. Here's a more commonplace distinction between a legal and
an illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant sells oranges out of a
bag from the side of a freeway ramp, on public property. Just
across the street, the legal immigrant sells oranges from a shelf
in his store, private property that he either rents or owns and
often lives in. The illegal immigrant has no overhead and pays no
taxes. The legal immigrant participates in being a citizen, with
all the overhead, government forms, inspections, and taxes that
involves.
If illegal immigrants deserve, according to some, the special
privilege of breaking stupid immigrations laws then why can't legal
immigrants and citizens alike get the same privilege in breaking
stupid business licensing and tax laws.
|5.11.07 @ 12:25AM|#
Urk,
Did you see this evidence:
"Some of us embrace such impulses more than others, I guess. . .
.
"As you're sitting around the fire tonight . . ."
|5.11.07 @ 12:26AM|#
nb - the reference to "sitting around the fire" was, of course, in the context of a thread comparing certain people to cavemen.
|5.11.07 @ 12:44AM|#
If the orange seller has been law-abiding (other than the whole
illegal-immigrant thing), then I'm sure Congress can work out some
way to regularize his status, and that of others.
American history is full of people starting out with doing
something illegal, and then having it regularized later. The spirit
of enterprise - go for it!
But let's not assume *every* illegal immigrant is a totally
harmless proto-American. Talk about generalizations!
|5.11.07 @ 12:50AM|#
More on topic from Unca' Cecil:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_014.html
...about how the word "nostalgia" didn't get a grip until man's
environment noticeably changed during a normal life. I'm going to
go pour a bowl of Capitan Crunch and watch the Boomerang channel
now.
shecky|5.11.07 @ 1:39AM|#
If illegal immigrants deserve, according to some, the
special privilege of breaking stupid immigrations laws then why
can't legal immigrants and citizens alike get the same privilege in
breaking stupid business licensing and tax laws.
OK, I give up. Why can't they?
|5.11.07 @ 3:23AM|#
OK, I give up. Why can't they?
Because breaking the law by not filling out a sales tax form
correctly and on time has real, immediate, and well enforced,
consequences. Breaking immigration law does not.
Any other questions, shecky ?
|5.11.07 @ 6:34AM|#
Jkii: good points that are often left out of the debate, and something I admit I have not thought about. There are lots and lots of rules and regulations that a minority (and often times a majority) of people would just as soon not ocomply with. Of course, I am very confused about this - does anyone have a list of the non-seriously enforced laws?
|5.11.07 @ 6:47AM|#
Of course, I am very confused about this - does anyone have
a list of the non-seriously enforced laws?
That would probably be about 90% of them.
The danger, of course, is that anytime some thug prosecutor gets a
bug up his ass and decides to throw the book at you, he has a whole
lot of sticks to beat you with.
|5.11.07 @ 8:23AM|#
If that's the ingrained human instinct that compelled the Shell Tribe to shun Raquel Welch and send her off clad only in an animal-hide bikini to battle voracious dinosaurs, then I'm ashamed of you, me and the whole lousy lot of us.
|5.11.07 @ 8:39AM|#
Here's a more commonplace distinction between a legal and an
illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant sells oranges out of a bag
from the side of a freeway ramp, on public property. Just across
the street, the legal immigrant sells oranges from a shelf in his
store, private property that he either rents or owns and often
lives in. The illegal immigrant has no overhead and pays no
taxes.
The illegal immigrant pays no taxes? Plenty of illegal immigrants
work regular jobs with phony documentation, paying social security
taxes. Others make income tax payments despite not having legal
status. Even the guy selling oranges--where did he get them?
There's a good chance if he bought them, he paid tax on the
purchase. And what does he do with the money he earns selling them?
Hard to believe none of it gets captured in a sales transaction
that includes a tax. The "no taxes" definition of an illegal
immigrant is an exagerration, at best.
And what about the illegal immigrant who works in a business where
say, 80% of the work force is comprised of legal residents? In New
York, it doesn't seem to be uncommon to find tax-paying businessnes
that would find it hard to remain solvent if their largely-legal
labor force weren't supplemented by a minority of illegal
immigrants whose labor is cheaper (both in terms of dollars per
hour and from avoiding the employer's portion of social security
and Medicaid). The immigrants hired in those jobs may or may not be
paying taxes directly, but they are making it possible for the
business to pay taxes, and for the legal employees, whose jobs
would be lost if the business went under, to pay taxes as well.
|5.11.07 @ 9:00AM|#
So, we have a natural instinct to mistrust people outside of our
tribe and we're protective of what we perceive to be our stuff. Oh,
and we don't get economics.
