Get Out! No, Wait—Come Back!

The New York Times checks in with some of the towns and cities that passed draconian anti-immigrant measures. The results were so shocking, so unpredictable, that… well, actually, they were pretty predictable.

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town's already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.

So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.

"I don't think people knew there would be such an economic burden," said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. "A lot of people did not look three years out."

When prefab populists like Laura Ingraham badmouth immigration reforms because "the elitists" don't understand "what Americans want," this is why she's off base. Municipal "kick 'em out!" laws pass because local leaders pander to the lower sentiments of their voters, and their voters are wrong.

Kerry Howley on immigrant restrictions in lily-white areas right here. 

Comments

[joe]

BECAUSE the elitists don't understand.

One of those Type Os.

[Episiarch]

Poor people tend to live in clusters.

[smartass sob]

So what's so surprising? Immigrants didn't all move into those towns overnight and the towns' ecconomies didn't become dependent on them overnight. Any sudden change in a town's population could have strong ecconomic consequences. What are we worried about here - enforcing laws or just the bottom line? Oh wait... hell, it's always about the bottom line.

[joe]

If there are enough Paperwork-Deprived America-Joiners in your town for people to start noticing them, that means they're a pretty significant segment of the community's social, civic, and economic life.

[Russ 2000]

From the article:

"It is unclear whether the Brazilian and Latino immigrants who left will now return to Riverside. "

Yeah, it's also unclear where the people fled to. Did the next town over see an increase? Was there a surge of one-way tickets to Brazil?

Another shitty piece of reporting from the NYT.

[Quietreadergirl]

I sincerely hope the erstwhile business owners respond like the sanitation manager Homer replaced, when the town begs him return. "It is so gratifying...to see you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, goodbye."

[joe]

smartass sob,

Bottom Line. Totally the bottom line.

Laws are good only to the extent that they help people and accomplish good things. If they aren't doing that, who cares?

Jobs and income, on the other hand, are good in and of themselves.

Now, if you're talking about RULE of law, that is something that's important. Respect for the rule of law is something that accomplishes good things, like reducing violence and attracting investment and newcomers. Which is why we need to get rid of stupid laws that generate contempt for the rule of law through their stupidity and constant violation.

[Warren]

I agree with thoreau

[Reinmoose]

no sympathy for the town here. They aren't willing to take the economic/quality of life consequences for a supposedly moral decision. Liklihood is many of the residents who voted for the ban actually thought it would *help* the local economy, and that it wasn't a principled law in the first place.

[smartass sob]

Laws are good only to the extent that they help people and accomplish good things. If they aren't doing that, who cares?

Jobs and income, on the other hand, are good in and of themselves

Sure, Joe, but which people? And how is "good" to be defined? Good by what standard? And what's it got to do with the "bottom line"?

[Josh]

If you live in the middle of Pennsylvania, you have a lot of discussions with people from towns who have passed or are considering passing similar legislation. If there were a polite way to say "Your town was a hellhole before the immigrants got there, and at least now you have cheap and interesting street food" I could end the conversations a lot quicker.

[me2]

Josh, sometimes blunt is better than polite

[Lamar]

Oh dear. I was born in Riverside, and I still have family there. We lived near Ott's Tavern on Bridgeboro Road. I can say with a decent amount of certainty that it is a racist enclave. It is a sad, broken little town. My parents got the hell out, thank god. Those people saying that they are standing up for American values is an insult to American values, unless having a lot of trucker bars is equivalent to American values.

[Reinmoose]

Josh -
I went to school in middle-of-PA and had the same thought. First of all, Hazelton. WUH!
I think the way you put it was about as polite as it can be put.

[thoreau]

I agree with MikeP.

In this thread I'm also agreeing a lot with joe.

Who would have thought that kicking out a bunch of people with jobs would hurt a town? Really, it's shocking!

I think the illegal immigrants should all move to rural Colorado and all their town "El Gulcho." "We will stop the construction sites of the world!" Who is Juan Gutierrez?

[GILMORE]

Weigel, or 'The Weeg' as I like to call him, misses the best quote =

"It changed the face of Riverside a little bit," said Charles Hilton, the former mayor who pushed for the ordinance. (He was voted out of office last fall but said it was not because he had supported the law.)

"The business district is fairly vacant now, but it's not the legitimate businesses that are gone," he said. "It's all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens."

So, 'Bottom Line'.... yes, we are perfectly happy to fuck ourselves in the ass in the name of excluding outsiders from our burg.

hopefully that helps the Sob fella with his socratic devolution to perfect definitions. The Good in this case is, "we're poorer, but thats OK because we got rid of a bunch of brown-looking types that were a convenient political punching bag"

[Dee]

So this is either saying that by the time you realize you have a illegal alien problem its to late your already fucked deal with it.

Or since obviously you can sue a city now for enforcing a federal law does this mean I can sue my local government for not allowing me to break the drug laws and get away with it?

[Taktix?]

The entire economy would shut down if all illegals were kicked out of South Florida.

It would be abandoned after 1 year, and reclaimed by the Everglades after about 3 years.

An extreme example, perhaps, but hey, I moved far from hic towns long ago, so I have little else to contribute...

[joe]

Well, Elm Street hasn't been repaved, but it's not legitimate paving that's missing. It's all the pavement that would have been paid for with tax receipts from illegitimate businesses supporting criminal aliens.

Now, the money we're paying out to people who file claims because they damaged their cars driving on Elm Street - that's good, American money.

[Taktix?]

So this is either saying that by the time you realize you have a illegal alien problem its to late your already fucked deal with it.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the "problem" with the immigrants supporting a local economy.

Isn't one of the big arguments against immigration that the immigrants will be a burden to local and state economies.

They look like a real burden now, huh?

Or since obviously you can sue a city now for enforcing a federal law does this mean I can sue my local government for not allowing me to break the drug laws and get away with it?

Can you get someone to translate this into legible English?

[Translation Moose]

Taktix:

sher nuff:

Or since obviously you can sue a city now for enforcing a federal law does this mean I can sue my local government for not allowing me to break the drug laws and get away with it?
***BEGIN TRANSLATION***

I AM A SILLY PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO FORMULATE A POORLY-THOUGHT-OUT GOTCHA STATEMENT

***ENDIT ENDIT ENDIT***
w6gcc737

[Taktix?]

Thanks! Moose cookies on the house!

[VM]

oooh. bad call.

the neighbors complain when the excessive BATIN causes the cookies to go on their property, let alone their house.

Man, were they pissed about the time their car got a little on it... sheesh.

*ambles off*

[GILMORE]

Dee | September 26, 2007, 9:59am | #
So this is either saying that by the time you realize you have a illegal alien problem its to late your already fucked deal with it.

1 - they drove out many legal immigrants who served the growing population, and many 'illegals' are illegals because our system makes Kafka's Trial look like 'operation quick and easy'.

2 - what "problem" do you mean, other than growing population base, growing retail sales, growing pool of inexpensive labor, growing dynamism of the local culture... etc. Where exactly is the negative impact in the 'problem' of having people want to come and work in your depressed little ageing PA small towns?

oh yeah, 'der kultur'! We must defend our heritage!...

Other great quote from that piece =

"There's always got to be some scapegoats," said Regina Collinsgru, who runs The Positive Press, a local newspaper, and whose husband was among a wave of Portuguese immigrants who came here in the 1960s. "The Germans were first, there were problems when the Italians came, then the Polish came. That's the nature of a lot of small towns."

Immigrants from Latin America began arriving around 2000. The majority were Brazilians attracted not only by construction jobs in the booming housing market but also by the presence of Portuguese-speaking businesses in town. Between 2000 and 2006, local business owners and officials estimate, more than 3,000 immigrants arrived...

Now brazil isnt exactly the biggest source of rampant 'illegals' in the US. These people were coming there because people had come there before them and set up shop. They came to this town because they felt like they had a place to go where they'd be accepted. SO much for the melting pot.

[the Sob fella]

hopefully that helps the Sob fella with his socratic devolution to perfect definitions. The Good in this case is, "we're poorer, but thats OK because we got rid of a bunch of brown-looking types that were a convenient political punching bag"

Geez, Gilmore, funny how you just automatically assume that illegal immigrant means "brown-looking types."

[GILMORE]

Geez, Gilmore, funny how you just automatically assume that illegal immigrant means "brown-looking types.

No sir, in this case of Riverside, they was Brazilians*, which is close enough. No Ass of U and Me. Do you have any other point other than to use the "victim of racism accusation" card? That generally receives a yellow card for Very Boring.

(*my best friend in college was brazilian immigrant, blond haired blue eyed little bastard, rich as croesus, used to call him the Brazillionaire. I teased him he was Dr. Mengele's child. He died of skin cancer. Curse my white skin!)

[dhex]

sob:

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled.

so yeah in this case "brown-looking types" would be the "convenient political punching bag."

[smartass sob]

Hey, Gilmore, you're the one that brought up the subject of racism... when you used the phrase "brown looking types."

[whit]

yes. wanting our national sovereignty to be respected and the rule of law to be respected is a "lower sentiment"

heh

[GILMORE]

Sob,

So whats your point? DO you read the Mayor's preference for "criminal aliens" (I see little green men with sunglasses and cigarettes going, 'ey, i took care of that thing for you') as something more driven by a national passion for Rule of Law?

[joe]

Yeah, GILMORE, if you hadn't made that observation, there would be no connection to race and racism anywhere related to this story.

None. At all. Here we were, having a nice little discussion about whether them people ought to be rounded up and kicked out of town, and you had to go and bring up the subject of ethnicity.

I hope you're proud of yourself. Can't a bunch of white people sit around and talk about how terrible the Brazilians are without being accused of racism?

[GILMORE]

this posturing about "National Soveriegnty" is such arrogant nonsense.

The country was built by immigrants who got processed in a few days. Now it takes years, if at all. the problem isnt the rule of law, its the idea of Law being tossed around independently of the cost/benefit, and efficient application and enforcement. I have no problem getting rid of "illegals". Make them Legal. Problem solved. Soveriegnty retained. Economy supported.

[Fluffy]

SOB -

Like it or not, there is a racial element to the illegal immigrant debate.

Boston was crawling with illegal immigrant Irish back before Ireland became a better place to live than Massachusetts.

Nobody gave a damn.

[Taktix?]

Can't a bunch of white people sit around and talk about how terrible the Brazilians are without being accused of racism?

I hate people who are intolerant of other people, and the Dutch...

[joe]

GILMORE,

I like the term "the Ellis Island System." As in, I think we should go back to the Ellis Island System." Do a tb prick and stamp Pedro's entry papers.

It hits the people who try to single out THIS generation of immigrants as particularly dangerous right where they live.

[GILMORE]

...and the catholics.

[GILMORE]

joe,

not sure that plays. (the ellis island thing)

My dad's parents came from ireland in the depression, and he now lives in small town VA, and basically has the same view of the Hispanic thing as my 10th generation moms side of the family... that 'they're taking over!'. Reason doesnt have a whole lotta traction in this debate. The feeling that Hispanics are more 'foreign', and therefore more illegalish and threatening, is entrenched pretty deep outside urban areas where it's all old news.

[Taktix?]

I'd also like to point out that many of these small towns in PA and NJ were founded by groups of immigrants (generally ethnic minorities of the time, Germans, Poles, Irish, etc.) who were kicked out of the big cities by the asshole English and French aristocracy.

200 years later... well, you get the idea.

Go figure.

[Mike Laursen]

"A lot of people did not look three years out."

We should make that the official motto of the human race.

[SugarFree]

They kicked out Brazilians? Only people who've never eaten at a Brazilian steakhouse would make a super-tard move like that.

I was at one once, and they kept bringing around "the special meat" and saying it wasn't often they had it. I kept pestering them to find out what it was. I finally wore a waiter down and he told me it was "Brahma bull hump." It was awesome delicious and he was afraid I'd freak out. If you're ever anywhere that serves it, make sure and order the hump.

(That softly hit high lob is just for you, VM.)

[smartass sob]

Nobody gave a damn.

Aw c'mon, Fluffy, the Irish were treated like shit when they first came to this country.

[Lamar]

SOB:

You shouldn't pretend that Riverside isn't full of tired old cranks collecting disability and complaining about the n*g*ers of all different ethnic backgrounds while cleaning their fishing boats. That town is racist to the bone.

[joe]

GILMORE,

I don't imagine that very much would sway people who are passionately anti-immigrant, but as usual, all the action is in the middle.

And the people in middle actually do have the "pro-immigrant/pro-rule-of-law/pro-assimilation/anti-smuggling/anti-black market" position that the Tancredos pretend to have. Ellis Island is code for and orderly process of assimilating immigrants in an above-board manner.

[GILMORE]

Mike Laursen | September 26, 2007, 10:40am | #
"A lot of people did not look three years out."

We should make that the official motto of the human race.

No shit. I thought that was one of the funnier lines of the story, given that this asshole WAS THE MAYOR

'Gee, should we have thought about what this might *mean* to our economy?? In retrospect that was an element of our decision making process that was lacking. See, I was trying to get elected, and...'

smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 10:45am |
Aw c'mon, Fluffy, the Irish were treated like shit when they first came to this country.

...

...

...

...my point about the catholics.

You stupid fuck

[GILMORE]

joe spaketh =

all the action is in the middle.

disagree. The 'action' is scaring the shit out of millions of small town middle americans whose economy is depressed that the people to blame are the Beeners.

your thinking, which is on point for West/East coast urbanites, dont hold a lotta water in the hinterlands. They never did like them city types and their mongrolized ethnic makeup in the first place. Now they're seeing it in their towns and they are not feeling the upside of any change, even economically positive change. Hence my point about the Mayor being fine about sending his town on the skids

[chancelikely]

Mike Laursen:

Seconded on the motto issue.

[joe]

GILMORE,

But even the heartland is now more suburban than rural, and suburbanites in Indiana vote pretty much like suburbanites in Massachusetts.

Urbanites and rural folk, too. The difference in political patterns between red and blue areas lies in the ratios of the three groups, much more than in an difference between the people in each of those groups.

[The Owner\'s Manual]

It has become predictable, except for Weigel, for whom the assumption is automatic, that "illegal" will be dropped from describing this "immigration" problem. This article and the responses to it bear me out.

The Irish, indeed. How illegal were the Irish immigrants?

[smartass sob]

Gilmore,

They never did like them city types and their mongrolized ethnic makeup in the first place.

I believe the word you are attempting to use is mongrelized. Can't you spell, you most stupid fuck?

[GILMORE]

joe says =

But even the heartland is now more suburban than rural, and suburbanites in Indiana vote pretty much like suburbanites in Massachusetts.

ahh... not sure this isnt oversimplified.

