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
No Comprende, It's a Riddle
The best story you'll read this week is Ryan Lizza's on-the-trail portrait of "Tancredoism": its rise, its aftershocks, its impact on the GOP. It's a story that's been told before, of Republicans "chasing a rabbit down a hole" for dubious short-term gains and likely long-term disaster, but Lizza gets great stuff from the candidates themselves.
When I asked Tancredo about Bush’s argument that Republicans risked losing a generation of Hispanic voters if they adopted an immigration policy that many regard as nativist, he laughed and said, “It doesn’t seem to be holding its own very well, considering what happened the other night at the debate. If you think for a moment that Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson”—Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator—“haven’t polled the heck out of this thing, you’re wrong. They have. And they are there now because the polls tell them this is where they should be.”
See the problem? Tancredo's confusing (or maybe just switching) the subject: Appealing to white conservatives in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina has nothing to do with winning the growing Hispanic vote in the decreasingly red southwest. A Republican who pledges to put proximity mines on the border can make some gains with the tens of thousands of Iowans he needs to win a caucus, then lose the combined 30 electoral votes of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado without setting foot in those states. Some tradeoff. John McCain comes off well in this discussion:
“It’s the influx of illegals into places where they’ve never seen a Hispanic influence before,” McCain told me. “You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were—‘concerned’ is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like ‘Why do I have to punch 1 for English?’ ‘Why can’t they speak English?’ It’s become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders.”
And related: E.J. Dionne explains why Republicans can still count on immigrant-bashing in mostly white suburban House seats.
|12.11.07 @ 6:36PM|#
So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?'
Uhh, because it's easier and cheaper to cater to a non-English
demographic than any time in America's past? Why wait a generation
to sell your goods and services to people when they have the money
right now?
stephen the goldberger|12.11.07 @ 6:39PM|#
Uhh, because it's easier and cheaper to cater to a
non-English demographic than any time in America's past? Why wait a
generation to sell your goods and services to people when they have
the money right now?
and its harder to adapt to cultural shifts when you are elderly,
hence the frustration that mccain is discussing.
BTS|12.11.07 @ 6:42PM|#
Discussing AND experiencing, stephen
C'mon, can't you just see John McCain sitting at home in one of his
sweaters, trying to order some steaks over the phone, getting
frustrated over those "durn mexicans"?
paulie|12.11.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Immigration hysteria being used as an excuse for rise of US police
state
and
Immigration hysteria + "Fair" tax = Police State USSA
Elemenope|12.11.07 @ 6:48PM|#
One of my bosses' friends just moved out to Arizona, fairly near
the border, and she's in the mid 70's range in age. I had an
opportunity to chat with her while she was back up visiting, and
the comments I heard were very much in the "why do they all have to
speak Spanish around me" which segued into the slightly
paranoid/narcissistic "they might be talking about me behind my
back".
On the other hand, my grandmother is a native French Canadian, and
she told me about an incident where she and her friends went back
up to the St. Lawrence river area to visit; some Canucks on a tour
bus there made them for American tourists and did start
making fun of them in French. So, maybe it's not entirely
crazy.
But yeah, the elderly have the hardest time in particular dealing
with cultural shifts. Many of them believe their grandkids speak a
different language, never mind those folks at the McDonalds who
look different than they do.
|12.11.07 @ 6:51PM|#
A Republican who pledges to put proximity mines on the
border
No no no. Anyone who's played GoldenEye knows you have to put the
mines on the bottom of platforms so the other players
can't see them.
Duh!
No wonder Tancredo's polling so badly. He has no deathmatch
skillz!
|12.11.07 @ 6:51PM|#
Tancredo's confusing (or maybe just switching) the subject:
Appealing to white conservatives in Iowa and New Hampshire and
South Carolina has nothing to do with winning the growing Hispanic
vote in the decreasingly red southwest.
Speaking of confusing things, you're mixing your color
metaphors.
Anonymo the Anonymous|12.11.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Taktix, even that won't help us if the illegals find that grenade launcher hidden in the middle of the temple. That's why America must redouble our efforts to develop the Golden Gun.
|12.11.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Taktix, even that won't help us if the illegals find that
grenade launcher hidden in the middle of the temple. That's why
America must redouble our efforts to develop the Golden
Gun.
If only the government had invested in the Klobb, we'd all be
better off...
|12.11.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Hmph. I grew up in Southern New Mexico. As kids we learned a
certain amount of Spanish through osmosis and never gave it a
second thought. Two of my Grandmothers moved down from the midwest
and they seemed to adjust alright.
Somehow having all those Hispanic folks around didn't affect our
"American" traditions one bit, and hell, they added all sorts of
extra holidays. Seems like a win-win to me. Well, I still hate
Tejano music. Accordions are the instrument of the Devil.
The Iowans are probably experiencing an "invasion" phobia. Deal
with it.
Matt Welch|12.11.07 @ 7:29PM|#
You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona
on this issue.
While this may be true, you see a HELL of a lot of emotion in
Arizona on this issue, much of it directed against John McCain, by
Republicans.
|12.11.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Accordions are the instrument of the Devil.
I agree, but not in a negative way. See the Tiger Lilly's [sp?]
Eric Dondero|12.11.07 @ 7:42PM|#
A little off topic - apologies Reason-oids. But there is some
major political news breaking.
National Review Magazine's Editorial Board just endorsed Mitt
Romney for President, saying he's best fit to unify all the varying
factions of the GOP.
|12.11.07 @ 7:46PM|#
...Republicans can still count on immigrant-bashing
in...
Why does Ron Paul still count on immigrant bashing/hysteria/"durn
mexicans"/"invasion" phobia?
It must be because he's phobic, hysterical racist, since there just
can't be any other reasons for opposing open borders
|12.11.07 @ 7:50PM|#
CNN just reported that National Review has endorsed Romney. The
article ends with the damning praise that Mitt Romney is the
candidate most like G.W. Bush.
If that don't make you LOL, you ain't got no funny bone.
|12.11.07 @ 7:56PM|#
I see that Dondi beat me to the punch, but my post is
better.