In other obvious news - men and women are different.
Chucklehead|5.11.07 @ 9:28AM|#
To this day, we often see the gain of some people and assume
it has come at the expense of others.
No assumptions about it. Democrats know that the rich get
richer while the poor get poorer.
|5.11.07 @ 9:30AM|#
So there are no social costs to illegal immigration. No one who
has any reason to object. No one ever ends up indvidually being
hurt by immigration. Nope. It is just all inbreed racism in our
biololgy.
Are you people that stupid? Even if agree that huge numbers of
immagrants are good for the country in the aggregate, only an
economic illiterate would think that that means that large numbers
of locals might end up individually worse off. There are good
reasons why people object to immigration. Some of those reasons may
be the result of pure self interest, but they are rational reasons
none the less.
Back in the real world of reality, there are social costs to
illegal immigration namely crime.
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide
(which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to
two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal
aliens.
confidential California Department of Justice study reported in
1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in
southern California is illegal;
in 2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were
foreign-born.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
In the real world people are not blind. They see this kind of thing
and they object to it. Instead of answering the arguments or gasp
trying to limit the problems associated with illegal immigration by
controling the border and deporting the criminals who come here,
elitist assholes in the media like this guy just right off any
objection to racism. This is not about immigration per say. It is
about illegal immigration. People would object a lot less if the
U.S. actually controlled its borders but still let large numbers of
legal immigrants in on the condition that they don't have a
criminal history and if they commit a crime while here, they get
deported. But that is not what is happening. Instead, we have no
control over our borders and a lot of bad is coming with the
good.
But don't think about those problems. Those are hard. All that
matters is that you get your yard mowed cheap and none of that
stuff happens in your neighborhood.
garth|5.11.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Mad Max,
What terrorists? Of the tens of thousands, nay hundreds of
thousands, of people entering the country illegally since 9/11
(assuming that is your (arbitrary) benchmark) how many terrorists
have appeared? How many sneaky brown bombers have walked in from
Mexico? None? Wow!
In spite of all the evidence, using such a lame emotional
touchstone is, frankly, a lame tactic.
And John, there are also studies that show that new immigrants,
especially the illegal variety, have lower rates of crime (aside
from the one entailing crossing the border)
|5.11.07 @ 10:25AM|#
"And John, there are also studies that show that new immigrants,
especially the illegal variety, have lower rates of crime (aside
from the one entailing crossing the border)"
I would like to see those. Also, look at the studies on the
children of illegals. Their crime rates are very high. Regardless,
the point is that there are downsides to illegal immigration and
there are people in this society who end up worse off for it even
if it is the case that it is an overall good. You can't blame the
people who are on the loosing end from objecting. Reason is so
arrogant that it refuses to admit there is any downside and any
reason beyond ignorance to object to a completly open border with
no checks whatsoever.
Garth|5.11.07 @ 10:42AM|#
John,
I don't think that Reason refuses to admit that there are
downsides, the question is do they outweigh 1) the benefits and 2)
the cost of actually stopping illegal immigration. The answer, I
suspect, is no.
And there have been many studies of the one I mentioned. My first
Google hit: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109 is an article
about just one of these from earlier this year.
steveintheknow|5.11.07 @ 11:22AM|#
the point is that there are downsides to illegal immigration and there are people in this society who end up worse off for it even if it is the case that it is an overall good.
Substitute illegal immigration with....
1) free trade
2)free market
3)legalizing drugs
4)freedom of association
5)private health care
6)getting rid of the minimum wage
7)tort reform
8)agriculture reform
Anyway the list could go on, but its pretty clear that favoring the
few at the expense of the many is never good
policy, nor is it very persuasive.
You can't blame the people who are on the loosing end from objecting
I agree.
However, the vast majority of those who object are in no
way on the "loosing end"? So why do so many still object?