I travel a lot around the country on business. The shit i hear from people outide the coastal metros is pretty drastically different than what you'd hear in educated coastal suburbs. It's a perception thing. Same as why people in indiana were faster to duct tape their windows for fear of terrorist bio-attack than anyone in new york, who could still see a smouldering hole in the city. Maybe voting patterns are similar, but psychology is not. Your analysis of a simple solution is nice, but the fact is that the majority, if asked, would like to reduce ALL immigration, legal or not, because of the sense of threat to jobs, culture, and national security, regardless of any rational consideration of actual outcomes. Proposing to 'speed up' the process of immigration would be opposed violently. The main focus is on 'controlling the borders'... a silly canard which is code for The War on Beeners... more popular than reinventing ellis island at the moment

[GILMORE]

Sob

yeah I dont bother spelling well, true. I focus on making sense, citizen.

[An Ottawa Reader]

The Irish, indeed. How illegal were the Irish immigrants?

They weren't illegal because there weren't any laws against them immigrating in the 1840s, in spite of the nativists' "best" intentions.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Who thinks Mexico and Brazil are preferable to the United States? Show of hands? Well, if you export a large % of Mexicans and Brazillians into the United States, why do you think that it won't Mexicanalize our nation to some degree? Sure, it will 'Americanize' the immigrants, I grant that readily. But they bring something too, and business and government to some extent will cater to that. I'm not stupid enough to think that Mexican culture, politics, etc., is all bad, but I'm also not stupid enough to think that we won't get some of the bad elements from the resulting synthesis. The idea that we will only get the best and brightest from other nations is hilarious, people move for a variety of reasons, and love of the Bill of Rights is not exactly one of them...

[VM]

Sugar -

you had me at "Brazilian"...

[thoreau]

MNG-

Is it possible that the people who leave a country are not the ones who supported whatever was wrong with their former homes? That they might be different from the people who support and maintain the bad aspects of the system?

We're all descended from people who left places that were worse than America.

[Rhywun]

some of the bad elements

What, exactly, are these "bad elements"?

[smartass sob]

I agree with Mr. Nice Guy. (To hell with Thoreau and MikeP.) 😉

[joe]

GILMORE,

the fact is that the majority, if asked, would like to reduce ALL immigration, legal or not, because of the sense of threat to jobs, culture, and national security, regardless of any rational consideration of actual outcomes.

I used to think that, too, but that's not what national polling shows. I was pleasantly surprised over the past couple of years by how much of a minority view the Tancredo/Buchanan position - the one that uses "law and order" as a stallking horse for xenophobia, as opposed to actually being law-and-order for its own sake - is among the American public.

Perhaps people with strong enough opinions on the subject of immigration that they spout off to a business acquaintance aren't a fair sample of the overall population.

[Dee]

What I was saying is that based on the story in which they say the city is being sued. Sued by whom exactly, those not even legally in the country?

If such suits are allowed in which we can sue a state for following and enforcing federal laws then it only follows that I should be allowed to sue my state for not allowing me the right to break federal laws as I see fit. After all if anyone should be able to sue a state I would think those of us here LEGALLY would be first in line.

This immigration issue is nothing but a loser for the Lib. party. You want everyone to jump on your wagon based on a few good issues and then you fuck it up by not realizing such a large percentage of the country is in total opposition to your stances on illegal immigration. Thus no matter what you float for ideas regarding other issues all people think when they see Lib. is that your in favor of open gates to the world for all to come here. This very one position will keep this party from ever being more than an online blog.

Your doing the same fucking thing the current poiticians in office are doing. Ignoring the general publics views on the issue will not win you any votes when we already have 2 other parties that do that already just fine. Why would we want a 3rd party that refuses to listen to what the will of the people says should happen?

Your insulting ways do nothing for your cause either when people try to engage in debate of issues. How do you expect to build a majority when your minority keeps kicking would be converts in the nuts with your smart ass go no where bullshit comments?

I get the impression many on this forum are from the north, perhaps thats the reason your views are so stuck in their ways.

We already have a parties of dumbasses perhaps if Libs took a moment to not be the smart ass party they might have a small chance of getting someplace eventually. Until then your nothing but a blog.

[joe]

MNG,

I don't think Italy or Cambodia are preferable to the United States, and yet I think that the cultural changes our country went through as a result of those immigrants coming here has been a huge net positive for us.

Whether you go for the melting pot or salad bowl analogy, having a constant infusion of culture-carrying immigrants stirring things up IS our national culture.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Rhywun-I think we are finding in Iraq that respect for limited constitutional government cannot spring up just be changing the rules on the books. Anglo-American respect for that occurred slowly over a period of centuries, and largely happened because of certain historical conditions, some of which were probably quite "accidental." So the bad elements of Mexico I would say are the lack of enthusiasim for individual rights, free enterprise, the larger than average illiteracy, superstition, collectivism, acceptance of and indulgence in corruption, and other differences in "social capital" that don't go away just because you go over a border.

Thoreau-You're right we are all from immigrants. Of course it takes a bit of gumption, capital and planning to cross the Atlantic, a little more than to walk over an imaginary border...It's also true that the vast majority of us are descended from European immigrants, and our laws and customs are very European (this is why when people talk of "the West" or "Western civilization" they include the U.S., but not, say, Brazil). You don't have to be a sociologist to conclude that S. American cultures may not mix well. I mean, other places where very different cultures mix (Bosnia for example) have had their problems...

[joe]

Nativists assume their position is much more popular among the American public than it actually is, because nativists make a point of limiting their exposure to people different from them.

Laura Ingrahm and Dee are Pauline Kael write large.

[Rhywun]

I'm still waiting to hear what the bad elements of Mexican and Brazilian culture are. Oh well. I keep hearing this claim over and over, but never any specifics.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

joe-But we've always responded to large infusions with controls, so you can't really us us as an example of the success of a nation with constant large infusions of immigrants. Our ancestors back in 1917 were not all just a bunch of ignorant racists, they had some real concerns with their "infusion."

[thoreau]

MNG-

Europe is hardly a homogeneous place, even in regards to political, legal, economic, and cultural institutions. It may be heading in that direction now (perhaps) but it certainly wasn't homogeneous at the time that most of our ancestors arrived.

Besides, Latin America has heavy Mediterranean influences. Now, you could argue that the Mediterranean is different from the rest of Europe, but then you have to drop the "Our ancestors are all from Europe" line as a useful argument. And once you start going after Mediterranean Catholics who speak Romance languages, you'll have to explain why it was OK to let the Italians in but not OK to let Latin Americans in.

[J sub D]

Lamar, I spent 14 months at CSEDs, Moorestown, (mid 80s) and tipped quite a few beers at Otts (Other Team Training Site). Granted, 1 year doesn't give you a very deep knowledge about a community, but I never really thought of the area as a racist enclave, all things considered. Of course, I was stationed at Ingalls shipbuilding, Pascagouls, MS, immediately afterwords so just about anywhere would seem enlightened by comparison.

It was nice to see an old watering hole mentioned.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Now Rhyun, I just listed them. Please pay attention!
Joe-Which presidential candidate is proudly proclaiming that they will increase immigration in the United States? I don't think the public is into that. Many think it's inevitable, but I'm not sure majorities support it...And the public opinion on illegal immigration is pretty one sided isnt it?

[joe]

MNG,

Even if your statements about the cultural baggage Mexican immigrants bring here is true, their kids are going to grow up as Americans. They're going to go to our schools, play in our Little Leagues, look at their first paychecks and ask "What's FICA," vote in our elections, watch our music videos and go to our baseball games.

This is the natural order of things. Unless you do something to interfere with it - like forcing them to live in insular ghettoes and avoid all contact with the authorities - the problem you mention takes care of itself.

[Reinmoose]

Doesn't anyone remember recently when our immigrants held riots in their ghettos, burning cars and such, in protest to how they were being treated in the United States?

Oh wait, no, that was France. A very xenophobia-integrated France.

Whatever. Maybe we should shun our immigrants and make sure they have no place to live and can't get jobs. That will surely have positive outcomes, right?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Thoreau-I totally agree Europe is very diverse, for that matter so is S. America and Africa, etc. Of course, it still makes sense to speak of "Hispanic culture" or "European culture" doesn't it?

[thoreau]

Of course, it still makes sense to speak of "Hispanic culture" or "European culture" doesn't it?

I dunno, let's ask some Basques, Northern Irish, Serbs, or eastern Ukrainians if Europeans have a lot in common with their neighbors.

[smartass sob]

Thoreau,

Regarding the question you posed to MNG: Several years ago a long time, next door neighbor of mine moved out of the neighborhood, because she didn't like the Hispanic immigrants that were starting to move in (although she didn't mind selling her home to them.) But mostly she didn't like the white trash that lived and remained around here. I remembered asking her at the time, "what happens if all the decent people leave? If they do, then there won't be any but crummy people left in the hood." She didn't have much of an answer for that. And funny thing...the place she moved to? she recently moved out of partly because of bad elements moving in (not Hispanics.)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Reinmoose-The muslims who rioted in France certainly blamed xenophobia, but France is a bit more welcoming of immigrants than we are, so you could say the better lesson learned there is: don't let large infusions of very diffrent folks into your nation.

joe-I said we would Americanize them. But they will Mexicanilize us some too, no? Only in the good ways? Wow, that's optimistic!

[joe]

MNG,

The opposite of "let's stop immigration" is not "let's increase immigration," but "let's legalize immigration."

And all of the Democratic candidates - the ones winning the head-to-head polls with the Republicans - are saying that.

Illegal immigration is unpopular across the board - and there are two schools of thought about what to do about it. One of them is much more popular than the other, although the minority view is held more passionately, and thus gets more press.

[Rhywun]

But they will Mexicanilize us some too, no?

Not if you pretend they aren't there.

[Episiarch]

joe is just shilling for Big Irish-Italian Immigration.

[Reinmoose]

...but France is a bit more welcoming of immigrants than we are...

DAMN! You made me choke on that one.
Do you really think this? And by France, do you mean the people or the policy?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Joe-My point is that even "pro-immigration" candidates would never, ever, tell the public "I would like to see many more immigrants here than we currently have" They would lose if they did. So they don't. They couch it in terms of "we will never grant amnesty, and we will increase border security, and we will punish those who came without doing it right, but we want to rationalize the path for those who have been here for many years, put down roots, yada, yada." Unlike the anti side they sure qualify it quite a bit. I think they know very few people are dying to see more immigrants in their neighborhood or in their kids schools...

[Episiarch]

MNG, uh, didn't the WOPs and Krauts and Micks WOPifize, Krautifize, and Mickifize us too?

[whit]

"The opposite of "let's stop immigration" is not "let's increase immigration," but "let's legalize immigration.""

except almost nobody is saying "let's stop immigration"

they are saying "let's stop ILLEGAL immigration"

conflating the two is either lazy or intellectually dishonest

"whatever. Maybe we should shun our immigrants and make sure they have no place to live and can't get jobs. That will surely have positive outcomes, right?"

really? who is proposing that? oh you mean, shun ILLEGAL immigration?

amazing the way this constant lie/meme gets repeated by the intellectually dishonest.

immigration =/= illegal immigration

[Reinmoose]

whit -
Illegal or not, shunning them will have the same effect.
I saw no need to draw the distinction.

[Rhywun]

immigration =/= illegal immigration

It is to folks like MNG.

[whit]

"Reinmoose-The muslims who rioted in France certainly blamed xenophobia, but France is a bit more welcoming of immigrants than we are"

utter rubbish. your evidence for this is what?

for pete's sake. france doesn't even like businesses to advertise in foreign languages, and with foreign phrases, and a business can be FINED for doing so. and they are more welcoming of IMMIGRANTS? hah

the french have a "ministry of culture" (how orwellian). the idea that they are more welcoming of immigrants is absurd. well, if you mean they have more welfare and other govt. perks for them, you are correct. but they have more of that for everybody

[Rhywun]

and they are more welcoming of IMMIGRANTS? hah

I think it may *appear* that way only because the legacy of running an overseas empire is that a lot of your conquered subjects move to the homeland after being granted freedom. That's why France is full of Algerians and Moroccans, not Chinese or Mexicans or Indians.

[whit]

rhywun, excellent point.

[joe]

MNG,

Joe-My point is that even "pro-immigration" candidates would never, ever, tell the public "I would like to see many more immigrants here than we currently have"

Nor do pro-free-speech candidates tell the public that they would like to see more explicit porn in the video stores. While the anti-porn people most certainly do, loudly, proclaim their opposition to dirty movies. And, it is true, there are very few people clamoring for explicit porn to be made more available in their communities.

Nonetheless, the free speech position (with some controls, it is true) beats the porn-prohibition position by a mile among the public.

[joe]

whit,

Read MNG's comment and tell me his thoughts are limited to immigrants' legal status.

BTW, you do know that Tom Tancredo, who carries the anti-immigrant flame but how keeps assuring us how much he cherishes legal immigrants, has proposed a years-long moratorium in legal immigration. Right?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Reinmoose-I meant the people, France is notoriously one of the least xenophonic cultures around. That's why so many black ex-pats went there (James Baldwin for example).

Episarch-Yes, they did. But, unlike the dominant narrative, not always in only good ways. Gangs of New York was partly true, recent immigrants brought the good things joe mentioned, but they also brought contributions to government corruption, crime, public health problems, etc...I'm part German and Irish, too groups that had it rough when they immigrated. But of course, I can't blame the natives: the Irish for example brought a fair amount of problems (at the time, through little fault of their own, they were a real deal peasant society, heck Joyce grapples with this in his novels). You can't fill your house with stray cats...

[joe]

whit,

Declaring immigrants "illegal" IS shunning them.

You only want to shun "illegal" immigrants? Gee, that's great. Fred Phelps only wants to shun "illegal" homosexuals. That's because he wants homosexuals to be denied legal sanction!

[Reinmoose]

MNG -
You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever been to France there buddy? They have laws on the books that at least 50% of what's played on the radio has to be French music. They are so incredibly xenophobic in that they only want immigrants if they're willing to completely and 100% convert to the old-style French culture. They're so afraid of losing their "culture" (they don't really understand what that is, either) to Americanization, or any other outside influence, that they enact laws regulating culture. Yes, that sounds incredibly accepting to me.

[J sub D]

They're going to go to our schools, play in our Little Leagues, look at their first paychecks and ask "What's FICA," vote in our elections, watch our music videos and go to our baseball games.

Well, as long as they leave that soccer (isn't it illegal to call it football?) crap at home, okay.

[Reinmoose]

I second joe's 12:11pm comment.

[joe]

I agree with Reinmoose.