Eric, forget Romney unifying the factions of the GOP. Ron Paul is
the candidate that can unite the factions of this nation, in
cluding that 70% faction that say we should get out of Iraq ASAP.
Looks like a landslide for Ron Paul.
Luke Przybylski|12.11.07 @ 8:00PM|#
The idea that there is no difference between illegal and legal
immigration is alluded to by framing this issue as related to
"immigrant bashing". It's absurd.
The idea that legal immigrants are for an open border is the
same.
Grand Chalupa|12.11.07 @ 8:03PM|#
Since this is the off-topic thread, here's some more good news
from the land of multiculturalism...
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dad-allegedly-kills-girl-over-head-scarf/20071211165009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Mike Laursen|12.11.07 @ 8:04PM|#
I don't know Iowa but I know how folks in Nebraska reacted when
a noticeable Mexican-looking people started showing up in town.
They grumbled a bit but ultimately went back to worrying about
their own business.
It's good for them to be exposed to somebody that looks and acts
differently. I'm totally serious about that.
|12.11.07 @ 8:07PM|#
The idea that there is no difference between illegal and
legal immigration is alluded to by framing this issue as related to
"immigrant bashing".
Of course there's a difference between illegal and legal
immigration. The latter have state-issued papers that the former
lack. Those who don't want to bash immigrants realize that the
problem is how to get the papers to the former. Have you got an
idea?
|12.11.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Just when I thought that whatever brain cell responsible for remembering the existance of Wall of Voodoo had moved on to bigger and better things, Weigel has to jog my memory. Damn you Weigel!!
Seitz|12.11.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Accordions are the instrument of the Devil.
No, you're thinking of a golden fiddle. No, wait, that might be the
robot devil I'm thinking of.
|12.11.07 @ 8:11PM|#
"National Review Magazine's Editorial Board just endorsed Mitt
Romney for President, saying he's best fit to unify all the varying
factions of the GOP."
NRO is right, Romney can unify the pro choice with the pro life
(he's been both adamantly in his career) the pro immigration with
the anti immigration (he's been both adamantly in his career) the
pro stem cell research with the anti stem cell research (he's been
both adamantly in his career) the pro gay rights and the anti gay
rights (he's been both adamantly in his career)...The only people
Mitt can't get behind him are the intellectually consistent and
those with principles that do not waver to win elections, but hey,
as Adlai Stevenson said, you need a majority to win!
Grand Chalupa|12.11.07 @ 8:15PM|#
Sorry to disagree with the "damn those white nativists" theme
but Hispanics have the highest crime rate, lowest level of
education (well into the third generation) and most out of wed lock
births of any group of Americans besides blacks. And the
differences between Whites and Hispanics is not slight.
Maybe white Americans prefer not to see their schools go to shit
and or be victims of crime. Ever think of that?
Of course not. Most of you follow the simple brown/black = good,
white = bad equation. When talking about immigrants, actual facts
like crime and what happens to neigborhoods that become
Hispanicized never comes up. But who needs facts when you have an
ideology?
|12.11.07 @ 8:36PM|#
Sorry to disagree with the "damn those white nativists"
theme but Hispanics have the highest crime rate, lowest level of
education (well into the third generation) and most out of wed lock
births of any group of Americans besides blacks.
So assuming, arguendo, it was legal to do so, would you support
kicking blacks out of the county too?
paulie|12.11.07 @ 8:38PM|#
It's absurd.
The idea that legal immigrants are for an open border is the
same.
I am a legal immigrant. I support an open border.
|12.11.07 @ 8:41PM|#
Does anybody else here think that a poster who's screen name translates to "Big Tortilla Chip" is a little too meta when he starts talking about the "Mexican Menace"?
|12.11.07 @ 8:45PM|#
Chalupa's argument is one I've made, in a different form, here a
few times. Hispanic immigrants tend to be the equivalent of
"peasants" with all the social pathologies inherent therein. It's
natural that many folks don't want a suddent influx of third world
peasants into this nation.
This is not to say that
1. All Hispanics are peasants (that would be stupid)
2. Hispanics are somehow inferior and "meant" to be peasants (that
is stupid too, history, which is largely accidental, plays a big
role)
3. Even peasants are not deserving of having a better life (they
are human beings and Creatures of God says I)
Happy Jack|12.11.07 @ 8:48PM|#
I thought it was the Islamofascists who were dating the pretty white women.
|12.11.07 @ 8:56PM|#
There is also a totally a-rational but nevertheless important argument, that too much heterogenity breaks up what could be viable communities. Maybe people OUGHT not to do that, but they seem to (heterogenity has long been recognized as a variable conducive to high crime for example). There is something "aesthetic" about it I guess, which is why so many people, normally good folks, are so mad about seeing things or hearing phone prompts in Spanish...
|12.11.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Chalupa's argument is one I've made, in a different form,
here a few times.
You ought to be embarrassed to admit that. It is pure collectivist
garbage (at best - at worst we know what it can be) to make a case
for deciding an individual person's rights based on membership in
an arbitrarily defined group.
|12.11.07 @ 9:00PM|#
@Eric Dondero
National Review Magazine's Editorial Board just endorsed Mitt
Romney for President, saying he's best fit to unify all the varying
factions of the GOP.
But
John Derbyshire has decided to support Paul!
Given that there's a fairly broad portion of NR's readership that
finds Derbyshire to be about the last columnist worth reading
there, whaddaya have to say about that?
|12.11.07 @ 9:00PM|#
Brian-I am a bit embarrassed to admit that, as I've had quite a
few run ins with Chalupa (see his amazingly racist ideas of arabs
for example).
But Brian, I can recognize the worth of individuals while also
realizing that group averages mean something. If I see that
immigrant education rates are amazingly low, as a whole, I am
troubled about more immigrants. That is not collectivism, that's
just math...
|12.11.07 @ 9:00PM|#
Before everyone jumps on Tancredo for pandering, it should be noted that the counterargument is that unless Republicans cave into the demands of illegal immigrants, Hispanics won't vote for them.
|12.11.07 @ 9:02PM|#
Hey, I once emailed Derb to congratulate him on his support for evolution and he emailed me back a personalized message back. He's a reason to read NRO. Pretty much everyone else though is a reason to realize you are reading a GOP Party brochure.
green mamba|12.11.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Links to government stats?