This discrepancy is interesting, and could possibly be explained by
evolutionary psychology, which makes Rubin's theory very
inviting.
|5.11.07 @ 11:29AM|#
John | May 11, 2007, 10:25am | #
...confidential California Department of Justice study reported in
1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in
southern California is illegal;
in 2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were
foreign-born...
If you look up the information on the 18th Street Gang, you'll find
that its roots date back to around 1917 / 1922, well before
immigration laws were put in place. That said, citing the 18th
Street Gang's numbers seems to be more of a gang-control issue as
opposed to an illegal immigration issue. The only reason it
contains so many illegal immigrants is because of the sheer
availability of them. If they had the same amount of whites or
blacks to recruit, and they didn't base themselves as a latino
gang, then their numbers would be just as large, only comprising of
legal residents. The fact that they are illegals is moot. Take a
look at the Crips, the Bloods, etc. I'm sure their numbers are
comparable...most of them made up of US born citizens. Again, don't
bring up the illegal immigrant card here - it's a gang problem
period!
As for the second part of your statement, 30% incarcerated "federal
prisoners" are foreign. Now you sound just like Bill O'Reilly
trying to confuse the audience. Yes, they may be foreign, but you
claim you're OK with LEGAL immigration (i.e. foreigners). How many
of the 30% "foreigners" are illegal?? Give more accurate numbers if
you're going to try to argue against illegal immigration.
steveintheknow|5.11.07 @ 11:32AM|#
One other thought.
Is an injustice committed by an immigrant any worse then an
identical one committed by a citizen? If so, why?
Does someone from group A have a higher moral standing then someone
from group B simply because they belong to that group?
|5.11.07 @ 11:42AM|#
John,
It is true that illegal immigrants offer only a marginal benefit to
the aggregate well being of people already in the US, and that
various social costs may indeed cut into that benefit.
But when the well being of the immigrants themselves is considered,
the total aggregate sees a huge win due to the immigration.
Why do you refuse to consider the immigrants' well beings in your
calculation of costs and benefits?
|5.11.07 @ 11:44AM|#
General: Religionists have to explain all morality as coming from God; "rationalists" as coming from evolution. No wonder there's a near-religious war over a boring question of biological history.
|5.11.07 @ 11:56AM|#
People would object a lot less if the U.S. actually
controlled its borders but still let large numbers of legal
immigrants in on the condition that they don't have a criminal
history and if they commit a crime while here, they get deported.
But that is not what is happening.
You do of course realize that this it what everyone you are arguing
against on this forum wants to see happen -- provided
"large numbers" means "any who want to without receiving
welfare".
Instead, we have no control over our borders and a lot of bad
is coming with the good.
Then join us in arguing for the general legalization of all
immigration with specific exceptions to protect specific public
interests. Requiring border security to handle the exceptions alone
would make it a much much more tenable problem.
|5.11.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Economists have also long argued that the economics of
immigration -- immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for
money that they then exchange for the products of other people's
labor -- is positive sum.
"As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have
a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which
you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves. On
the other hand, the welfare state does not prevent unilateral free
trade. I believe that they are in different categories." - Milton
Friedman
Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers
gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S.
economy, native-born workers must lose.
Just because it's intuitive, possibly for the wrong reasons in one
case, doesn't mean that it's not the 'correct' policy for any
number of other reasons. An irrational fear of heights doesn't mean
that performing proper airplane maintanence is optional.
Why do you refuse to consider the immigrants' well beings in
your calculation of costs and benefits?
Are the immigrants concerned about the wellbeing of current
citizens? Is the aim of Armenian immigrants to improve the
well-being of Americans?
As for elected officials: it's their job to represent and protect
the interests of their constituents, not citizens of other
countries (= the rest of the world).
|5.11.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Are the immigrants concerned about the wellbeing of current
citizens? Is the aim of Armenian immigrants to improve the
well-being of Americans?
Would you make such distinctions based on race or religion or eye
color, or is it only birthplace that causes you to out-group a
human being?
|5.11.07 @ 1:14PM|#
This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero
sum
What a complete and utter load of bullshit...why would trading firs
for fish be any less beneficial 20,000 years to both parties then
it would be today.
|5.11.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Yet another writer demonstrating why evo-psych is called "'Just-So' stories" by its detractors and has the same scientific validity.
|5.11.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Parse: The illegal immigrant pays no taxes?