[whit]

"Declaring immigrants "illegal" IS shunning them."

im not declaring them that.

the US Code declares them that. our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from crossing their borders and living in their country without permission

try studying up a little before you prattle

"You only want to shun "illegal" immigrants? Gee, that's great. Fred Phelps only wants to shun "illegal" homosexuals. That's because he wants homosexuals to be denied legal sanction!"

lol. yup. that's a perfect analogy. gawd, how typical. you sound like some ninny on democraticunderground.

there is no such thing as "illegal homosexuals" because our country (correctly) recognizes that who you schtup is your business (unless you do it to a 12 yr old, or your sister or brother, but i digress)

our country, like ALL OTHER COUNTRIES recognizes that illegally crossing the border is... a crime. sorry, if that's tautological you get the point.

if you are going to be so moronic as to compare illegal border crossing to sexual preference, then you'd be better off hanging with idiots. doors to the left.

and again, IM NOT DECLARING THEM ILLEGAL

the US Code does that. if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.

[Episiarch]

MNG, First, I think I'd much rather be a black American ex-pat in France than an Algerian, that's for sure. You can't go basing the level of xenophobia of the French on their acceptance of politically fashionable minorities.

And as for what the Irish brought, yes, there was some bad--and we survived just fine. Same for Beaners and whatever the hell we should call Brazilians--maybe "waxers"?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

It's true that opinion varies from poll to poll and with how the question is asked. But I think most Americans like their nation how it is and don't want to see it changed too dramatically.

[VikingMoose]

these racist, ignorant Nativists (whit supremacist, ha!) jerkwads really should be locked in a bus with Dave Matthews, Moby, and Bono, each of which trying to convince them that they're really cool.

Srsly.

the fear of "foreign" would be laughable, if these aforementioned assholes weren't so damned twadlenockish.

now kindly stick your keyboards up your asses and esfumarse (sic fer grammar)

[whit]

"You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever been to France there buddy? They have laws on the books that at least 50% of what's played on the radio has to be French music. They are so incredibly xenophobic in that they only want immigrants if they're willing to completely and 100% convert to the old-style French culture. They're so afraid of losing their "culture" (they don't really understand what that is, either) to Americanization, or any other outside influence, that they enact laws regulating culture. Yes, that sounds incredibly accepting to me"

bingo.

i mean, cmon. the french are FAMOUS for their xenophobia/protection of their culture, etc.

fwiw, i have been to france and i speak fluent french. i love france. but the idea that they are more welcoming to immigrants is the laughable kind of prattle you find from people who automatically assume (what they perceive to be) the best about those countries that they haven't been to, so they can compare the US disfavorably to them

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever been to France there buddy? They have laws on the books that at least 50% of what's played on the radio has to be French music. They are so incredibly xenophobic in that they only want immigrants if they're willing to completely and 100% convert to the old-style French culture. They're so afraid of losing their "culture" (they don't really understand what that is, either) to Americanization, or any other outside influence, that they enact laws regulating culture."

That sounds great! I wish we would do that. You see, I like diversity. I like French culture and history, and English culture and history, etc. I think once French culture becomes "French-Algerian-Morrocan-Turkish-Sengalise-etc." culture we've really lost something...

[whit]

"these racist, ignorant Nativists (whit supremacist, ha!) jerkwads really should be locked in a bus with Dave Matthews, Moby, and Bono, each of which trying to convince them that they're really cool.

Srsly.

the fear of "foreign" would be laughable, if these aforementioned assholes weren't so damned twadlenockish."

are mexicans racist, ignorant nativists? feel free to compare their southern border protection vs. ours.

note that mexico also makes it illegal for aliens (legal or otherwise) to participate in ANY political protest, write letters to the editor, etc.

also, i double dog dare you to try to cross into mexico from the south. then, you'll see what REAL border protection looks like

[dhex]

How illegal were the Irish immigrants?

out on suffolk county, long island (ny)? throughout the late 70s to the late 90s?

pretty fucking illegal, bruh.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

France is seen as the cultural capital of Europe, perhaps the world. I think it is the number one tourist location around the world. Some complain of xenophobic policy in immigration, but it has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted.

[Solitary Nut Job (it\'s the mo]

ohnoez!

PeopleLikeme who Can'tHitTheSpaceBar and other assorted twaddlenocks have such a weakKultur, that all the dynamicGoodness from OtherCultures (which is a GoodTHing) hurts us and our fucking flavorless tuna noodle casserole and our cream of mushroom soup-laced parsley salad.

USA!USA!USA!

One amazing strength of this country:
it's diversity.

so there. That's right. You're wrong.

I said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Now go back to playing Halo 3.

[dhex]

i agree with MNG, but i take it older school. i'm totally down with gauls and gaulic values, but those fucking franks really franked the fucking place up.

[Episiarch]

I think once French culture becomes "French-Algerian-Morrocan-Turkish-Sengalise-etc." culture we've really lost something...

This is absurd. Do you actually think French "culture" is the same as it was 200 years ago? Cultures are like organisms, they evolve and change and sometimes go extinct. All attempts to stop this merely postpone the inevitable. The ones that are most accepting and flexible (like ours) are the strongest.

You sound exactly like people who want native tribesmen to live in stone age conditions because they think their culture needs to be "preserved". What the tribesmen think is irrelevant, I guess.

[VikingMoose]

dhex

you only have the to like the gauls due to the WOMBY VAULTAGE!

[dhex]

frankly my moose, i don't give a pepe le peu!

[Reinmoose]

France is seen as the cultural capital of Europe, perhaps the world. I think it is the number one tourist location around the world. Some complain of xenophobic policy in immigration, but it has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted.

The French culture is dying MNG, because they don't allow it to grow and change. Unless you count French ripoffs of American hip hop songs as "French culture," I don't think the radio law has much ability to protect the "French culture," whatever that is.

[Episiarch]

Well, all of Gaul is divided in three parts, you see...

[Rhywun]

France is seen as the cultural capital of Europe, perhaps the world.

?! I don't even know what to make of that.

I think it is the number one tourist location around the world.

Baffling, if true. On my visits I found the people obnoxious and the food overrated. Paris is a cool city but only because the rabble are warehoused outside the gates. The Louvre is great but what have they done lately? And don't even get me started on French "music".

it has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted

Lately, it's more likely to be the place where snooty Americans go to feel snootier than the rest of us.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"What the tribesmen think is irrelevant, I guess." Except the tribesmen here, like in these small towns that have enacted the restrictions, think they should preserve theirs, right? Relevant Episarch?

[VM]

oh - and these nativists sound a lot like the European Socialists who worry about linguicide due to American English. Or worry about culturicide from Americanization.

so, let's get all of 'em in a room and like, do something else.

What... they have Parcheesi there. It'll be a hootin time. They can get into heated arguments about rules interpretations.

[Reinmoose]

oh, and:
but [France] has long been the place that people who feel shunned in their own land go to feel accepted.

Umm, no. That would be the US

[dhex]

well they will discover the impossibility of managing culture soon enough.

so best of luck to them.

[Episiarch]

No, because my point was that attempting to stop the change is useless, whether that attempt is imposed externally or internally. It makes no difference.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"The French culture is dying "
That's nuts. Most European intellectuals agree that French culture sets the tune other European intellectuals dance to...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"No, because my point was that attempting to stop the change is useless, whether that attempt is imposed externally or internally. It makes no difference."

Geez, you are the most insightful mind of the century. Too bad that century is the 20th.

Thanks Herbert Spencer, but as Talcott Parsons famously said "who reads Spencer anymore?"

[Episiarch]

Most European intellectuals agree that French culture sets the tune other European intellectuals dance to...

And we all know how in touch European French-influenced intellectuals are.

[VM]

change is inevitable. profitability from the change is purely optional.

c'mon, you're a smart gu--- sorry. I just couldn't stop giggling at that. c'mon. you're a nativist guy, you've had ekonomiks 79. you oughta know that.

and you oughta know that the beautiful, beautiful cultural, entrepreneurial, geographic, and individual diversity contribute to making the good ol' US of A the greatest freakin place on the planet.

[Reinmoose]

Most European intellectuals agree that French culture sets the tune other European intellectuals dance to...

And we all know that culture is all about the intellectuals.
Seriously MNG. Can you tell me 5 things that are indicative of French "culture?"
There's a huge difference between "culture" and "traditions."
Culture is what you eat for breakfast, how you get to work, what kinds of things are permissible to talk about over dinner, what you think is funny on TV, etc.

[J sub D]

Here's a radical idea. A massive increase in the number of "uhnskilled" immigrants coupled with enforcement of immigration laws. Please, I know that:

1) INS is gonna have to work a lot of overtime.

2) A system to get the folks who are already acclimated to our society to the front of the line or at least temporary status while the bureaucracy gears up.

3) Businesses that flout the law afterwords will have to be hammered.

The nonsense on this thread that hints hispanics are not assimilable because of a lack of "western" values is just that, nonsense. The Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Chaldean communities pretty much shoot that theory down. I don't believe "open borders" is a rational, or achievable solution, yet present system is ripe for abuse and fostering disrespect for the law. As it stands today, illegal (undocumented if you prefer) immigrants get screwed by both the social security system and unscrupulous employers. I don't think that is a good thing.

One other thing, we have a Mexican Town here in Detroit. It's hardly the worst part of the city.

[J sub D]

...whatever the hell we should call Brazilians

Well, if they're women - HOT!

[Scooby]

whit,

the US Code declares them that. our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from crossing their borders and living in their country without permission

Quoting US Code as if it is some sort of God-given revealed truth won't go too far here. If you haven't noticed most here think the US Code is full of shit.

the US Code does that. if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.

Uhhh... that's kinda the idea (to one degree or another). Of course, there are idiots that call that sort of lobbying "treason". The people who think this way are welcome to their opinion, but I hope they won't be upset if most of us think they are either passively ignorant or actively evil.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Culture is a little more, though it includes, the things Reinmoose talks about. Which is why we can talk about the commonality of "Russian Literature" without just talking about the fact that Russians differ from us on what to eat for breakfast...
"and you oughta know that the beautiful, beautiful cultural, entrepreneurial, geographic, and individual diversity contribute to making the good ol' US of A the greatest freakin place on the planet."

Here is the old fallacy that I mentioned, people point to the US and say "see, unregulated immigration made us so great, so it is great." Of course, whenever the US had much experience with unregulated immigration they clamped down on it. D'oh!

[Rhywun]

A massive increase in the number of "uhnskilled" immigrants coupled with enforcement of immigration laws.

I would go further and ignore "skill levels". We already welcome brain surgeons and rocket scientists. We already have lots of unskilled*. We have no provision for "average" folk.

*And we'll get a lot more. "Enforcement of immigration laws" ain't gonna happen without even more invasions of privacy that we're not going to accept. You know what countries that enforce their immigration laws look like? Think "Not Free" on the FreedomHouse scale.

[Reinmoose]

I don't recall anyone saying anything about being a proponant of unregulated immigration. WRT the US, it seems a political foregone conclusion that immigration should be regulated, but this happens to be one of those issues where we are looking for a policy to deal with the people who are already here. Shunning them and isolating them is simply not the answer.

[Rhywun]

Of course, whenever the US had much experience with unregulated immigration they clamped down on it.

Well, no one ever said the USA has never had its share economically illiterate racists.

[Rhywun]

... share OF ...

[VikingMoose]

It was really cool, that old neighborhood.

Lincoln and Western Avenues, Chicago. "Lincoln Square" neighborhood.

It was once a primarily German enclave. A little to the northeast was Andersonville, a Swedish neighborhood.

In both neighborhoods, there are shops with food, etc. from each, respective nation.

You can still hear German - albeit from older residents - in Lincoln Square.

Moving a little north, you see different enclaves of upwardly-mobile people from all over. Sure, there are vestiges of their cultures - signs in different languages, different foods, different types of people walking around. Amazing.

It's a gateway. After a generation or two, you can't tell if they're "American", because they are. Just like us, 100 years ago.

And they're just newer versions of Lincoln Square and Andersonville.

This bullshit about "hurting" our culture really angers me, because to me, it says that you don't have belief in the strength and beauty of US culture. You feel it's a house of cards. It's not. No matter how much you wish it were, so you can hide in your ignorance.

The US culture is powerful, robust, and enduring.

When do you celebrate Christmas? 24th at night or 25th? Oh. You're Jewish, so you don't celebrate. Cool. You're Muslim - yeah, I'd love to come over and celebrate breaking the Ramadam fast.

It must be really sad for you to be so frightened and so weak. You see, if you actually learned a little about your own culture, your own heritage, and how that culture's presence in the interwoven fabric of the US contributes to how amazing this cultural experiment is - A SUCCESS!

So, I'm gonna stop teasing you. I think I pity you (well, besides having a heapin, honkin' pile of contempt for your deliberate ignorance).

You live in the greatest country ever, and the amazing diversity contributes greatly to that fact.

Tis a pity. Tis a shame. Tis contemptible that you're so frightened about the world and insecure about yourself that you can't comprehend that.

saludos afectuosos,
Viking Moose

[whit]

"Quoting US Code as if it is some sort of God-given revealed truth won't go too far here. If you haven't noticed most here think the US Code is full of shit."

so what? it's still fact. if i declare a person an illegal alien, it's because they committed a crime. i happen to believe that law is just. you may not. but it's stupid to say what the OP said, which is that i was just declaring them "illegal".

IM NOT

the law does.

disagree or agree. i happen to agree. but don't try to pretend this is a matter of people making this stuff up

"Uhhh... that's kinda the idea (to one degree or another). Of course, there are idiots that call that sort of lobbying "treason". The people who think this way are welcome to their opinion, but I hope they won't be upset if most of us think they are either passively ignorant or actively evil."

yes. they Are idiots who misuse words. much like the OP did.

facts are fact. before you decide how to solve a problem, you have to recognize the problem

the problem is not that laura ingraham (and I ) are "declaring" who is and isn't an illegal alien

because the law already does that.

i guess every nation in the world is passively ignorant and evil in that they ALL (like i said, im not aware of exceptions but there may be one) criminalize illegal border crossings AND living in a country w/o permissio

every nation on earth

so, this is a global problem, apparently?

all these nations with borders just need to dissolve them, and we can all live in one amorphous feelgood blob of humanity

kumbayah!

[Jennifer Emick]

"You can't fill your house with stray cats..."

Why not? We've done it again and again, to great success. Each wave has brought new food, new culture, and new talent..and yet, we're all still Americans. Nobody looks back and says "we should have kept those germans and their damned christmas trees out," we happily put up our own christmas trees.

The problems disappear after a generation or two.

[whit]

"Well, no one ever said the USA has never had its share economically illiterate racists."

nobody ever said it didn't have its share of histrionic bigots, such as yourself.

conflating people who believe that immigration should be illegal with racists is the racist act.

this doesn't have anything to do with race. it has to do with national sovereignty and borders.

every nation has borders and every nation enforces those borders, regardless of the color of its neighbors

you are like every other ninny with no argument - resort to name calling, and out yourself as a racist in the process. kudos!