Government stats make it very difficult to learn anything about the
Hispanic crime rate because Hispanics are counted as white in crime
statistics.
However, here is some information on comparative rates of
incarceration: Bureau of Justice Statistics
|12.11.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Hey, I'm arguing against current levels of Hispanic immigration
and I'll admit that I've seen stats suggesting their crime rates
are LOWER than US crime rates and only increase in the second or
third generation.
My argument is based on the well supported fact that most of these
immigrants lack a high school education and all of the things that
come with it...I won't pretend like I don't have many qualms about
it though, they are people too, living under a crappy government,
and deserve better...
|12.11.07 @ 9:07PM|#
If I see that immigrant education rates are amazingly low,
as a whole, I am troubled about more immigrants. That is not
collectivism, that's just math...
So what would you call it when, say during the period after Jim
Crow when blacks were moving into neighborhoods that had restricted
to whites before, some southerner had said something like
this:
"If I see that black crime rates are amazingly high, as a whole, I
am troubled about more blacks."?
Why should I think any differently about what you said than what
that guy said?
TLB|12.11.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Oh my. Weigel is being even more of an idiot than usual.
I didn't bother reading the Lizzzza piece because my intern
already did:
A classic dumbed-down Remnick-era New Yorker piece--remedial reading for U.W.S. cocooners... Did I mention that it's a bad piece?
In other news, one of Weigel's favorite quote sources shows their
libertarian, free speech side.
And, here's what the MSM won't
tell you about Huck's latest plan.
Grand Chalupa|12.11.07 @ 9:10PM|#
Brian-I am a bit embarrassed to admit that, as I've had
quite a few run ins with Chalupa (see his amazingly racist ideas of
arabs for example).
Doesn't being Arab make me immune to being racist against
them?
I also once E-Mailed Derb, congratulating him on his being a racial
realist. He's who brought the quote to my attention from Steven
Sailer "The left believes in evolution, but not biology. The right
believes in biology, but not evolution." Perfect.
|12.11.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Brian
I've always thought you a bright guy, so I will willingly walk into
your trap.
Many Southerners were really racists, and would stop at nothing to
keep blacks out of their life.
Many were really worried about higher crime rates and the amazing
deprivation that former slaves came from. It really was bad then.
Booker T Washington spoke about it.
So color me one of the people really, really concerned about the
amazingly high levels of social pathology correlated with our
immigrants.
Explain why I should embrace them. I assure you I have no knee jerk
rejection of them.
|12.11.07 @ 9:12PM|#
And, more to the point, would you have supported the right of the white southerners to restrict how many blacks could move into their neighborhood because of fears of crime and what too much "heterogeneity" would do to their viable communities?
|12.11.07 @ 9:16PM|#
For what its worth Chalupa, I've actually thought about it long and hard, and I think labelling you a "racist" is useless. You make some very overbroad generalizations about Arabs and how all their rights and moral claims should be shat upon, and I argue against that, but I recognize your experience and respect it. Someone who has been victimized by people x and therefore hates people x cannot be lectured by someone from group y (which I am). I can however think that your experiences don't determine what for me is the rational path...
|12.11.07 @ 9:21PM|#
Brian
If you tell me that black crime rates are four times white ones and
that there is an expected sudden influx of blacks into my
neighborhood then I will yes be concerned, and if that influx is
tied to some concerte policy proposal, like a apartment complex,
then I wll oppose it, yes. Statistics often lie, but when correct
they do mean something. In judging individuals they are faulty, but
they mean something, don't they? Do you hate math because it
aggregates?
Grand Chalupa|12.11.07 @ 9:23PM|#
This is not to say that
1. All Hispanics are peasants (that would be stupid)
2. Hispanics are somehow inferior and "meant" to be peasants (that
is stupid too, history, which is largely accidental, plays a big
role)
3. Even peasants are not deserving of having a better life (they
are human beings and Creatures of God says I)
Of course not. Say there's an airline that crashes four times as
much as other airlines. It doesn't mean every, or even most, planes
are going to crash. However, having a choice you avoid that
airline. And when you have a choice about who to let in to your
country, the last people you pick is a third world
underclass.
So what would you call it when, say during the period after Jim
Crow when blacks were moving into neighborhoods that had restricted
to whites before, some southerner had said something like
this:
"If I see that black crime rates are amazingly high, as a whole, I
am troubled about more blacks."?
Why should I think any differently about what you said than what
that guy said?
Of course, that's the kind of reasoning you use for every decision
in your life. Men commit more crimes than women, so when police are
looking for a suspect in a violent crime they'll probably
investigate more men. As a young Arab male, if I go to the airport
and they can tell I'm Arabic (which most of the time they can't) I
sure as hell hope I get more scrutiny than an old Japanese lady. If
your daughter is walking alone a dark street at night and has a
choice between walking on the side of the street with a group of
Asians (1/4th the crime rate of whites) or a side of the street
with a group of blacks (9 times the crime rate of whites), you're
an idiot if you tell her not to walk on the former side. Every
decision in a person's life or in public policy we make by
prejudging people. What you're asking is to sacrifice common sense
for utopian ideology.
|12.11.07 @ 9:28PM|#
My surname means "kindness to foreigners," believe it or
not.
That is just one more reason why I find Tancredoism
disgusting.
But, just like on the issue of the Iraq war, are there any
democrats objecting very strenuously?
By the way, I wish Ron Paul could take a stand here, but he hasn't.
The opposite, in fact.
|12.11.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Chalupa
I've agreed with much of what you've said. Let me disagree,
prehaps.
Let me ask you this.
If it were found that gun owners were more likely to make trouble
than non-gun owners, could we move against them?
|12.11.07 @ 9:30PM|#
On the one hand, group statistics mean SOMETHING.
On the other hand, they do not mean EVERYTHING.
|12.11.07 @ 9:31PM|#
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | December 11, 2007, 7:25pm | #
Accordions are the instrument of the Devil.