Yes, I know. Taxes are embedded in every transaction. But I am
correct, in the orange selling example I offered, that the illegal
immigrant does not pay the specific taxes that relate to his retail
transactions. It's more than just taxes. A legal orange seller is
bound to comply with all sorts of laws and regulations, such a
filling out sales tax forms (even if his sales are tax-exempt),
applying for a business permit, insuring his property against fire,
and making his store ADA compliant.
As a small business owner, I would like to attain Mexican or
Guatemalan citizenship for a day and come right back with the claim
that these laws and regulations don't apply to me.
You are right about the unassigned FICA and Medicare taxes illegal
immigrants pay. These taxes are not supposed to be allocated to the
general fund. Illegal immigrant workers who pay them, with no way
to claim them back, are getting the shaft.
|5.11.07 @ 1:54PM|#
jkii,
I fail to understand your orange selling example. The legal
immigrant orange seller is perfectly free to abandon his store and
go sell oranges on the streets and off the books just like the
illegal immigrant orange seller.
And the police and prosecutors are just as empowered to arrest and
prosecute both the legal and illegal immigrant orange seller for
failure to abide by proper business regulations and taxes.
So what's your point?
As a small business owner, I would like to attain Mexican or
Guatemalan citizenship for a day and come right back with the claim
that these laws and regulations don't apply to me.
And how is it that these laws and regulations don't apply to
Guatemalan citizens?
|5.11.07 @ 2:20PM|#
The legal immigrant orange seller is perfectly free to
abandon his store and go sell oranges on the streets and off the
books just like the illegal immigrant orange seller.
You are saying (I exaggerated only to make my point), "I am
perfectly free to go rob a bank as long as I don't mind taking the
risk of going to prison for 15 years." So you are, but you're
evading the ethical question a normal person would have regarding
capricious law enforcement.
|5.11.07 @ 2:34PM|#
'capricious law enforcement'
Uggh, not very well written. But read it either way:
'capricious enforcement of laws' or 'enforcement of capricious
law'.
|5.11.07 @ 2:35PM|#
I still fail to see how the legal immigrant and the illegal
immigrant are different in this regard. In fact, the illegal
immigrant has more to lose in misdemeanor business crime because
he'll likely be deported if caught. The legal immigrant will likely
face only a fine.
Furthermore, since everyone you are arguing against thinks the
proper thing to do with the illegal immigrant is to unilaterally
make him legal, I fail to see how any actual distinction you might
conjure between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant is
relevant.
|5.11.07 @ 2:56PM|#
In fact, the illegal immigrant has more to lose in
misdemeanor business crime because he'll likely be deported if
caught. The legal immigrant will likely face only a
fine.
The illegal immigrant orange seller will not be deported. Police
here in LA are not even allowed to ask whether or not he is a legal
resident. Now here's where we get to nuts and bolts of what I was
trying to point out. The illegal immigrant should be fined for
operating a business that does not comply the laws and regulations.
Why ? Because the legal immigrant or citizen would be fined. If you
want to make it so that neither of them gets fined, that's OK with
me too.
|5.11.07 @ 3:11PM|#
The illegal immigrant should be fined for operating a
business that does not comply the laws and regulations.
And when did someone say that business laws and regulations should
apply to the legal immigrant but not to the illegal
immigrant?
Moreover, if, as you say, "Police here in LA are not even allowed
to ask whether or not he is a legal resident," how would anyone
know the residency status of the person they were applying the
business laws and regulations to?
|5.11.07 @ 3:30PM|#
And when did someone say that business laws and regulations
should apply to the legal immigrant but not to the illegal
immigrant?
No one had to say it MikeP, it's a fact. If I set up a legal
business across from the Home Depot in nearby Alhambra, CA, that
provides landscaping services, the California BOA, OHSA, the county
tax board, etc, would be swarming around me like flies on a fresh
pile of dung. The day laborer's in the Home Depot parking lot are
immune to this.
|5.11.07 @ 3:41PM|#
The day laborer's in the Home Depot parking lot are immune
to this.
Whether or not they are illegal residents.
If you're arguing that illegal immigrants can't set up a legitimate
business because their residency will be discovered in the
inevitable scrutiny, I fail to see how that is an advantage for
them.
|5.11.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Whether or not they are illegal residents.