(note the irony on both our parts)

[dhex]

remember all those marches about illegal irish immigration?

and the lonewacko posts about the irish government supporting amnesty for irish immigrants in america?

yeah neither do i.

[the king]

I agree with MNG. And whit.

Who are of course nativist asshole nazis blah blah blah snarky blah blah snark

🙂

[Current Drug Czar, Whose Name]

"Declaring immigrants "illegal" IS shunning them." ... im not declaring them that. the US Code declares them that. our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from crossing their borders and living in their country without permission

Exactly! And I'm not declaring that people like Richard Paey are illegal pain-medication users. The US Code declares them that. Our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from putting stuff in their bodies without government permission.

I'm not against pain relief. I'm against ILLEGAL pain relief.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Jennifer-Fill your house with stray cats. Do it. I urge you. Go to your local pound, I volunteer at one. And get ALL the stray cats. Why don't you? Go do it. Yeah, right...

Viking Moose-this is an old, tired argument. It's like saying, don't you think your daughter is amazing? So why wouldn't you expect her to fend for herself in the world. Sorry, I think my daughter and my culture are special, and I will work to protect both thank you, not just assume they will "do OK" because they are special.

[joe]

I get the point pefectly, whit.

When called on the fact that you are arguing in favor of keepind somethig illegal, the only argument you can muster is "But it's illegal."

You bring up "crossing their borders without permission." I am arguing for given them permission, and you are arguing against giving them permission.

I realize they need legal sanction to come here legally - that's why I'm arguing for given them legal sanction, so that they'll be legal.

You don't ever need to worry that I haven't followed your fourth-grade-level reasoning.
"Illegal is illegal and it's illegal because it's against the law" isn't something somebody can misunderstand. Thanks. But you can stop preening and patting yourself on the back for your supposedly unique comprehension of that idiotic tautology. One doesn't need to "study up" on that, twit.

there is no such thing as "illegal homosexuals" because our country (correctly) recognizes that who you schtup is your business (unless you do it to a 12 yr old, or your sister or brother, but i digress)

Now here is where I get to tell you to study up before you prattle, twit. "Who you shtupp" was a matter of criminal law in every state in the nation up until a few decades ago, twit. Just as you want immigration to be illegal, so does Fred Phelps want us to return to that system.

if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.

See if you can follow this next part, twit: I want those laws to be changed, AND YET I do believe there should be laws respecting our borders and sovereignty. I want it to be a crime to cross our borders without permission.

How do I reconcile these statements? Very easily, twit; by wanting permission to be routinely granted for people to cross our borders. By allowing just about everyone to be given the permission that separates legal from illegal immigration.

A country whose border guards check peole's documents and stamp them before saying "Come on in" has just as much sovereignty and control of its borders as a country whose border guards point rifles at people who come to the gates, twit.

If you weren't a twit, you'd realize that THAT is the difference between our positions. But, of course, you obviously are.

[JasonL]

You have national borders so you can maintain the sovereignity of your political process, not so you can make sure only the right sorts of people pick grapes.

[Episiarch]

joe, I'm totally with you on this one but lay off the "twit" stuff. It does nothing for your argument, which was otherwise well stated.

[whit]

"When called on the fact that you are arguing in favor of keepind somethig illegal, the only argument you can muster is "But it's illegal."

i am in favor keeping it illegal, and that is not the only argument i can muster.

but it is a statement of fact that declaring them illegal isn't something laura or i are doing ad hoc. it's their LEGAL STATUS under the law

yes, i agree with the law. it's correct. but that's tangential to the fact that it's not bigoted, racist, or name calling to recognize that they ARE ILLEGAL aliens.

you can't address an issue until you recognize facts

those that can't grok the facts of the legal matter, and blame laura ingraham are being dishonest

those who conflate being against ILLEGAL immigration with IMMIGRATION are also lying

the fact that you are a histrionic bigot just adds to the weakness of your name calling

note: irony

the fact that you keep bringing up fred phelps just recogfirms your racist bigoted nature.

hth

[Skeptical Eye]

"And as for what the Irish brought, yes, there was some bad--and we survived just fine."

You have to love these comments that tell us "We did it before and everything worked out fine!" on a blog that does nothing but whine day in and day out about how things aren't working out fine. You wanna think about that before posting again, mebbe?

[joe]

MNG,

I like French culture and history, and English culture and history, etc. I think once French culture becomes "French-Algerian-Morrocan-Turkish-Sengalise-etc." culture we've really lost something...

American culture isn't like French culture.

While all of those hyphens may, potentially, change the core French culture, those hyphens ARE American culture. "American culture" is shorthand for "Anglo-French-German-Irish-Latino-African-Italian-Scots-Irish-..." culture.

It's like saying that you can't mate your mutt with a daschund, because you want a pure-bred mutt.

There literally is nothing to our culture except what immigrant groups have added to it. That's who we are. Stopping the infusion of new cultural elements would detract from our unique culture, and make us more like France.

I don't want that. I love this American culture, and it is prohbitionist immigration policies and an overabundance of assimilationism, not their opposites, that are the threat to our heritage and way of life. If they were to succeed, they would starve us of our very lifeblood.

[whit]

also, people ignore that when we allowed (essentially) unregulated immigration, we were also a wide open frontier nation (not to mention all the other nations simultaneously occupying the frontier - cherokee, hopi, etc.)

what might have been good policy THEN is not necessarily good policy now

also, we did not routinely hand out benefits left right and upside down in those days.

so, among other things, the costs are not the same

[the king]

I agree with VM about the beauty of America's diversity. BUT stemming the tide of illegal immigration won't suddenly make the country un-diverse. Nor will reducing overall immigration, or making it more selective.

[joe]

That's ok, twit.

I didn't expect you to have a response.

Oops, typo.

[Neu Mejican]

To pile on.

MNG's position is both uninformed and based on something other than reason.

While it is true that all change has both upsides and downsides, the idea that this particular wave of immigration will degrade our culture is unsupportable.

Random example, New Mexico has been dealing with a wave of non-hispanic newcomers on a vast scale since WWII. It has incorporated those new residents, maintained its unique dynamic culture, and benefitted from what they bring to the table. Taco Bell thrives right next to real New Mexican cuisine. No harm, no foul.

[Episiarch]

New Mexico has been dealing with a wave of non-hispanic newcomers on a vast scale since WWII

Retirees?

[whit]

what response, joe? as soon as you can actually parse what i typed (not what you want to believe i did) and have a rational discussion, let me know.

based on your posting history here, well, i'm not confident that's gonna happen. but i remain an optimist in the face of your ignorance, racism, and bigoted nature.

that's part of being an american. seeing the best in people. it's magickally injected into you as soon as you cross the border

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I have to agree with Episarch here on the twit thing. In fact, whit has struggled hard to find a middle ground between me and the joe's, if joe is going to call anyone a twit it should be me!

I've often been distressed at how quick these threads fall into polarization, and I'm very guilty of it. Can it be defused?

Let me say this about immigration.

Immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, etc. are human beings, with the same moral worth as "Americans." To deny them a chance to live the decent life I live is indeed terrible.

Those who are opposed to immigration, like myself, are not all xenophobic racists. If you knew me you would know that I make an effort to read the great works of other cultures (Koran, the Vegas, the Analects). I think they contribute mightily to world culture. I would like nothing more than to see the citizens of, say, Mexico get a better shake. I followed the Mexican election closely, and I rooted for the guy who got beat because I thought he would better represent the common man in Mexico.

I honestly believe that there is something like an asthetic value in cultures, that they are worth preserving, and so I believe in making all people's freedom more expansive but in preserving the various cultures in the world. If that makes me a nativist or racist in your eyes, I don't know what to say. I truly believe that too much immigration threatens this value, though believe me I see the other side of the argument.

I wonder if we can come to a point where we see that we differ, but everyone is championing a noble value?

[Neu Mejican]

Retirees?

Among other groups.
Rio Rancho New Mexico almost counted as the 6th borough of NYC there for a while. Then Intel came in and it diversified.

[Episiarch]

on a blog that does nothing but whine day in and day out about how things aren't working out fine.

Uhh...you mean on a blog which would like to see far less government meddling and size, kind of like there was back when these aformentioned things worked out fine?

You wanna think about that before posting again, mebbe?

I did, it took about .5 seconds to refute you.

[the king]

"There literally is nothing to our culture except what immigrant groups have added to it."

What about the Founding Fathers? Were they a random group of immigrants or did they belong to a particular culture?

[Jennifer]

Jennifer-Fill your house with stray cats. Do it. I urge you. Go to your local pound, I volunteer at one. And get ALL the stray cats. Why don't you? Go do it. Yeah, right...

Do I actually need to explain the reasons this analogy fails? I'm pretty sure that stray cats will always and forever be cats as opposed to human beings who can actually, you know, contribute something to my household. I'm guessing the next couple generations of kittens will be as incapable of speaking and writing English as their parents and grandparents were. I'm guessing cats will . . . oh, forget it, I'll just save time and pretend you're right: I see no difference whatsoever between feral cats and human beings.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"There literally is nothing to our culture except what immigrant groups have added to it. That's who we are."

I see your point joe, but would you agree that our institutions are mainly anglo-saxon? Like the common law tradition?

[whit]

"While it is true that all change has both upsides and downsides, the idea that this particular wave of immigration will degrade our culture is unsupportable. "

one does not have to believe that ignoring illegal immigration will degrade our culture (setting aside the issue that it's always difficult to talk about *a* culture, in a land as thankfully diverse as ours), in order to be against it.

the underlying premise is that those born here (automatic citizenship) don't need to "prove themselves" to become citizens.

otoh, those that want to come and live here do.

iow, it's a higher standard, a burden, on the applicant. the burden is not on us to say why person(s) X should not be allowed to come here. the burden is on the immigrant to demonstrate why he would be a benefit to our nation.

i think that's the fundamental disconnect.

citizenship, heck even presence within the united states, is not a privilege for those born here. however, it is a privilege for those wanting to move here.

that's the same fundamental understanding in every nation i am aware of. the burden is on the applicant to say why he should be granted the awesome privilege of becoming a citizen

this strengthens our nation, and not just because of the old saw that one wouldn't want to be a member of a group that doesn't place any effort in choosing who does and doesn't get to belong.

clearly, we offer immense opportunities. that's why people want to come here. we don't suck, or at least we suck less than those places that people come from.

so again (for the more dense types like joe), it's a burden of proof issue. the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why he would IMPROVE our nation, not on us to exclude those who we perceive might not

[Skeptical Eye]

"Uhh...you mean on a blog which would like to see far less government meddling and size, kind of like there was back when these aformentioned things worked out fine?"

If things were working out fine, perhaps you'd like to explain how and why we got from that point to this one.

[Salsa]

Number one condiment in 1980 - Ketchup
Now - Salsa.

See America is being Mexicanalized.

Of course the Salsa served in most of the country is just chunky ketchup, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Jennifer-I meant to say that you cannot take all the impovershied folks in the world in the nation without harming the overall quality of the nation. So take in all the cats you want, but you may find it hard to pay for cat food and your kid's formula.

[Jennifer]

I meant to say that you cannot take all the impovershied folks in the world in the nation without harming the overall quality of the nation. So take in all the cats you want, but you may find it hard to pay for cat food and your kid's formula.

Cats are incapable of working to pay for their own food and accommodations. People are not. Cats are incapable of producing anything of value to make a household or country richer. People are not.

[Reinmoose]

MNG -
Culture is so abstract that I don't think it can be effectively "preserved." I mean, if you have the means to satisfy the needs and demands of a group of people and it is rejected on their behalf because it would threaten their "culture," then I don't see the upside of preserving it. Why force people to watch shitty movies, or listen to shitty music, or read shitty books if there's something better out there? You talk about how you like to read different works from different cultures, but in many attempts to preserve a culture, would you not be limiting others abilities to do the same?

[Neu Mejican]

To Whit (man that's funny....),

Your position is much different than MNG's I was not addressing your points.

the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why he would IMPROVE our nation,

Or maybe just to demonstrate he would not harm us. But the issue is about what criteria we use to determine that. Our current legal regime doesn't seem to recognize the benefits an abundant pool of labor brings to our country.

[the king]

It looks like Joe took off thinking, erroneously, that he had won an argument, when in fact his hysterical bullying just made him look bad, even to people who agree with him.

[Jennifer]

I honestly believe that there is something like an asthetic value in cultures, that they are worth preserving, and so I believe in making all people's freedom more expansive but in preserving the various cultures in the world.

Serious question: what if anything is the difference between "preserving" a culture versus "dipping it in amber so that it never changes?" And what happens if people use their freedom in ways that doesn't "preserve" the culture?

Even if you ignore things like ethnic restaurants and jazz music, me and my white middle-class American friends share a "culture" that is quite different from what it would have been 100 years ago. At what point in American history do you say "THIS is what our culture must be now and forevermore?" The culture of the 1880s? The 1950s? Now? Twnety years hence?

[whit]

mr nice guy. good points lets analogize.

the idiot left (and unfortunately some libertarians) like to claim, and maybe even (in their ignorance) believe that opposition to unregulated immigration has anything to do with racists. of course SOME who are opposed to illegal immigration (or immigration in general) are also racist, and this has influence. but many who are opposed to racial preferences are racist as well. (as are many that are fot it). it doesn't follow that this has anything to do with the underlying issue.

the fact is that the bulk of our illegal immigration comes from people who happen to not be white (many of them. realize that many mexican immigrants are 'white' for the purposes of FBI racial classification, and that hispanic isn't a race, it's a cultural designation. one can be black or asian hispanic fwiw)

just because it so happens that these immigrants are disliked by many racists (and liked by many other racists because of their race) is irrelevant.

analogy. most bank robbers happen to be men. it doesn't follow that being against bank robbery, and calling them "bank robbers" means one is sexist.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Reinmoose-Until quite recently reading one's own culture was the only choice. Technology has made it possible, and I think, inevitable. I don't want to restrict people's choices there. I do think about restricting the movement of people's who will, contrary to your axioms (culture does not matter), choose different cultural outlets. I bet you that, if left alone, French people will choose French based stuff, American people American based stuff, etc.

[Jennifer]

I bet you that, if left alone, French people will choose French based stuff, American people American based stuff, etc.

Then why are American movies popular throughout the world? Why is Bollywood popular far outside of India?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

How many Shakespeare vs. Moliere plays have gone on in your area? In mine quite a bit more of the former than the latter. But of course, Shakespeare speaks (to some extent) my language and the latter does not...People like their own culture better...

[joe]

what response, joe?

A response to this, twit:

I want those laws to be changed, AND YET I do believe there should be laws respecting our borders and sovereignty. I want it to be a crime to cross our borders without permission.