As a fan of Irish music, zydeco, and polka, I vehemently
disagree.
|12.11.07 @ 9:32PM|#
The Hungarians came and got all the good jobs. My Mom told me this in 1956, after the Revolution, so there. No more jobs for those other kinds of people. I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are Hungarian.
|12.11.07 @ 9:34PM|#
As a fan of Irish music, zydeco, and polka, I vehemently
disagree.
Q: What do you call an accordion player with a cell phone and
pager?
A: An optimist.
Grand Chalupa|12.11.07 @ 9:48PM|#
You make some very overbroad generalizations about Arabs and
how all their rights and moral claims should be shat upon, and I
argue against that, but I recognize your experience and respect it.
Someone who has been victimized by people x and therefore hates
people x cannot be lectured by someone from group y (which I am). I
can however think that your experiences don't determine what for me
is the rational path...
Nobody who has had a life as good as mine can say he's been
victimized. However, the more I got to know about Arabic culture,
the more my patriotism and love for the West in general grew. The
way Westerners handle sending their kids off to college, love, even
tragedy and death is stoic and honorable in a way that is
unimaginable in my family for example. I remember going out with
girls and meeting their parents. My God, I thought, white men are
so secure that they can sit in the room with the guy fucking their
daughter and have a nice chat! They have respect for the privacy of
their 14 and 15 year old children! How heroic! I understand the
feelings of the stereotypical flag waving immigrant; people who
have known no other culture just can't understand. Dinesh D'Souza,
who came from India, wrote a book called "What's so Great About
America" where he apperentley compares American culture to his
native India. I look forward to reading it after finals.
Let me ask you this.
If it were found that gun owners were more likely to make trouble
than non-gun owners, could we move against them?
If that was the case and we had a choice between letting in gun
owners and non-gun owners, and it by "act against" you mean let
less of them in, than yes.
SIV|12.11.07 @ 9:49PM|#
deciding an individual person's rights based on membership
in an arbitrarily defined group.
That is exactly what our current defacto immigration policy (and
the proposed "reform")
are all about. Encourage the migration of masses of poor,
uneducated, relatively unskilled Latin Americans while tightly
restricting immigration of individuals of other
classes (skills, education, modest wealth) and ethnicities.
And, more to the point, would you have supported the right of the white southerners to restrict how many blacks could move into their neighborhood because of fears of crime and what too much "heterogeneity" would do to their viable communities?
Brian Courts:
Why do you stereotype southerners?
Perhaps it is my age but I recall resistance to the integration of
neighborhoods in places like
Chicago, Boston and New York in the 1970s.
|12.11.07 @ 9:51PM|#
MNG,
It's fine to look at statistics and it is of course essential to
abstract simplified models from the overwhelming complexity of
reality in order to help our understanding of the world around us.
As someone with a non-trivial background in mathematics, no I don't
hate it.
Anyway, my point is that even if the statistics are absolutely
true, it would be morally wrong to judge an individual (and hence
grant or deny some legal status) based on his inclusion in the
group in question. I'll attempt to demonstrate my point again with
another rhetorical question.
Again, you have to assume that this is legal and constitutional: A
wealthy white suburban town is concerned with the fact that,
statistically, it is a fact that blacks have a higher crime rate
than whites. In order to address this concern they vote to pass an
ordinance limiting the number of blacks that can live in the town.
Is such a law not inherently immoral regardless of the accuracy of
the group statistics?
SIV|12.11.07 @ 9:59PM|#
Mexican immigrantion can have a civilizing effect on our culture which I whole-heartedly welcome.
SIV|12.11.07 @ 10:02PM|#
A wealthy white suburban town is concerned with the fact
that, statistically, it is a fact that blacks have a higher crime
rate than whites. In order to address this concern they vote to
pass an ordinance limiting the number of blacks that can live in
the town. Is such a law not inherently immoral regardless of the
accuracy of the group statistics?
As this is a libertarian blog's comments I will point out the
immorality in your hypothetical is the restriction on property
rights and not the racial discrimination.
|12.11.07 @ 10:04PM|#
Why do you stereotype southerners?
Perhaps it is my age but I recall resistance to the integration of
neighborhoods in places like
Chicago, Boston and New York in the 1970s.
It was not my intent to stereotype anyone - I merely wanted an
example of where people were legally prevented from living
somewhere and how the arguments that one might have made against
ending such a prohibition are eerily similar (and no different
morally, in my mind) as the arguments made against
immigration.
I am sure you are correct that there was a great deal of opposition
in the north as well.
TGGP|12.11.07 @ 10:13PM|#
Hispanics aren't going to go Republican even if they're pandered
to, and even those Hispanics who are Republican are more pro-government and
spending than white Democrats, so libertarians shouldn't want a
more Hispanic dominated Republican party. The supposed "cultural
conservatism" of Hispanics is also subservient to their
anti-libertarian economic positions. Steve Sailer has written
extensively on how
ineffective courting Hispanics is for Republicans, and he's one of
the few on the subject who actually has the voting totals to back
up his point rather than simply asserting that the Republican party
just has to do so and so.
The Republican Party, endorsing the economic positions it does now,
is simply doomed if the demographic transition we are undergoing
continues at the current rate. It's only hope is to
stop that transition by controlling immigration.
Trotsky-libertarianism is doomed. The only potentially successful
strategy is libertarianism in one
country.
I discussed this with loads more links I don't feel like copying
here.
Tacos mmm...|12.11.07 @ 10:13PM|#
My God, I thought, white men are so secure that they can sit in the room with the guy fucking their daughter and have a nice chat!
You do realize that this is a recent development, don't you?
Tacos mmm...|12.11.07 @ 10:14PM|#
My God, I thought, white men are so secure that they can sit in the room with the guy fucking their daughter and have a nice chat!
My second thought being "Obviously, you're not black."
Tacos mmm...|12.11.07 @ 10:16PM|#
That is exactly what our current defacto immigration policy (and the proposed "reform")
are all about. Encourage the migration of masses of poor, uneducated, relatively unskilled Latin Americans while tightly restricting immigration of individuals of other
classes (skills, education, modest wealth) and ethnicities.
Well, yes, much of the demand is for unskilled labor. The
native-born population is quite well educated, and it makes little
sense to have an electrical engineer picking strawberries. We do,
however, need more skilled workers as well, particularly in
medicine, and the barriers are absurdly high.
|12.11.07 @ 10:24PM|#
As this is a libertarian blog's comments I will point out
the immorality in your hypothetical is the restriction on property
rights and not the racial discrimination.