I just want the California Board of Equalization (how's that for
Orwellian name) to distribute a form 601 to every freeway off-ramp
orange seller or Home Depot day laborer along with me. Or better
yet, not send the darned form to anyone.
|5.11.07 @ 4:23PM|#
What a complete and utter load of bullshit...why would
trading firs for fish be any less beneficial 20,000 years to both
parties then it would be today.
The point isn't that it was any less beneficial, our earliest
ancestors simply had not learned that it was so.
He has it. I want it. I'll take it.
That was probably our first line of reasoning when faced with
scarcity.
He has it. I want it. I wonder what he'd accept in exchange?
That was most certainly a later development as we learned through
bitter experience that conquest is often more costly than trade.
Especially if the guy who has what you want is bigger than you or
has more friends.
|5.11.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Mad Max,
Nice try, but no, you don't get to pass off your mental leap
towards the scary, scary illegal immigrants as if it were
mine.
This blog post had nothing - nothing - to do with illegal
immigration. It was a commentary on how people react to immigrants
from other societies coming into their own.
And what did you write about? Terrorist, lawbreakers, and welfare
cheats. That wasn't my jump, Max, that was yours.
Throw out the "you're a racist for noticing my racism" canard if it
makes you feel better, but everyone can see exactly where your
conflation came from.
BTW, the man behind the "Willie Horton ad," Lee Atwater, apologized
on his death bed for so cynically using racist code in that ad, and
throughout his career as a Republican "Southern Strategy" poitical
flack. He said he hoped he could be forgiven for it.
|5.11.07 @ 11:43PM|#
Throw out the "you're a racist for noticing my racism"
canard if it makes you feel better, but everyone can see exactly
where your conflation came from.
Without even reading or trying to understand what Max wrote my
first response is to call bullshit Joe.
You call everyone who is not a left of you a racists a gay basher
and sexist and it is your first response in these debates. Your
crying wolf so many times has lost any validity.
Anyway in general as I glanced through the discussions, here is an
answer to all your bullshit: Humans are xenophobic because
strangers have a greater opportunity to cheat in exchanges then do
family members. A degree of Xenophobia can protect hunter gather
groups from such cheating.
|5.12.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Thank you for sharing your feelings about me, joshua.
As usual, you have nothing to add except that.
Oh, wait, you did pull the idea that there was extensive trade
20,000 years ago out of your ass.
|5.12.07 @ 6:44PM|#
"Without even reading or trying to understand what Max wrote my
first response is to call bullshit Joe."
And that's the joshua we've come to know and love; he don't need no
steeking READING. He noes who the good guys are, and everything
else follows from there.
|5.13.07 @ 3:12PM|#
So there are no social costs to illegal immigration. No one
who has any reason to object. No one ever ends up indvidually being
hurt by immigration. Nope. It is just all inbreed racism in our
biololgy.
The funny part about the "inbred...biology" part is that Reason's
writers pick and choose which characteristics they believe are
genetically based and which aren't (always along standard liberal
lines, and regardless of information, or lack of it, regarding the
actual genetics). For instance, nobody on Reason's staff will ever
posit the idea that perhaps, just maybe, the shitty societies and
countries which a lot of immigrants come from are the result of the
genetic predispositions and abilities, or lack of, of the
inhabitants, and that they'll bring those characteristics with
them. "No! That's impossible!" Yet baseless conjecture in an MSM
article is taken as close to gospel.
|5.13.07 @ 3:42PM|#
And there have been many studies of the one I mentioned. My
first Google hit: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109 is an
article about just one of these from earlier this year.
From there: "In every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young
men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are less educated,
said the study by the Immigration Policy Center, an
immigrant-advocacy group in Washington."
Too bad they didn't provide a link to the actual study, huh?
Note the disclaimer "in every ethnic group," which the Advocacy
group provides. That means that immigrants from Mexico have a lower
crime rate non-immigrant Mestizos (AKA 'Hispanics' in gov't-speak):
however Meztizos in the U.S. have crime rates about 3 times higher
than the white US population (close to 4x higher for murder):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/piusp01.pdf
"About 1 in 3 black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white
males are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if
current incarceration rates remain unchanged."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245