How do I reconcile these statements? Very easily, twit; by wanting permission to be routinely granted for people to cross our borders. By allowing just about everyone to be given the permission that separates legal from illegal immigration.

A country whose border guards check peole's documents and stamp them before saying "Come on in" has just as much sovereignty and control of its borders as a country whose border guards point rifles at people who come to the gates, twit.

If you weren't a twit, you'd realize that THAT is the difference between our positions.

Still waiting for you to offer a single argument in favor of keeping immigration illegal, other than "because it's illegal."

Here, I'll put it in language you might understand: why shouldn't we just let just about everyone in, as we did in the days of Ellis Island?

Hint: "Because it's ILLEGAL!" is not an answer to that question. "U.S. Code" is not an answer to that question. "Sovereignty" is not an answer to that question.

[Reinmoose]

MNG -
If French people will choose French-based stuff, why do they need to have laws requiring that radio stations play at least 50% French music. Wouldn't all the music they listen to all just be French anyway?

[Neu Mejican]

MNG, An interesting (if very abstract) look at this topic.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 47, No. 2, 163-179 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002702251025
? 2003 SAGE Publications
Cultural Change in Spatial Environments
The Role Of Cultural Assimilation And Internal Changes In Cultures
Domenico Parisi

Federico Cecconi

Francesco Natale

National Research Council, Rome

A cellular automata model is used to study aspects of cultural change in spatial environments. Cultures are represented as bit strings in individual cells. Cultures may change because they become more similar to prevailing nearby cultures, are subject to intrinsic random changes, or expand to previously empty cells. Extending Axelrod's (1997) results, the authors show that assimilation does not lead to a single homogeneous culture even if, unlike in Axelrod's model, cultural assimilation may take place even between neighboring cells with zero similarity; intrinsic changes decrease rather than increase the number of stable cultural regions; and expansion of a single culture in a previously unoccupied territory does not result in a single culture in the entire territory. Geographical features (such as mountains) that are an obstacle to contact between cells increase the number of different cultural regions.

[whit]

i said: "the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why he would IMPROVE our nation, "

you said: "Or maybe just to demonstrate he would not harm us. But the issue is about what criteria we use to determine that. Our current legal regime doesn't seem to recognize the benefits an abundant pool of labor brings to our country."

to neu mejican:
see, and that is where we differ. and it's a valid point.

being american means something. and imo, as a matter of policy, it improves our country to set the burden high for entrance.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Reason cannot determine many daily issues...Not only what you eat for breakfast, but things like moods...Bergman was quite different from Fellini for a reason...I like a world that produces Fellini's and Bergmans, different though they are, from a world where it all runs together and we get some "Fellini-Bergman"...Yuk!

[MikeP]

Immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, etc. are human beings, with the same moral worth as "Americans." To deny them a chance to live the decent life I live is indeed terrible.

I fail to see how one can hold this view yet deny these individuals the simple allowance of legal residence.

People worried about damage to American culture are concerned about a questionable second-order effect. Americans who are denied the ability to hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with foreigners are suffering a first-order effect. But prospective immigrants who are forbidden the right to live in the US are suffering a zeroth-order effect.

A moral view of immigration would of course lead one to find that the place one was born should be as irrelevant to the right to reside in the US as the color one was born. But even anti-immigrant types should realize that the first-order right of their neighbors to associate with immigrants should trump their second-order worries about culture in any moral calculus.

[joe]

the king,

What about the Founding Fathers? Were they a random group of immigrants or did they belong to a particular culture?

They were a random group of immigrants, mostly from one particular culture (the "Anglo" in my list of hyphens). They get their own hyphen, just like everybody else.

[dhex]

felini and bergman did not emerge from the sea whole and complete.

they are the end result of a neverending process of felini-bergman mashups.

[whit]

joe said: "Still waiting for you to offer a single argument in favor of keeping immigration illegal, other than "because it's illegal."

you are still either lying or don't understand. you are so dense, it is hard for me to discern which is the case.

i don't want to keep immigration illegal. immigration is NOT illegal. i want there to be regulations (like every nation on earth has) that distinguish between what is LEGAL and what is ILLEGAL immigration.

you can't even understand the status of the law. i feel like i am trying to have a discussion with a 5 yr old

to repeat. immigration is not, nor should it be illegal. it should be REGULATED.

those who think immigration should be illegal (an incredibly small minority and neither laura ingraham or myself fits that bill) are not the issue here.

when you can actually understand the issue, the law, and have a general understanding of policy (i remain optimistic. although i may be insane to do so, based on the evidence you present of your profound ignorance), get back to me

hth

[Mr. Nice Guy]

MikeP
I just don't think of culture as necessarily a second order effect.

[Reinmoose]

A "preserved" culture will just keep producing the same things over and over and over, and not necessarily better things each time. How boring would life be if the only restaurants allowed were french restaurants and not italian-inspired french restaurants, or kebab places for the youth to eat at while near the bars. Ever had a crepe or amande au chocolat after a night of drinking?

[joe]

MNG,

Anglo-Saxon was just a starting point. Our institutions, at this point, are no more Anglo-Saxon than Louisiana's Napoleonic-Code-based institutions are French.

[MikeP]

whit,

The people you are arguing with would by very happy with the following simple immigration regulation: You can come in if you are not a provable threat to the United States.

Is that enough regulation for you?

[Neu Mejican]

To Whit /;^)still cracks me up...

being american means something. and imo, as a matter of policy, it improves our country to set the burden high for entrance.

I agree. The burden should be set so high that only those that want to come here to improve their lives badly enough that they are willing to uproot themselves and attempt the always difficult endeavor of moving to a new country should be allowed in.

[Reinmoose]

whit, let me give this a shot.
The issue we have here is one that government replicates over and over and over. Who, whit, is qualified to determine if a person entering the country will be a benefit? Can you imagine life without jazz music, or a million seemingly uniform Chinese restaurants, or yuppie sushi bars, or houses with dormers? Would life be more glorius then?

[whit]

"Immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, etc. are human beings, with the same moral worth as "Americans." To deny them a chance to live the decent life I live is indeed terrible."

i totally agree.

"I fail to see how one can hold this view yet deny these individuals the simple allowance of legal residence."

that... is why you fail.

"People worried about damage to American culture are concerned about a questionable second-order effect. Americans who are denied the ability to hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with foreigners are suffering a first-order effect. But prospective immigrants who are forbidden the right to live in the US are suffering a zeroth-order effect."

that may be true FOR THOSE who are worried about 'damage to american culture'. i'm not

that's pretty much tangential to the issue, for me.

"A moral view of immigration would of course lead one to find that the place one was born should be as irrelevant to the right to reside in the US as the color one was born."

wow. talk about begging the question.

yet again, borrowing from the bigoted liberal playbook. no libertarian should do this. so, your view is the "moral view"? how touching. that's a sophomoric debating tactic. it means anybody who disagrees with you is immoral. recognize the logical fallacy?

" But even anti-immigrant types should realize that the first-order right of their neighbors to associate with immigrants should trump their second-order worries about culture in any moral calculus."

since when do libertarians employ a "moral calculus" in matters of policy, govt. authority etc. what is moral from a humanistic feel-good standpoint is not necessarily optimal policy, nor is it necessarily just

many (leftist) would argue that capitalism is immoral, and a host of other "problems" that can be "fixed" by a progressive social justice agenda. gag me

the issue you are ignoring (among many) is TO WHOM does the govt. (which in the US is OF THE PEOPLE) owe allegiance to? the answer (imo) is to its citizens. while it certainly would be a great good TO everybody who wanted to come here, to let them in, that doesn't mean it would be good policy

it would also be good for all the poor starving people in the world, for the govt. to take 1/2 of everybody in the US's income and give it to the rest of the 3rd world.

it does not necessarily follow that this would be good policy, or "just" and "moral" , although by your "logic" it would seem to be.

the first purpose of ANY govt. is to represent the interest of its citizens NOT to do the best and most moral stuff for citizens of other nations. not because we don't want to, but because that's bad policy.

[joe]

i want there to be regulations (like every nation on earth has) that distinguish between what is LEGAL and what is ILLEGAL immigration.

As do I, twit. You still haven't offered a response to my question.

Which, for the fifth time now (which is awful lot of miscomprehension for someone who'se main style of argumentation seems to be telling people they just aren't smart enough to undertand that illegal means against the law),

why shouldn't we just let just about everyone in, as we did in the days of Ellis Island?

Why is it so terribly important to you that our laws exclude people from legally immigrating here?

Still waiting. Not optimistic.

[MikeP]

I just don't think of culture as necessarily a second order effect.

Really?

I think we'd agree that you (mostly) get to control yourself. That's zeroth order. You also get to choose who you associate with, their mores and behaviors -- their culture, if you will. That's first order.

For the most part, the soup of culture that your society floats in can be avoided, ignored, or selectively picked from for your and your associates' own happiness. It's second order. Wanting to mold it into your own vision of what you want culture to be is an affront to the freedom of everyone else in the society who might want the parts of culture available to them to be different from your vision.

[joe]

the first purpose of ANY govt. is to represent the interest of its citizens NOT to do the best and most moral stuff for citizens of other nations.

Let me make this EVEN EASIER: And the reason that it is in the interest of our citizens to deny legal entry to immigrants who want to come here is __________________________.

All you have to do is fill in the blank.

[Rhywun]

"Well, no one ever said the USA has never had its share economically illiterate racists."

nobody ever said it didn't have its share of histrionic bigots, such as yourself.

I was referring to overtly racist America circa, oh, all of the 18th through the 1st half of the 20th centuries. Not sure why you took that personally, but now that you've pointed out that *I'm* the racist--and NOT the folks around here who categorize all Mexicans as such-and-such, all Brazilians as such-and-such--well I see no point in participating any further when up means down and left means right.

[whit]

"Why is it so terribly important to you that our laws exclude people from legally immigrating here?"

by definition , if there is ANY regulation whatsoever of immigration, it necessarily will excluse SOME people from legally immigrating here

the onyl distinction in our pov's is what those criteria are

[Neu Mejican]

joe,

Try reading Whit's responses again.
He has given his reasons clearly.
You disagree with them, but that doesn't mean he has not been responsive.

Whit.

I think you misread the underpinnings of libertarianism if you feel it isn't about a moral calculus. If anything, libertarianism is an anti-pragmatic philosophy. It focuses on the means (limited, constrained government), not then ends. While many libertarians claim they support these means because they lead to better ends, pragmatic arguments don't flow from libertarian philosophy.

[whit]

"The people you are arguing with would by very happy with the following simple immigration regulation: You can come in if you are not a provable threat to the United States.
"
Is that enough regulation for you?"

if by "come in" you mean "get citizenship" i would answer no.

[joe]

by definition , if there is ANY regulation whatsoever of immigration, it necessarily will excluse SOME people from legally immigrating here

Not if the only regulation is "please sign in at the register."

Why should any person be refused legal entry?

[VM]

And the reason that it is in the interest of our citizens to deny legal entry to immigrants who want to come here is __________________________.

"because their soccer team beat my soccer team. back in the old country."

"because Lobster Girl ran off with person of ____ background."

"because...because... meanie"

"hay. I ordered a cheeseburger!!!! Moooooooooooooooooom!!!!!"

[joe]

NM,

I went through them, and the closest I can find is "because immigrants should have to prove they would be a benefit."

Which is just avoiding the question. Why should they have to prove they are a benefit?

Because immigration policies should be good for own nation.

Why is making them prove they are a benefit good for our nation?

It's all the same question: what benefit do we gain by excluding people (beyond the obvious exclusion of criminals and terrorists)?

[MikeP]

so, your view is the "moral view"? how touching. that's a sophomoric debating tactic. it means anybody who disagrees with you is immoral. recognize the logical fallacy?

In case you didn't read what I responded to, Mr. Nice Guy brought up moral worth. Wait... You read and totally agreed with that statement of moral worth. So that means moral arguments are now off the table?

since when do libertarians employ a "moral calculus" in matters of policy, govt. authority etc. what is moral from a humanistic feel-good standpoint is not necessarily optimal policy, nor is it necessarily just

And this simply demonstrates that you don't know what "moral" means with respect to political theory.

[MikeP]

if by "come in" you mean "get citizenship" i would answer no.

Okay. Then what is the proper regulation?

[joe]

Good luck, Mike P.

[whit]

neu mejican, the point was that the OP tried to justify letting anybody become a citizen by saying it was the only moral solution.

not only is that an absurd discussion tactic (since it effectively labels anybody as "immoral" who does not agree), but it is simply not consistent with libertarianism.

the whole concept of private property and personal liberty means that govt. charity might seem the most moral act the govt. can do for another person, it doesn't have the authority (or shouldn't ) to force charity by the barrel of a gun

now, whether or not unfettered immigration would make our country better is tangential to the issue that arguing for it based on that moral calculus (that we should do it out of the intent to help the immigrant) is thus bogus.

that argument is no more justifiable than that the govt. shoudl force us all to adopt immigrants and pay for their upkeep etc.

again, this is tangential to whether unfettered immigration would improve the country, cause that wasn't his argument. his argument was we should do it to help them

heck, sending thousands of US kids to darfurwould almsot certainly be a greater "good" morally in terms of helping people

would libertarians be for that too?

[MikeP]

if by "come in" you mean "get citizenship" i would answer no.

And, incidentally, by "come in", I mean "can legally enter, leave, travel, reside, and work in the United States."

Citizenship is different issue that is more pragmatic and not a simple expression of individual rights.

[Reinmoose]

To reitterate (as I am clearly not getting a response):

Who, whit, is qualified to determine if a person entering the country will be a benefit? Can you imagine life without jazz music, or a million seemingly uniform Chinese restaurants, or yuppie sushi bars, or houses with dormers? Would life be more glorius then?

I would add that American culture changes very rapidly as it is. What's the problem with adding a few more possible outcomes to the mix?

[MikeP]

the whole concept of private property and personal liberty means that govt. charity might seem the most moral act the govt. can do for another person, it doesn't have the authority (or shouldn't ) to force charity by the barrel of a gun

Wow. You really don't know what a libertarian means when he uses the word 'moral'.

now, whether or not unfettered immigration would make our country better is tangential to the issue that arguing for it based on that moral calculus (that we should do it out of the intent to help the immigrant) is thus bogus.

"Moral calculus" does not mean "short-sighted universal humanitarian utilitarianism."

Here is what is moral: Each individual is free to do what he wishes with his person and property provided he does not infringe on the right of other persons to do what they wish with their persons and property. With respect to immigration, no one has the right or authority to prohibit the movement of another person who intends no harm over rights of way to places where he can associate with those who wish to associate with him.

that argument is no more justifiable than that the govt. shoudl force us all to adopt immigrants and pay for their upkeep etc.