No, the immorality of the law in my hypothetical is the state
granting or denying a legal status based on an arbitrary "accident
of birth" if you will, rather than the person's actions. I don't
care whether it's race, place of birth, or dominant hand, for that
matter, the state has no business telling me who I can and cannot
associate with for any such reason.
SIV|12.11.07 @ 10:38PM|#
the state has no business telling me who I can and cannot
associate with for any such reason
That was my point. The State does require you to associate with
anyone for the purpose of buying/selling/renting property. The
immorality in your hypothetical example is restricting your
associations, and hence, your property rights.
Scott66|12.11.07 @ 10:38PM|#
I would like to play Brian's hypothetical game.
Imagine a tropical island inhabited by a group of non-whites. This
group has their own and distinct culture - government, education,
marriage and dating customs, etc.,etc...
Now a bunch of rich white westeners decide to move there in large
enough numbers that they can take over the island and with one
person one vote reshape the country in whatever way they
want.
Do the islanders have a right to try and stop the white westeners?
If they complain about the migration do I get to call them
racists?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.11.07 @ 11:10PM|#
Dave, I'm buying you a drink for that headline. I'da bought you an entire bottle if you woulda linked to the video.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.11.07 @ 11:15PM|#
So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?'
Well, your just as likely to be asked to push 8 for Espanol.
Why wait a generation to sell your goods and services to people
when they have the money right now?
The larger complaint is having to punch a got dam number at
all.
Kwix, your main point is entirely valid, but usually when you are
punching 1 for English its to get into the cue to resolve a
problem, try to get the phone company to fix the line, or to get to
your bank balance.
|12.11.07 @ 11:39PM|#
I live in an 70% black (according to the 2000 Census) neighborhood. According to Chalupa, LeMur, et al I should be pissing myself whenever it gets dark--after all ThemNegroes have the highest crime rate. But I don't. In fact I've lived here since 2003 and never been the victim of a crime aside from some TPing on Halloween.
|12.11.07 @ 11:40PM|#
Oh yeah, one more thing. If you're really worried about crime so much, try practicing your Second Amendment rights.
Grand Chalupa|12.12.07 @ 12:45AM|#
The Republican Party, endorsing the economic positions it
does now, is simply doomed if the demographic transition we are
undergoing continues at the current rate. It's only hope is to stop
that transition by controlling immigration. Trotsky-libertarianism
is doomed. The only potentially successful strategy is
libertarianism in one country.
Yes, Pat Buchanan has a whole chapter in one of his books titled
"The Suicide of the GOP."
This goes back to my earlier post about people who have only been
exposed to one culture not getting it. You may bitch that only
15-20% of the American electorate leans libertarian, but even a
number that high is a historical accident that comes every thousand
years. These people think civillization is like a soap opera, you
can change the theme music and replace the white actors with brown
ones and keep the same theme going.
There will be no more Regan or Gingrich revolutions. Any more
"revolutions" from here on out will be leftist.
Grand Chalupa|12.12.07 @ 1:10AM|#
And one more thing before I go to bed. Open borders philosophy is like pacifism. It's only a good philosophy if everybody else subscribes to it too. Otherwise it's suicide.
dhex|12.12.07 @ 1:52AM|#
These people think civillization is like a soap
opera
it's more like a threepenny opera.
also you're fucking hilarious.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.12.07 @ 1:55AM|#
Well, Senor Chalupa, aren't you just a ray of fargin' sunshine.....
Rigoberto (Resident Libertaria|12.12.07 @ 2:15AM|#
Grand Chalupa; why do you assume all Hispanics are brown? Hispanic is a ethnic category, not a racial value. For example, their are Asian Hispanics. There are also a lot of us who come from a Spanish background who are indistinguishable from your Anglo pals there.
Rhywun|12.12.07 @ 2:19AM|#
Given that there's a fairly broad portion of NR's readership
that finds Derbyshire to be about the last columnist worth reading
there, whaddaya have to say about that?
Huh. Derb is the only columnist I find worth reading
there. Even when he's full of shit(e), he writes circles around
those other jerks.
Rhywun|12.12.07 @ 2:36AM|#
I too would like to see some proof that immigrants are more prone to crime, as some of you are asserting; cuz from where I sit, in Brooklyn, surrounded by immigrants from all over the world, that assertion is just laughable. Could it be that there are other factors at play?
|12.12.07 @ 3:16AM|#
Personally, I've found no notable propensity to greater crime among the hispanic population than anyone else. In fact, if I find someone scrupulously observing the speed limit, and they're not a senior, they're more likely to be hispanic than anything else. Perhaps a greater fear of the police or of the consequences of attracting law enforcement attention is responsible.
|12.12.07 @ 5:32AM|#
And when you have a choice about who to let in to your country, the last people you pick is a third world underclass.
The problem is that a whole lot of people seem to think that we
shouldn't be able to pick who (or how many) we let in, and they use
the language of shame and ridicule ("nativist", "racist") to shout
down those who disagree.
|12.12.07 @ 7:03AM|#
Not knowing a great deal about Mr. Grand Chalupa, it seems to me
as though he's experienced something of a cultural shock and tilted
his allegiance and identification westward. An association not
worlds apart from that of tribe, as seen in some ME
countries.
This strikes me as a rather fearful and unthinking reaction to the
threat of the external others. Where ad hoc rationalizations serve
as props.
As to the consequential arguments for intra-national managed
population groups raised in Brian Courts' hypotheticals, rebuttals
can be offered without abandoning consequence. Given their
situational application, and the lack of account for individual
rights across groups, they might well engender problems related to
group balkanization. Hostility between groups could rise, and
public disorder in it's many manifestations might result. The
impetus being, lest we forget, the ejection of individuals and
families from any number of locations by popular local will.
I'm short on prescriptions, but consistency and the perception of
consistency for the treatment of individuals across groups seems
like a consequential good in this calculus. Wherein the role for
the federal government might be to provide a floor for the minimum
stength of those rights.