I think an absolute precondition to free immigration is that the government cannot pay for immigrants' upkeep. I would go so far as to say that citizen children of immigrants should be on the immigrants' welfare timetable and not get government support simply because they are born citizens.

Does that help?

[JasonL]

whit:

Just to wade in here a bit, you are missing something in your analogies. Property is an assumed right under a libertarian morality. It is not comparable to PERMIT immigrants to come into the country where they can engage in voluntary commerce on the one hand and to FORCE americans to give money to third world people. The feature you are missing in those analogies is coercion.

Just as libertarians don't think the government should prevent me from engaging you in free exchange, they also don't believe the government should prevent Juan from engaging me in free exchange - like labor for a wage.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"For the most part, the soup of culture that your society floats in can be avoided, ignored, or selectively picked from for your and your associates' own happiness."
That seems wrong to me. Why are 90% of Americans Christians but 90% of Iranians Muslim? It strikes me that the cultures dictate that, and much more, even about individuals. We were not raised by wolves you know....

Joe-That's nuts. Our legal system is very different from France or Germany's, because it is an Anglo based system. Sure, we've had add on's, but anyone could recognize an adversarial vs. an inquisitorial system...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Why should any person be refused legal entry?"
Because they might be criminals, or have virtually no skills, or be crazy, or be infectious...I dunno....

"Our institutions, at this point, are no more Anglo-Saxon than Louisiana's Napoleonic-Code-based institutions are French."

This is still interesting to me. The Magna Carta is not reflected in our Bill of Rights? The Fifth Amendment is not based on the refusal to swear religious oaths? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not passed by persons who thought of themselves as wronged Englishmen? C'mon joe, you re smarter than that!

[MikeP]

Why are 90% of Americans Christians but 90% of Iranians Muslim?

Uh... Because their parents were?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

And that has nothing to do with culture huh Mike?

[MikeP]

"Why should any person be refused legal entry?"
Because they might be criminals, or have virtually no skills, or be crazy, or be infectious...I dunno....

If you change "virtually no skills" to "likely to become a public charge", you have just enumerated the standards used to judge the qualifications of immigrants prior to the 1920s. Those on the free migration side of the debate ask for pretty much the same standards.

[prolefeed]

joe: Which is why we need to get rid of stupid laws that generate contempt for the rule of law through their stupidity and constant violation.

With "stupid laws" defined by joe as "laws written by non-Democrats"?

About 95% of the laws on the books are stupid and counterproductive -- the remaining 5% try to prevent people seizing your liberty, life, or property (with the other 95% generally enabling such behavior).

[Mr. Nice Guy]

This is why we can speak of "Iranian culture" and "US culture" and be wrong about some individuals but correct about 90%+ of the peoples involved. Culture matters. The two societies are not made up of totally rational unconatminated autnomous individuals who have just chosen Islam over Christianity on the merits! There are values, norms, institutions, sanctions, etc., that are acting on folks all the time.

Mike, hint, we call this culture.

[MikeP]

Who your parents are is a first-order issue. What goes on in your household is not "the soup of culture that your society floats in [that] can be avoided, ignored, or selectively picked from for your and your associates' own happiness."

Or are you suggesting that suddenly good red blooded American souls will accidentally find themselves born into Latino households?

[prolefeed]

If you live in the middle of Pennsylvania, you have a lot of discussions with people from towns who have passed or are considering passing similar legislation. If there were a polite way to say "Your town was a hellhole before the most recent wave of immigrants got there, and at least now you have cheap and interesting street food" I could end the conversations a lot quicker.

Fixed it. I'm guessing there's not a lot of towns in Pennsylvania populated primarily by full-blooded Native Americans.

[Brian Courts]

I honestly believe that there is something like an asthetic value in cultures, that they are worth preserving,

That's fine if you would prefer to "preserve" a culture (though I think that is nonsense in that culture is a dynamic, ever evolving natural process). It is most certainly not at all fine if you seek to impose your view of "cultural preservation" on other people at the point of a gun.

While I don't think you are being consciously racist, I do think there is an inevitable undercurrent of something akin to, if not exactly like, racism in any concern about "culture." I would ask, what principled difference is there between your argument for preserving a culture by excluding others based on an arbitrary group identification (i.e. not born on this side of an imaginary line) and what those opposed to the ending of Jim Crow laws argued about the damage that would be done to their southern culture?

I wonder if we can come to a point where we see that we differ, but everyone is championing a noble value?

No, because I will not accept that someone who wishes to prevent me from associating (read hiring, working for, buying from, renting to, etc. etc.) with another human simply because he was born in the wrong place or doesn't adhere to your idea of the proper culture is championing any noble value whatsoever (even if he sincerely believes he is), much less the same one I am.

[GILMORE]

why do you think that it won't Mexicanalize our nation to some degree?

1) who said that it wouldnt?
2) Mexicanalize is funny
3) There was a similar debate about a catholic president in the 1960s... beholden to the pope etc. Someone shot him eventually for some other reasons.
4) The studies on ethnic assimilation are legion... by 3rd generation, there is no noticable difference. Im third generation FWIW. I never noticed anyone around me having been Irishized in the process

[prolefeed]

Mr. Nice Guy -- perhaps you should change your handle to "Mr. Nice to People Who Aren't Brown-Skinned Guy"?

[GILMORE]

Dee | September 26, 2007, 11:34am | #

Your doing the same fucking thing the current poiticians in office are doing. Ignoring the general publics views on the issue will not win you any votes

uhm

1) we arent running for any public office, and we arent affiliated with the libertarian party. We dont even have a majority of Ron Paul supporters. I dont see why you'd expect us to have some sort of salable 'platform'. We're a bunch of people who care about liberty issues. This is one. Hopefull this makes sense to you now.

2) The general public's view is, unsurprisingly enough, often horribly misinformed and self destructive. See the "Myth of the Rational Voter" thing is last months Reason magazine.

3) Drink less coffee

[prolefeed]

why do you think that it won't Mexicanalize our nation to some degree?

Ummm, quit trying to threadjack this and turn it into a discussion of niche pr0n categories.

[GILMORE]

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 11:44am | #
Thoreau-I totally agree Europe is very diverse, for that matter so is S. America and Africa, etc. Of course, it still makes sense to speak of "Hispanic culture" or "European culture" doesn't it?

Not really. If you go to a park in NY, you will see 'hispanics' playing baseball, and 'hispanics' playing soccer. Neither talk to each other at all or look the same.

Because one are mexican (soccer) and the other are puerto ricans and dominicans (baseball). If you ask the dominicans what they think of puerto ricans... it gets even worse.

To be fair, they all are pretty sure they arent like you.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Libertarians are not this nuts, are they? Surely you don't think when numerous social scientists talk about "Western" or "European" culture and "Hispanic" or "African" culture that they have lost their marbles?

Mike seems to think that our parents, or everyone, just sat down and decided their positions on everything sui generis, that they were not influenced by the people around them. They actually sat down and said "you know, German, Italian and English are all fine languages, but we are going to speak English in this house!"

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Mr. Nice Guy -- perhaps you should change your handle to "Mr. Nice to People Who Aren't Brown-Skinned Guy"?"

Ahhh, prolefeed, at 1:25 when I said: Immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, etc. are human beings, with the same moral worth as "Americans." To deny them a chance to live the decent life I live is indeed terrible.

Those who are opposed to immigration, like myself, are not all xenophobic racists. If you knew me you would know that I make an effort to read the great works of other cultures (Koran, the Vegas, the Analects). I think they contribute mightily to world culture. I would like nothing more than to see the citizens of, say, Mexico get a better shake.

I was proving how much I hate those brown skinned folks huh? Watch that knee as it jerks!

[MikeP]

Mr. Nice Guy,

The difference between "raised by" and "influenced" is vast. Why do you think that the vast majority of Christians in France have Christian parents and the vast majority of Muslims in France have Muslim parents?

The fact that Muslims move next door does not make one Muslim. It adds an influence, yes. But in most realms of life, more opportunities to choose from is better than fewer. Why is "culture" so different? Especially when one can select preferred elements out of a culture and ignore the rest.

[J sub D]

How many Shakespeare vs. Moliere plays have gone on in your area? In mine quite a bit more of the former than the latter. But of course, Shakespeare speaks (to some extent) my language and the latter does not...People like their own culture better...

Funny, in my high school, we performed translations of Moliere (The Imaginary Invalid) and Aristophanes (The Birds) but no Shakespeare. Of course the drama Guru in my high school was, beieve it or not, a fantastic public school teacher. Still support vouchers, though.

[GILMORE]

Skeptical Eye | September 26, 2007, 1:16pm | #
"And as for what the Irish brought, yes, there was some bad--and we survived just fine."

You have to love these comments that tell us "We did it before and everything worked out fine!" on a blog that does nothing but whine day in and day out about how things aren't working out fine. You wanna think about that before posting again, mebbe

Ok, thinking hard... arrrrgggggghhhh

ahhh. Ok. Uhm, nothing we bitch about has anything to do with 20th century immigration AFAIK.

We do bitch a lot about people who want MORE LAWS for non-existent problems though. maybe that helps.

[JasonL]

At some point, a near point in a liberal society, "preserving culture" just means limiting exposure to the different. I can't believe that is the right approach, as it is almost the definition of stupidity.

All I care about is the degree to which people buy in to the notion of a free society. I'd sooner kick out real pinkos in Boston (not you joe, you're okay) or real theocrats in Alabama than an illegal Mexican immigrant living in Chicago.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Mike, why do the vast majority of Muslims in France speak French but the vast majority of mulsims in Yemen speak Arabic?
Culture matters.

[GILMORE]

(t)Whit

also, we did not routinely hand out benefits left right and upside down in those days

hmm.

might want to check that homes. a lot of people like my ancestors showed up in the depression, got hooked into work programs, bread lines, etc., and then joined the armed forces and got 'free' college educations on the GI bill... and their children (cough) ended up as Americano as Hot Dogs and Cheetoos. Next question?

[highnumber]

Aside about crappy Pennsylvania towns:
At a recent job I was researching some matters in PA that required me to pore over newspaper articles from some small town PA papers. Wow. What a racist place. I recall an article about an accident caused by a Puerto Rican member of the community that sparked a lot of discussion about how the damn "Ricans" were destroying their town. One commenter guessed that a lot of the "Ricans" probably weren't even legal. Other comments suggested that the "Ricans" were ruining their town, because they remembered their town being much nicer when they were kids, before the "Ricans" moved in. Never mind, of course that this was a little town that once had either a successful coal mine or steel plant that has long since closed, never mind that Puerto Ricans are citizens, etc.

Aside to the aside, my pal from New York thinks it's really funny to add the phrase "like a Puerto Rican" to anything. Unless we're talking about knife skills, I have no idea what he means by that.

[Reinmoose]

why do the vast majority of Muslims in France speak French but the vast majority of mulsims in Yemen speak Arabic?

Because French is the language of commerce in France, but not in Yemen?

[GILMORE]

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 1:52pm | #
MikeP
I just don't think of culture as necessarily a second order effect.

Mike, is this country so threatened by cultural change, really?

I've lived in NYC for much of my life, and we seem to have worked it out OK.

[Scooby]

I never noticed anyone around me having been Irishized in the process

You're saying you and your ancestors never drove anyone to drink?

[GILMORE]

Apologies, last comment was not at Mike, but who he was quoting (lost in the thread) who claimed 'culture as first order effect'? or whatever

[GILMORE]

Scooby | September 26, 2007, 4:52pm | #
I never noticed anyone around me having been Irishized in the process

You're saying you and your ancestors never drove anyone to drink?

I cant remember, I was too drunk, getting into fights, and singing sweet irish lilting airs to me lass Maggie McGee, who had 12 babies by me and set them loose as ruffians to harrass the bastard english whenever possible

or, no. I dont think the irish were ever even able to drive Americans to Corned Beef, much less whiskey and singing. They do pretend tho, once a year, drinking fucking disgusting green beer and making all real irish ashamed that our only holiday is a drunken leprechaun festival for assholes from NJ and Long Island

[Reinmoose]

*influenced by GILMORE's Irishness, but otherwise wouldn't have been compelled to do so...*

TOO RAH LOO RAH LOO RAH!!

[Brian Courts]

Culture matters.

So what? You're quibbling about a minor point in a weak argument. Lots of things matter in life yet that fact does not make them the proper subject of state regulation.

Culture certainly mattered to the plantation owners in the antebellum south but nobody is going to argue they were right to try to preserve it. We have plenty of experience with those who simply want to preserve their culture like this, or as previously mentioned, Jim Crow. It is not the kind of philosophical company I'd want on my side of the argument without a principled way to distinguish their case from yours.

The fact is that if you look to culture as something beyond simply being an emergent and natural property of individuals living together (something that can and does influence them, to be sure) and instead see it as something so fundamental to who an individual is that you feel compelled to (use the state to) manipulate or "preserve" it, you are necessarily taking a collectivist view of those people. Collectivist views of people have been by far the greatest sources of evil and misery throughout the history of humanity. Again, it's going to be difficult slogging through that to show why this time this collectivist view is actually worth trampling on fundamental human rights to preserve.

[whit]

"What about the Founding Fathers? Were they a random group of immigrants or did they belong to a particular culture?"

dead, white, heterosexist, patriarchal capitalist fascist landowning, slaveowning oppressors...

duh 🙂

[whit]

"I never noticed anyone around me having been Irishized in the process"

i was irishized by shamrock shakes.

and lucky charms

[MikeP]

why do the vast majority of Muslims in France speak French but the vast majority of mulsims in Yemen speak Arabic?

The most obvious reason: Because they choose to. The language is part of the culture around them that they find useful to select for their own use. If they were raised in France or former colony, they probably learned it in school.

Where are you going with this? Are you trying to argue that French culture is harmed because Muslim immigrants speak French?

[whit]

"might want to check that homes. a lot of people like my ancestors showed up in the depression, got hooked into work programs, bread lines, etc., and then joined the armed forces and got 'free' college educations on the GI bill... and their children (cough) ended up as Americano as Hot Dogs and Cheetoos. Next question?"

you might want to study history first. immigration WAS regulated and limited during the depression. i was referring to the 1700's, not the 1900's

so, your premise (and conclusion) are thus bogus. in the early days of our country we did not have rampant social welfare programs. but we did have basically wide open immigration

however, during the depression, there was significant regulation on immigration

here's a hint. do the research, THEN form an opinion, k?

simply incredible ignorance.

"The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but mass immigration resumed upon the war's conclusion, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy: the national-origins quota system, passed in 1921 and revised in 1924. Immigration was limited by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. Also in 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service.

There was very little immigration over the next 20 years, with net immigration actually dropping below zero for several years during the Depression. Immigration remained relatively low during the 20 years following World War II, because the 1920s national-origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalization law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labor from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bracero Program permanent."