To clarify, this post doesn't make mention of the level or kind of
immigration one allows at the borders and ports.
|12.12.07 @ 7:14AM|#
We can't have open borders. If we do the hispanic folks from the
south will over run us and put a huge strain on natural resources,
making it impossible to get certain food items.
IT'S FOR THE CHILIS YOU KNOW!!!
|12.12.07 @ 8:34AM|#
And when you have a choice about who to let in to your
country, the last people you pick is a third world
underclass.
Hypothetically speaking...
Let's say that the US had an immigration system where the only
people it lets in are those who self select as willing to uproot
themselves from their prior lives, as willing to risk death dealing
with smuggling and desert crossing, and as willing to live in the
shadows of a society that threatens to tear them away them from any
new life they develop.
Isn't it fairly obvious that such a system will select immigrants
who have the least to lose by immigrating -- i.e., your
"underclass" -- and that it will not select those who have a life
in their home country comfortable enough that they would rather not
risk it to live illegally elsewhere?
In contrast, under open borders immigrants can (a) choose whether
to uproot themselves or work seasonally, (b) enter at well known
ports to their benefit and the US's, and (c) not fear imprisonment
and deportation at the whim of the government.
Don't you think that such a system is more likely to select people
you prefer, crowding out the "underclass" you worry about in the
process?
|12.12.07 @ 8:38AM|#
Open borders philosophy is like pacifism. It's only a good
philosophy if everybody else subscribes to it too. Otherwise it's
suicide.
I don't understand this assertion. How does another country's
opening its borders make the harm you allege immigrants cause
disappear?
|12.12.07 @ 9:19AM|#
So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for
English?' 'Why can't they speak English?'
And, of course, "Waaah, my p*ssy hurts!"
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Why is this so hard? Grant those who want to come here green
cards, without necessarily changing much about the citizenship
process. No "amnesty" with regard to citizenship - "they broke the
law!", but no deportations.
The political impact immigrants would have will then be limited,
but people would have their associational rights intact.
Furthermore, if there is a legal way to get into the country, the
honest people will take it, and only those actually trying to do
something wrong will try to sneak over the border. There will be a
lot fewer of them, making it easier for Border Patrol to catch the
MexicanAlQaeda or whatever.
|12.12.07 @ 9:24AM|#
Scott66,
Our nation has approximately 300 million residents. Somewhere
around 10% of them are immigrants. In the example McCain gave, 20%
of the town's population is now Hispanic.
I would say that someone who looks at this situation, and is
"concerned is not the word" about them taking over is giving in to
irrational fear of the Other, and that there is probably a racial
element to their unreason.
|12.12.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Here in Fairfax County VA, the major immigrant group is Koreans.
I've seen quite a few business signs that don't bother with English
especially in the Annandale area.
One of my mother's friends lived in Annandale and was constantly
going on about the foreigners and how scared she was of them.
What on earth was she afraid of? that the teenagers were ruining
the local grade curve? "Assault on the culture" really does narrow
it down in this case. You can't tell me that having Koreans in your
neighborhood is bad for any reason except that you can't understand
what they are saying and eating at their restaurants is too
confusing because they give you all those little dishes and you
don't know what to do with them.
|12.12.07 @ 11:17AM|#
"Assault on the culture" is a bullshit rationale. The point at which it is accepted as the role of the state to be concerned with cultural preservation is the point at which any notion of individual liberty is doomed. Seriously. If it's the job of the state to protect mainstream American culture from foreign influences, then what philosophical reason is there why it shouldn't aim to protect mainstream American culture from its own native-born deviants? You can argue that the philosophy doesn't matter, it's simply the structure of the law that foreigners are afforded different civil rights than citizens, but eventually the rationale does matter - in that the reason people cite and affirm for taking a given course of action inevitably winds up affecting future thought with regard to public policy, particularly in a democracy. If we believe our culture to be such a wilting flower that the phenomenon of migrant workers speaking another language constitutes an "assault on the culture," then our best efforts won't save it.
x,y|12.12.07 @ 11:25AM|#
"Our nation has approximately 300 million residents.
Somewhere around 10% 100% of them are
immigrants or direct descendants of
immigrants."
Fixed that for you joe :)
|12.12.07 @ 11:27AM|#
the immorality of the law in my hypothetical is the state
granting or denying a legal status based on an arbitrary "accident
of birth" if you will, rather than the person's actions.
Any legal status arising from your family is based on an accident
of birth. Are the state laws on intestate inheritance also immoral
because they allow you to inherit your parent's estate, but give
your neighbor no claim?
What about state laws prohibiting you from marrying your sister?
Also immoral?
The laws allowing relatives to make health care decisions for you
when you are incapacitated? Immoral?
Is it immoral to require parents to support their children, but not
their neighbor's kids?
More to the point: Howsabout the laws giving citizenship based on
birth in the US? Immoral?
I'm not taking a position one way or another on whether we should
have any restrictions on immigration, here. I'm just pointing out
that the "accident of birth" gives rise to all kinds of legal
rights and duties that I don't think we would want to toss out the
window as inherently arbitrary and therefore illegitimate (as it
were).
|12.12.07 @ 11:53AM|#
The laws allowing relatives to make health care decisions
for you when you are incapacitated? Immoral?
In most cases, I'd like to see these laws specifically replaced
with laws under which the individual specifically designates those
to whom the responsibility of medical decision is given in case of
personal incapacity. That's just 'cause I've known too many people
with dysfunctional families, where people to whom that
responsibility would most likely have devolved were simply not
trustworthy to act in someone else's interests.
|12.12.07 @ 12:15PM|#
I'm just pointing out that the "accident of birth" gives
rise to all kinds of legal rights and duties that I don't think we
would want to toss out the window as inherently arbitrary and
therefore illegitimate (as it were).
In most of your examples, the law is simply recognizing preexisting
rights of property and association. You'll note that, for most of
your examples, the individual involved -- the deceased or the ill
-- could very well change the presumed familial legal entitlement
by testament or contract.
The laws on marrying your sister and caring for your children do
venture to the edge of legitimate government concern, but are
tolerable because they reflect utterly ubiquitous perspectives of
society.
More to the point: Howsabout the laws giving citizenship based
on birth in the US? Immoral?
Not at all. Laws basing legal rights of residence or labor on place
of birth are immoral.
|12.12.07 @ 1:10PM|#
I think that John mcCain is the solution to the candidate question of who to vote for and how do I know you ask? those with eyes let them take a look at where he stands and what he stands for, not to mention that fantabulous record of his.
|12.12.07 @ 1:32PM|#
In most cases, I'd like to see these laws specifically
replaced with laws under which the individual specifically
designates those to whom the responsibility of medical decision is
given in case of personal incapacity.
All states have such a law. Practically nobody actually makes the
designation, so you have to have a default rule about who gets to
decide.
In most of your examples, the law is simply recognizing
preexisting rights of property and association.
I think the law is creating rights of property and association, at
least for legal purposes. What pre-existing right do I have,
independent of the law, to my parent's assets? To make health care
decisions for my wife (or cousin)?
The only thing that makes these rights legal rights is their
recognition in our body of law.
The laws on marrying your sister and caring for your children
do venture to the edge of legitimate government concern, but are
tolerable because they reflect utterly ubiquitous perspectives of
society.
I'm sure you don't mean to say that societal consensus = morality,
but that's sure how this reads.
|12.12.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Not at all. Laws basing legal rights of residence or labor
on place of birth are immoral.
Now I'm curious. What should citizenship be based on?
|12.12.07 @ 1:59PM|#
I think the law is creating rights of property and
association, at least for legal purposes.
And I -- like those who wrote and signed the Declaration of
Independence -- think that those rights preexist governments and
law. Governments merely recognize and protect those rights to
secure them for individuals. To distinguish actual rights from
"legal rights", I prefer to call the latter "entitlements".
What pre-existing right do I have, independent of the law, to
my parent's assets? To make health care decisions for my wife (or
cousin)?
You don't have a right to your parent's assets. The right at play
here is your parent's right to give you their assets. You don't
have a right to make health care decisions for someone else. The
right at play here is the someone else's right to have you make her
health care decisions for her.
The law encodes reasonable defaults for how those rights are
assigned based on social standards. But the people whose rights are
actually being exercised have every right to change that default
through testament or contract.
I'm sure you don't mean to say that societal consensus =
morality, but that's sure how this reads.
I mean to say that societal unanimity implies tolerable government
behavior, while noting that the morality was questionable. In other
words, I don't think that such laws mark "a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [evincing] a
design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism."
|12.12.07 @ 2:12PM|#
On the point of Republicans losing the Hispanic vote: Texas will
be majority-minority sometime in the next decade. Let's do a little
back of the envelope math.
If Texas Hispanics start giving Democrats 70% of the vote instead
of the 60% they give them today, and they make up 40% of voters,
that will be 24%.
If black Texans continue to vote 90% Democrat, and make up 10% of
voters, that will be another 9% of the vote.
If white Texans make up half the electorate, and the previous two
propositions hold true, the Democratic presidential candidate will
need to win only 34% of the vote to win the state.
The Republicans will never, ever, be able to win a presidential
election without Texas' EVs.
|12.12.07 @ 2:22PM|#
What should citizenship be based on?
Citizenship is a government entitlement. It should be based on
whatever practically produces the government that best secures the
rights of the individuals under its dominion.
It is frankly a lot more difficult to put together rules for the
granting of citizenship that optimize government than it is to put
together rules for the recognition by government of the individual
rights of residence and labor. Rules for the former are by
necessity pragmatic and not solidly based on first
principles.
But the US seems to have done an okay job so far at granting
citizenship. I'm not nearly as worried about that issue as I am
about the blatant rights abrogation inherent in protectionist
immigration law.
|12.12.07 @ 3:57PM|#
You don't have a right to your parent's assets. The right at
play here is your parent's right to give you their
assets.
But when they die intestate, they haven't given the assets to
anyone. You have a right to those assets based on an accident of
birth.
You don't have a right to make health care decisions for
someone else. The right at play here is the someone else's right to
have you make her health care decisions for her.
Which right is established based on an accident of birth, if they
don't affirmatively designate you.
The law encodes reasonable defaults for how those rights are
assigned based on social standards.
Sure. Based on the accident of birth. Aren't we both saying the
same thing here?
But the people whose rights are actually being exercised have
every right to change that default through testament or
contract.
Which doesn't change the fact that, if they don't, the accident of
birth determines the outcome.
It is frankly a lot more difficult to put together rules for
the granting of citizenship that optimize government than it is to
put together rules for the recognition by government of the
individual rights of residence and labor.
That's a distinction I can live with.
|12.12.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Sure. Based on the accident of birth. Aren't we both saying
the same thing here?
I don't think so. I wouldn't call it a "right to your parents'
estate" or a "right to make health decisions for your
spouse".
Rather, the state of necessity must determine someone to fill those
roles, and in our society those roles are almost always filled by
those people. The fact that the person holding the actual rights
involved can choose someone different to fill the roles pretty much
disproves the assertion that the child or the spouse had an actual
right to fill the roles.
|12.12.07 @ 4:10PM|#
The Republicans will never, ever, be able to win a
presidential election without Texas' EVs.
Oddly, they did just that in 1968. It depends on how the other
states shift around.
If the Repubs had carried Michigan and Pennsylvania in the last
couple of elections (both of which pretty close, as I recall), they
could have lost Texas and still won.
|12.12.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Rather, the state of necessity must determine someone to
fill those roles,
Right. And it does so based on the accident of birth.
The fact that the person holding the actual rights involved can
choose someone different to fill the roles pretty much disproves
the assertion that the child or the spouse had an actual right to
fill the roles.
But they do, unless the principal says otherwise.
slip|12.12.07 @ 4:15PM|#
" Laws basing legal rights of residence or labor on place of
birth are immoral."
Mexican property rights. What's mine is mine and what's yours is
mine too!
|12.12.07 @ 4:28PM|#
But they do, unless the principal says otherwise.
In another society, the default legal recipient of a decedent's
property might be the state, and the default decider of health care
decisions might be a board of doctors.