[whit]

"This is why we can speak of "Iranian culture" and "US culture" and be wrong about some individuals but correct about 90%+ of the peoples involved. Culture matters. The two societies are not made up of totally rational unconatminated autnomous individuals who have just chosen Islam over Christianity on the merits! There are values, norms, institutions, sanctions, etc., that are acting on folks all the time."

well put. just ASK any immigrant (or do a lot of traveling). there IS an american culture. heck, there is a canadian culture too (as that famous molson culture makes abundantly clear).

having traveled a lot myself, i notice some distinctions about american culture. one is far more emphasis on the individual. i routinely read french newspapers (for their hilarious criticisms of the US among other reasons), and its clear when they (and other euros) criticize us, that is one of the most blatant differences. cultures (and legal systems) like europe's (and canada's) value "civility" and "the group" more than ours does. we value individuality. that's why (well, that and that pesky constitution) "hate speech" laws haven't gained traction here, whereas they are de rigeur in europe and canada (they only gain traction on college campuses, which are of course run by collectivist euro-envied leftist weenies, so that actually makes a lot of sense). compare the "EU constitution" with ours. the differences are striking. this is pretty tangential to the whole immigration thing imo, since i don't favor limited immigration for cultural reasons. but it's interesting nonetheless

[GILMORE]

Whit

My "ignorance" is surpassed only by your intransigence in the face of the obvious fact that immigration has always been a net boon to this country, and that efforts to reduce it or create 'quotas' based on populist notions of the Good have generally been wasteful and ineffective. If you were OK with the 1st half of the 20th century's programs, describe why, and what we need to change now, and stop with the vituperation of anyone who thinks you're a schmoo

please forgive spelling errors because I type fast like

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I dunno Brian, it seems to me that in Iraq right now there are a lot of people who feel restrained by their culture. I mean, they have a democratic government and a system of laws that is fairly liberal, so why all the fuss? Well, culture matters, that is why. I imagine you want to preseve things about our culture, like the importance of individuals and rights and limited government, things that in other cultures around the world seem strange and downright subversive. So we both want to preserve cultural elements, come off your high horse and feed it some oats.

Ahh, MikeP, indeed there are good reasons why people tend to follow the culture they are in. Interesting too how they take parts from the culture they WERE in, like how many Muslims in France have French ancestrary compared to those with a Islamic heritage? I'd bet most of France's Muslims have an Islamic heritage, and now, even though they live in a secular or Christian nation they, remarkably, choose to still be Muslim! SO maybe Mexicans may bring and retain collectivist ideas, or ideas fostering corruption, etc.. Culture mattters.

[whit]

your ignorance is based on the fact that you are/were wrong. you brought up the depression era as (theoretically) evidence to dispute my (correct) claim that (generally speaking) when we allowed UNRESTRICTED immigration, we were not a nation that had extensive social welfare programs. so, one can't make comparisons to the past w/o taking that into account. my point was that when we allowed unfettered immigration, we were essentially a frontier nation (needing lots of masses, huddled or otherwise), and we were not a nation that gave out tons of benefits/entitlements.

you (erroneously) used depression era immigrants to prove your (incorrect ) point against my point, not realizing that immigration was SIGNIFICANTLY restricted during the depression, as i have provided ample evidence of.

when you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong to try to use depression era immigration policy as a supposed example of unfettered immigration, i'll get back to you.

hth

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Isn't it interesting how people in China sat down, weighed the pro's and con's, and decided to eat with chopsticks, but Europeans did the same thing and came up with the idea to eat with a fork and knife? Yeah, you know, culture is bunk, everyone just figures everything out for themselves...

[MikeP]

Mr. Nice Guy,

Given the opportunity, people in America historically have become American. What is so different today?

And why are you so convinced of the inferiority of American culture? I rather think it is superior to the cultures immigrants bring here -- or flee -- and it certainly appears to be ascendant in the world today.

[GILMORE]

when you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong to try to use depression era immigration policy as a supposed example of unfettered immigration, i'll get back to you.

No, i used it as an example of when immigrants were offered a lot of 'public benefits' that you think are now much more generous. You said there were never times like these, so the times are different. I was never referencing an era of unfettered immigration.

FWIW your own point works against you - in the next 20 years, the working-age population in america is set to decline significantly, with the highest drop being in younger lower wage employees... basically, a time much like in the past when we needed more cheap labor and invigorating consumer elements in our economy. Whats your case against legalizing the 12m again? I dont recall that as much as you calling everyone Ignorant

[GILMORE]

in fact, among the few here who are ardent worriers about the negatives of legal or illegal immigration, where are the proposals for a sensible policy?

joe wants ellis island, which I think will never fly, I want some pragmatic solution to prevant balkanization of the current hispanic population, + a more cost effective processing system, while others want a wall between mexico and deportation...

so whats the policy that meets people in the middle?

[GILMORE]

MNG

Would it make more sense to stop talking bout 'culture' as some kind of fictitious monolith, and rather about the characteristics you are worried about losing in the face of the Great Brown Tidal Wave of beaners? I mean, what is the worry? We will become a nation of fruit picking beer drinking harmless peaceful people?

[Brian Courts]

MNG, since you didn't really bother to address anything I said I hesitate to bother with this response. However,

I imagine you want to preseve things about our culture, like the importance of individuals and rights and limited government,

No, those are not things about our culture that I want to preserve. Fundamental individual rights transcend culture and I would argue they belong to every human regardless of the extent to which his culture seeks to deny them. What is fundamentally right and wrong is not dependent on any culture. Slavery is wrong everywhere regardless of culture. Women being forced to marry or forced to wear particular clothing is wrong regardless of culture. Requiring blacks to live only in certain neighborhoods is wrong regardless of culture. Killing or raping or hurting another person is wrong regardless of culture. I don't need to preserve any part of the culture to hold on to fundamental human rights. If others seek to deny people those fundamental human rights (as you are), they should be opposed wherever they are, regardless of culture.

Now, want to take a shot at articulating a principled distinction between your desire to preserve your culture and the plantation owner, or the Jim Crow supporter?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I'm worried about an infusion of folks from a culture that has a much higher tolerance for corruption, collectivism, and superstition than ours. I think experiences in places like Iraq and Russia demonstrate that cultural values, so called social capital, is pretty entrenched and is shaped by institutions, norms and values that evolve over centuries. I think that, if they had the same history as us, Mexicans or anyone would have similar cultural values, but their cultural histories have been very different, and just coming here is not going to change that over night. As I have said, we will infleunce them, but is naive to think they will not influence us (Mexicanilize), and I for one do not like what Mexico has to offer relative to the U.S..

I don't think our culture is inferior or superior in some cosmic sense. I think its crazy to talk that way. If swamped by people with different cultural values ours will be changed not because it is "inferior" but because it is swamped. Culture is not a commodity. People don't say "hmmm, I think I will read French writers, eat Mexican food, speak Persian and believe in Buddhism." Most folks take most of what they know from the culture around them, which has been formed over centuries. It's part of who they are.

[GILMORE]

Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 6:41pm | #

I'm worried about an infusion of folks from a culture that has a much higher tolerance for corruption, collectivism, and superstition than ours.

Har har. that sounds funny, because it's characteristic of both the hyper-conservative and hyper-liberal elements in our system...

but really, isnt the reason these people come here is to get away from those things?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Brian-I happen to agree that what is right and wrong transcends culture. But that does not change the empirical fact that many cultures do not buy into that very idea, much less our more particular ideas about what is wrong or right. Muslims that show up in France say "we will tell our daughters to wear headscarves." If they were a majority that will become law. You will be on the sidelines saying "But guys, there are these fundamental rights you are violating!" You will be right, but outvoted. Yay!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"but really, isnt the reason these people come here is to get away from those things?"
No, that is funny. Most people who come here come for much more mundane reasons, to make a living or to reunite with family. They don't yearn for the Bill of Rights and so trek across the Rio Grande...

[MikeP]

Mr. Nice Guy,

If you don't find American culture superior to other cultures in any real sense, why do you care so much to preserve it in some pristine state?

[Brian Courts]

MNG,

Pragmatic concerns about what all the freed slaves would vote for should not have carried any weight in the debate about freeing them. I still don't see why I should take your concerns about what someone may or may not vote for as carrying weight in a debate about a fundamental human right. Should they have worried about what freed slaves might vote for or not?

More fundamentally, that the system might allow a mere majority to strip rights from the minority is horribly wrong (a wrong the Constitution attempts, however poorly at times, to prevent in part). However, we cannot begin to fix that or other affronts to individual freedom by piling more such affronts on top. The solution to to little freedom isn't even less freedom.

[Brian Courts]

Ugh - preview... I hate corrections, but allow me to be a bit of a hipocrite and say that should read:

The solution to too little freedom...

[whit]

im not against modifying quotas and policies in regards to how many immigrants we let in based on perceived needs of labor pool, etc.

what i am against (and should be clear) is the idea that merely because somebody is (presumably) not a threat, that they should automatically get in, and the idea that people should just be allowed to walk across the border.

"my point does not work against me". my point isn't (for the 100th time) that we shouldn't have immigration. i am 100% for immigration. i am against ILLEGAL immigration. i do not believe (which is consistent with our laws) that merely walking across the border entitles you to allow to stay, or citizenship rights, etc. if we need more cheap labor, FINE. then people who go through the LEGAL process to be allowed to work in the US are the ones who should be able to take advantage of that opportunity.

i do not believe in creating perverse incentives, wherein people are rewarded because they chose to break our laws, by sneaking across the borders.

and fwiw, i didn't call everybody ignorant. i called you ignorant because you made an ignorant reference to the depression, a period wherein immigration WAS tightly regulated.

[Brian Courts]

i am 100% for immigration. i am against ILLEGAL immigration.

How can you get this far down the thread and still pull out that tired line? Come on, it is pointless and begging the question. Yes, yes, we are all for legal immigration. The point in question is exactly what should be legal.
im not against modifying quotas and policies in regards to how many immigrants we let in based on perceived needs of labor pool, etc.

Whose "perceived needs"? Do you have to worry about anyone's perceived needs of the labor pool before you are allowed to look for work here? Why should we accord you such a privilege? Perhaps it isn't a privilege at all, but a fundamental right that you just conveniently want to take advantage of while denying the same to others?

i do not believe in creating perverse incentives, wherein people are rewarded because they chose to break our laws, by sneaking across the borders.

Good, neither do I - glad we agree on that too. Let's get rid of those stupid laws that would seek to prevent someone from simply coming in as they wish - no perverse incentives rewarding those who sneak in since nobody would feel the need to sneak in.

what i am against (and should be clear) is the idea that merely because somebody is (presumably) not a threat, that they should automatically get in

And what qualifications do you have for being allowed to stay here? Please tell me it isn't something so pathetically trivial as the fact that you had the good fortune to be born here and some other poor schmuck didn't. Such an accident of birth cannot carry any more moral weight in deciding who I can associate with than an equally arbitrary accident of birth such as skin color, can it?

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

You use the word "swamp."

The US has roughly 300 million people.

Mexico has around 1/3rd.
Even if we made Mexico the 51st state they would not swamp the US.

Since the example included Brazil, let us throw in 175 Million Brazilians. Mexicans and Brazilians would still remain below 50% of the resulting 575 Million people.

Reduce those numbers down by the minority from each country that would immigrate to the US with a free-for-all policy, and then explain how we will be "swamped."

[Neu Mejican]

D'oh,

ummmm

"1/3 that number."

[whit]

me:i am 100% for immigration. i am against ILLEGAL immigration.

you: How can you get this far down the thread and still pull out that tired line? Come on, it is pointless and begging the question. Yes, yes, we are all for legal immigration. The point in question is exactly what should be legal.

i will keep pulling that line as long as people keep conflating immigration, with illegal immigration as has been continuously done in this thread.

that is intellectually dishonest.

me: im not against modifying quotas and policies in regards to how many immigrants we let in based on perceived needs of labor pool, etc.

you: Whose "perceived needs"? Do you have to worry about anyone's perceived needs of the labor pool before you are allowed to look for work here?

anybody is allowed to look for work here. you need to apply for work visa. people are not (and should not) allowed to work here merely because they broke our laws by crossing the border illegally.

that's what sovereignty is. it means we have the right to LIMIT who comes here, who stays here, and who works here.

" Why should we accord you such a privilege? Perhaps it isn't a privilege at all, but a fundamental right"

if it is a fundamental right to come to america and be american, then you live in a strange world. every other nation recognizes that it is within the authority of a nation to determine who has the PRIVILEGE of immigrating into the country.

" that you just conveniently want to take advantage of while denying the same to others?"

im not exactly sure what your point is. are you saying that anybody has the right to enter america, work here, stay here, and that we should have no say in that?

[whit]

me: what i am against (and should be clear) is the idea that merely because somebody is (presumably) not a threat, that they should automatically get in

you: And what qualifications do you have for being allowed to stay here?

i get really tired of emotion laden arguments and people who try to turn discussion of policy into personal attacks. it's not about ME or you. it's about policy. can you discuss policy without bringing me or you specificanly into the equation? that's the adult way to do it.

" Please tell me it isn't something so pathetically trivial as the fact that you had the good fortune to be born here and some other poor schmuck didn't."

actually, that is how it works. sorry.

that's also how it works in every other nation i am aware of. because it makes sense. people who are born here are granted citizenship. others, who are not, have to APPLY for it.

"Such an accident of birth cannot carry any more moral weight"

it has nothing to do with "moral weight" because this is not an emotional argument, despite your wanting it to devolve into that. it would suck to be born in bangladesh and poor vs. the US and rich. but just because other people were born into bad circumstances doesn't mean OUR nation should be saddled with an obligation to grant somebody citizenship.

that is a profoundly unlibertarian viewpoint.

it would suck to be born poor and in a third wolrd country. given those circ's i would expect many people to want to come to america. it does not follow that these people thus have a right to demand and be granted citizenship.

" in deciding who I can associate with than an equally arbitrary accident of birth such as skin color, can it?"

you can associate with whomever you want. that's completely tangential to who is and isn't a US citizen.

if you don't accept that a sovereign nation should have the authority to grant (or deny) citizenship to people who were born outside its borders, then there is really not much to discuss. another libertarian concept you may not understand. life is not cosmically fair. some people are born unlucky. others are born lucky.

it doesn't give those who are born unlucky the right to demand "stuff" from others, such as citizenship of a better nation.

either we accept EVERYBODY or we accept that we have to have criteria for admission to this country.

that is profoundly unfair, in the cosmic justice sense.

however, as a matter of policy, no govt. can be concerned with that sort of cosmic justice. you are free as an individual to give to charity, to adopt, etc. govt. is not obliged to help every single person in the world who knocks on our nation's door. that would not be practically possible, nor would it be good policy. that SUX for those unlucky enough to be born into bad circumstances.