Are you saying that the state has a right to a person's property
upon his death? Or that a board of doctors has the right to make
health care decisions for a sick person?
|12.12.07 @ 4:34PM|#
RC,
Yeah, fair enough. I should have added, "without a major
realignment."
But in practical terms, if the Republicans carry Michigan and
Pennsylvania, we're talking about a nationwide blowout - at least,
under existing voting patterns.
TGGP|12.12.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Derbyshire explains why open borders is a suicidal position for libertarians but a perfectly sensible one for leftists here.
|12.12.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Derbyshire explains why open borders is a suicidal position
for libertarians but a perfectly sensible one for leftists
here.
I was about to say that you owe me 10 minutes of my life back, but
then I got to the good bits...
I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin's book. They should acknowledge that the USA is, of all nations, the one whose political traditions offer the most hospitable soil for libertarianism. Foreigners, including foreigners possessed of the urge to come and settle in modern, welfare-state America, are much less well-disposed towards libertarianism.
It's funny because it's completely unsupported.
|12.12.07 @ 6:02PM|#
By the way, to save all of you the agony of reading the
Derbyshire piece, I'll just say that his proof that foreigners
can't appreciate libertarian views is that, after "decades of
libertarian proselytizing," "only 13 percent of Americans currently
lean libertarian."
What is Latin for "non sequitur"?
MikeG|12.12.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Here is an economic approach to getting more open borders to work, and to pay for itself somewhat at the same time: AFA. http://ratails.blogspot.com/2007/12/afa-arizonans-modest-proposal-for.html
Grand Chalupa|12.12.07 @ 6:48PM|#
By the way, to save all of you the agony of reading the
Derbyshire piece, I'll just say that his proof that foreigners
can't appreciate libertarian views is that, after "decades of
libertarian proselytizing," "only 13 percent of Americans currently
lean libertarian."
What is Latin for "non sequitur"?
The point that 13% is a lot considering our positions and the
collectivist nature of man. In fact, it may be the highest
percentage you'll see in any country in our lifetime, and as the
white percentage of the population shrinks, the libertarian
percentage will shrink with it.
And Hispanics moving away from the GOP isn't due to immigrant
bashing. It's simply poor people voting for those who want gov
programs to help the poor, and those who pop out illigitmate
children at three times of the general population voting for the
party that subsidizes breeding.
Let me ask you this. Since it's a fact that Hispanics stay poor
well into the third generation and support big government, how on
earth do you not believe a larger Hispanic population will not lead
to a bigger government?
If you simply said that its immoral to descriminate based on place
of origin and damn the consequences that would at least be an
honest position. But to say that this ideology isn't going to lead
to bigger government is denying reality.
|12.12.07 @ 7:16PM|#
The point that 13% is a lot considering our positions and
the collectivist nature of man.
Oddly, I believe that the nature of man is inherently
individualist. Furthermore, it seems to me that it is the
plenty generated in the US that is most responsible for
growth of the welfare state. An immigrant from a country with less
plenty and more corruption who comes to the US to build a life with
his own hands because he knows he is free to do so in the US is
likely to be less collectivist than a home grown native.
In fact, it may be the highest percentage you'll see in any
country in our lifetime, and as the white percentage of the
population shrinks, the libertarian percentage will shrink with
it.
I'd be interested to see the proportion who score libertarian in
Hong Kong.
|12.12.07 @ 7:17PM|#
If you simply said that its immoral to descriminate based on
place of origin and damn the consequences that would at least be an
honest position.
I could say that, but it wouldn't be terribly interesting to those
who don't hew closely to my moral understanding. I believe -- and I
believe I can reasonably argue -- that the historical, empirical,
and theoretical evidence also supports not discriminating against
people based on place of origin. So if someone takes a position
that can be refuted on those grounds, I choose those grounds to
refute it.
But to say that this ideology isn't going to lead to bigger
government is denying reality.
Curiously, the US government grew the most aggressively during the
relatively immigrant-free period between 1924 and 1965.
I still question how the observation that Americans are too stupid
to appreciate libertarian values automatically implies foreigners
are stupider. And, even presuming they are, I question why the
percentage of voters identifying as libertarian slipping from 13%
to, say, 11% over the next couple decades due to that effect means
the end of libertarianism.
Scott66|12.12.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Joe @9:24,
I notice you did not actually answer the questions.
Joe @9:24 & @2:12,
After your first post I thought you were a blind ideologue who did
not understand my point. But after your 2:12 post it is clear you
are a dishonest ideologue. Your analysis of Texas EVs empasizes the
points I was trying to make - there is a large enough immigration
from third world countries to have significant impact on our
society and therefore there are reasons other than racism to be
against it.
|12.12.07 @ 11:13PM|#
Gotta love how Chickenshit Tancredo "boycotted" the Spanish debate. Bawk, bawk, bawk...
Grand Chalupa|12.12.07 @ 11:17PM|#
I still question how the observation that Americans are too
stupid to appreciate libertarian values automatically implies
foreigners are stupider. And, even presuming they are, I question
why the percentage of voters identifying as libertarian slipping
from 13% to, say, 11% over the next couple decades due to that
effect means the end of libertarianism.
There are a million shades of libertarianism and that 11/13% number
isn't everything.
Articles have been posted that show Hispanics overwhelmingly favor
big government. Samuel Huntington has shown that third generation
Hispanics aren't doing much better. They have high rates of
illigitmacy and crime and so of course vote Democratic.
The thesis is simple. Hispanics lean towards bigger government,
more Hispanics will lead towards bigger government. If the Hispanic
presence in America will double in the next 50 years, the entire
political spectrum will shift far to the left.
You say you doubt this will happened. Where's your evidence as far
as polls conducted among Hispanics or voting patterns? If you have
anything to refute what I'm saying, please share. It'll cheer me
up.
Mike Laursen|12.13.07 @ 1:04AM|#
Articles have been posted that show Hispanics overwhelmingly
favor big government. Samuel Huntington has shown that third
generation Hispanics aren't doing much better.
And their favoring of big government makes them different from
other Americans how?
Grand Chalupa|12.13.07 @ 11:56AM|#
And their favoring of big government makes them different
from other Americans how?
Because, like I said two or three times already, polling and voting
patterns have shown that on average...ah just forget it.
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