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

Muslims that show up in France say "we will tell our daughters to wear headscarves." If they were a majority that will become law.

An interesting example given the laws in France that take that freedom away from Muslim daughters who might choose to wear headscarves.

So the Algerian families that have legally immigrated to France have a right to preserve their culture in areas that do not harm others?

[Neu Mejican]

Argh.
Can't. Type.

",Do the Algerian..."

To Whit 😉

that's completely tangential to who is and isn't a US citizen.

Is it tangential to policies regarding working and living in the US separate from the question of the path to full citizenship?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Mike-In the same way that I don't want Coke to stop being made. I know it is not better than Pepsi in some real sense, but I like it. I like US culture. It fits me. I think I would be uncomfortable in Mexico, or a slightly Mexico-ized America.
Neu Mejican-you don't have to be a numerical majority to vastly influence a culture.
Brian-I don't equate slaves with Mexicans or Brazillians. They are free to make whatever society they want in their homelands. Slaves were physically taken from their homelands.

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

you don't have to be a numerical majority to vastly influence a culture.

I agree. But you do need a numerical majority to "swamp." (which means something close to "overpower" no?)

Given your love for other cultures, I don't understand your reluctance to share physical space with those of other cultures. Or is it sharing political space your find uncomfortable?

[whit]

"Is it tangential to policies regarding working and living in the US separate from the question of the path to full citizenship?"\

im not sure i understand your question. imo, race is not an issue, nor should it be. period. not in hiring, retention, or immigration (legal or illegal) etc.

it is irrelevant to the illegal immigration debate. crossing the border without permission is illegal without regards to race.

[Neu Mejican]

Re: a slightly Mexico-ized America

Try living in South Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico. You will find that they are great parts of America despite being slightly Mexico-ized. I prefer them to the less Mexico-ized areas of the country.

[Neu Mejican]

Whit,

Given that all you wish for is that those that cross the border have permission, and the focus of most of this debate has been what criteria is used to give permission; and given that you don't seem to care about race; what benefits do you feel a person needs to bring warrant permission to enter the country and work? Would they need a prior commitment from an employer?

[Neu Mejican]

And MNG,

Remember the former Mexican territories in the US have been undergoing a hundred or so years of de-Mexico-ization. The arguments you are currently using are the ones that prevented the territory of NM from becoming a state in the 1800's. They didn't make anymore sense then.

[whit]

"Given that all you wish for is that those that cross the border have permission,"

yes.

" and the focus of most of this debate has been what criteria is used to give permission; and given that you don't seem to care about race;"

i DON'T care about race. it's not a matter of "seem"

" what benefits do you feel a person needs to bring warrant permission to enter the country and work? Would they need a prior commitment from an employer?"

at a minimum (in general), yes.

there are all sorts of criteria for visas,(student), etc.

i have a good friend who is a citizen of soviet canuckistan and works here as a doctor. i've seen the kind of #$(#( she had to go through to work here.

my point is that walking across the border should not entitle you to ANYTHING. if you do so, without permission, you are a criminal.

[Neu Mejican]

So MNG, I guess at root I am an anti-de-Mexicalizationist.

=/;^)

I also think San Francisco or Seattle would suffer from De-Asiafication.

[Neu Mejican]

So Whit,

It seems that you support the current system?

So the 12 million people who have been providing the country with an economic and cultural benefit because the current system did not facilitate their legal entry should live do what?

I don't disagree that there should be an orderly process for crossing the border to work, but the current system clearly doesn't do a very good job.

[GILMORE]

this guy can type 10,000 word posts and say little to nothing. It's gotta be some kind of new AI or something.

[Brian Courts]

i will keep pulling that line as long as people keep conflating immigration, with illegal immigration as has been continuously done in this thread.

that is intellectually dishonest.

No, it is irrelevant to the discussion, not dishonest. As I said, the question at hand is exactly what should and should not be legal. You're saying essentially that whatever we decide should be legal ought to be legal.

people are not (and should not) allowed to work here merely because they broke our laws by crossing the border illegally.

They shouldn't have to break any laws to cross the border.

if it is a fundamental right to come to america and be american,

Yes. More generally, the fundamental rights are freedom of movement and association.

then you live in a strange world.

Indeed.

every other nation recognizes that it is within the authority of a nation to determine who has the PRIVILEGE of immigrating into the country.

True, but rather irrelevant to determining whether something is right or wrong. Every other country doubtless does many things that are wrong and has done so throughout human history. "Hey everybody else is doing it" is hardly a moral compass I would want to navigate by.

are you saying that anybody has the right to enter america, work here, stay here[?]

Yes. I'm saying what I said above, everybody has a right to travel freely and associate with whomever they wish. That so many impediments are put up by this and other countries doesn't change that right.

and that we should have no say in that?

First, who is this "we" that you speak of? You have a say over who enters your property and you ought to be able to exclude anyone you wish for any reason you wish. But you don't have the right to determine who I may invite onto my property.

Further, if you think you do have that right then what makes you so special as to be above being kicked out of here yourself? Why do you get to stay? Not from a legal point of view - of course we all know the laws and Constitution. I'm talking from a moral point of view. Assume there was no Constitution - could say, a group of your neighbors get together and simply vote to kick you out of the neighborhood, the city, state or country? How many would it require to be considered "we" and before "we" would be able to dictate to you how long, and under what conditions "we" would grant you the privilege of staying and working around us? Not on our property, mind you, but simply a group of people deciding when we'd had enough and it was time for you to move somewhere else.

[Neu Mejican]

Whit,

And you still didn't give me a sense of what what benefits you feel a person needs to bring warrant permission to enter the country and work.

[whit]

depends what you mean. i think we've done a terrible job (overall) at protecting our borders. i support the policy (same as other nations) that we are a sovereign nation, and you need permission to enter, and to stay and to work.

assuming that the 12 million people have been providing the country with economic and cultural benefit (for the sake of argument) ... so what?

they entered here illegally, and they have no right to stay. i do support ICE raids, etc. but i realize that as a practical matter, we can't just immediately kick those people out.

i think that people who go through the legal immigration process deserve far more consideration and respect than those who didn't

[whit]

"And you still didn't give me a sense of what what benefits you feel a person needs to bring warrant permission to enter the country and work."

without a briefing by experts as to what exactly is NEEdED, i can't make that assessment.

if experts determine that certain skills are in short supply, and immigrants apply who have those skills, then yes, ceteris paribus, those people deserve extra consideration.

[Brian Courts]

ME: " Please tell me it isn't something so pathetically trivial as the fact that you had the good fortune to be born here and some other poor schmuck didn't."

whit: actually, that is how it works. sorry.

Good point /sarcasm. I can see this is pointless with responses like that. But tell me where the difference is in this statement that is meaningful:

Some 1840's opponent of slavery says, "please tell me it isn't something so pathetically trivial as the fact that you had the good fortune to be born white and some other poor schmuck didn't. [changes emphasized]

Some 1840's version of whit "actually, that is how it works. sorry."

[Neu Mejican]

we can't just immediately kick those people out.

So why not provide them with a orderly path to legitimate their stay? Retro-active permission of sorts after an orderly process whereby they come forward and say they want to continue working and living in our country (to our mutual benefit)?

[Neu Mejican]

Whit,

A small point.
Experts say that what is needed is unskilled labor. That would make the criteron a willingness to work.

[whit]

brian, that is an absurd argument.

nobody has the RIGHT to citizenship unless they were lucky enough to be born here, etc. that's a reality.

race is totally irrelevant.

part of being a sovereign nation is that we have the right to determine who comes in and who doesn't.

that's a fundamental right of ANY nation.

if you want to make the absurd arguemnt that that is equivalent to treating people differently based on race, then go ahead and believe that. it's absurd (and remember, it's not just the US that claims this authority.

*if* govt. has the authority to limit entry/citizenship than it has to use SOME criteria. if you believe that automatic citizenship basedon luck of where you were born is somehow equivalent to making that decision based on race, then we really have nothing more to discuss. your argument is sophistry at its most absurd.

[Mike Laursen]

whit, what do you think of the concept of the nation-state in general? Do you see it as the ultimate way of dividing up the world for administrative purposes, or as the current governmental paradigm in mankind's still-evolving story, or as a great foundation for developing a national identity, or as an idea that has pluses and minuses, or ???

[whit]

"So why not provide them with a orderly path to legitimate their stay? Retro-active permission of sorts after an orderly process whereby they come forward and say they want to continue working and living in our country (to our mutual benefit)?"

i never said i was against that. but i think that people who went through the LEGAL process should get precedence, ceteris paribus over those who chose to break the law.

[whit]

"whit, what do you think of the concept of the nation-state in general? "

im for it.

"Do you see it as the ultimate way of dividing up the world for administrative purposes,"

ultimate way? i'm not aware of a BETTER way, but im not going to assume it's the ultimate way.

" or as the current governmental paradigm in mankind's still-evolving story,"

quite possibly.

"or as a great foundation for developing a national identity, or as an idea that has pluses and minuses, or ???"

pretty much all of the above. they aren't mutually exclusive. i have a very hayekian view of govt. these things evolve. much like some wonk commented about our legal system "it's the worst, except for all the other systems"

[Brian Courts]

just because other people were born into bad circumstances doesn't mean OUR nation should be saddled with an obligation to grant somebody citizenship.

that is a profoundly unlibertarian viewpoint.

Excuse me as a pick myself up off the floor. Being lectured about what is a profoundly un-libertarian viewpoint by someone who thinks we need "experts" to tell us how much of this skill set and how much of that labor we need before "we" decide who can work here (who wasn't born here of course!) is beyond ironic to the point of being farcical.

There is nothing un-libertarian about saying get the government out of picking who can work and live here (anything beyond making sure they're not criminals - i.e. public safety - is beyond what a government should do). I don't think the government should do anything besides get out of the way. Oh please, un-libertarian, my arse.

ME: " in deciding who I can associate with than an equally arbitrary accident of birth such as skin color, can it?"

whit: you can associate with whomever you want. that's completely tangential to who is and isn't a US citizen.

Ugh. I shouldn't have to explain this but given the previous two comments I've responded to it looks like I do - I can't associate with them if you and your statist, expert(read: bureaucrat)-requiring, friends won't let them in the fucking country! Hellooooo...

[whit]

assuming that we have SOME sort of border control, then some "statist" has to make that determination. should we have due process to try to minimize arbitrariness and capriciousness? of course.

a libertarian generally thinks that govt. shoudl stay out of matters that are self-regarding acts (drug use, sexual behavior), and that govt. has far too much expasnive authority in general. we can agree on that. there are a few things that we absolutely need govt. for. protecting our borders is right up there near the top.

there is one fundamental assumption we may disagree on. i accept that there is benefit to LIMITING the amount of people who come in. you may not. GIVEN that i accept thatwe should not let in everybody who wants in (and of course we both agree on the publica safety screen), there has to be SOME set of criteria wherein we distinguish between who gets entry and who doesn't.

[Brian Courts]

nobody has the RIGHT to citizenship

Citizenship is a purely government created concept that has no fundamental meaning beyond what the state says it means. So arguing about citizenship is just avoiding the fundamental question, which you are good at (see all that BS about "legal" immigration).

that's a fundamental right of ANY nation.

Nations don't have rights - only individuals have rights.

Please explain yet again, why people can exclude a person because of where he was born (i.e. tell me I can't associate with him by hiring him) and not because of race. You can't say because they have that right - because I'll just say ok, they also have the right to allow slavery even if they don't choose to do so. If they did, slavery would still be evil and wrong just as it was then. So again, let's go back to the 1700's when clearly many nations had the "right" to force certain races into slavery - and explain the difference between your statements today and those of slavery's apologists back then. Trying to tie your argument to some government dictated legalistic framework isn't going to help you but you can't seem to get away from that. Who is the true statist then, I wonder?

[whit]

"A small point.
Experts say that what is needed is unskilled labor. That would make the criteron a willingness to work."

that sounds perfectly logical to me

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Neu Mejican-I really do have no specific animus for other cultures, they are just not for me. I don't want to live in them, they don't fit me so to speak. I like how things are, in that way I'm quite conservative. I also tend to think certain moral imperatives that have become part of US culture through its Anglo and European heritages are morally correct and may be undermined in part by too large of an infusion of people who may not share those values. BTW-I hope SIV reads this thread to see we are not the same person (or else we like talking to ourselves) :).

Brian-I think citizenship should as close as possible track a nation's "people", those with common heritage and ties. If I am a member of a homeowners association that does not allow guest homes to be built on properties, you do not have a right to move in and build a guest home and rent it to someone. In doing so you've ruined the little project the association agreed to put together. Some of us see certain immigration as threatening the little project we have called the U.S. Slavery existed within the project and was counter to its stated ideals. Cultures can change from within, especially when we change to more closely mirror values that have taken hold in our cultures heritage but have yet to be implemented properly. But to toss another culture, alien to it, into another one, may very well undermine the whole project of the former. Nations, as sets of individuals have a right to stop that. Indeed, has any nation not done that? You are arguing for something that really has not been tried before based on a most abstract argument.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Not to mention that we want to have LESS, not MORE social pathologies in our nation, and to the extent that current immigration contains a great deal of this, we need to limit it. At the least we simply do not need more public charges, or criminals, or infected people. We have a system for admitting folks legally that screens for all that (and for desirable traits we are looking for). Illegal immigration undercuts that. And just "making it all legal" won't help, then we will have to expand the bureaucracy that checks everyone to filter out the pathologies I mentioned.

[J sub D]

And why are you so convinced of the inferiority of American culture? I rather think it is superior to the cultures immigrants bring here -- or flee -- and it certainly appears to be ascendant in the world today.

American culture is SUPERIOR to any of our contributing cultures, It's SUPERIOR to English, French, Mexican, German, Eastern European Jew, Chinese, VietNamese, Pilipino, Samoan or any other culture on the planet. In the marketplace of cultural ideas, other countries are the local strip mall. We're the goddam Mall Of America when iit comes to cultural selection. And to the cultural relatavists who still haven't been shamed into silence, begone with you. American culture only gets richer. Maybe that's why we don't need a ministry or department of culture.

Im third generation FWIW. I never noticed anyone around me having been Irishized in the process

'Cept on St Paddy's Day. 😉

[GILMORE]

jesus quit the whole culture thing, it's gotten ridiculous. 'Culture' is one of the most vague and poorly defined terms ever, and most of American culture is polyglot, so why not just get down to specifics at some point...

at the least, we have good food 🙂

[Jim Bob]

This whole debate's going to seem pretty silly once the continents coalesce back into Pangaea. Mark my words.

[sr23]

Even the NY Times mentioned what was probably the real reason for the repeal of the law, which is that this little town of 8,000 was getting sued, had already paid out over $80,000, and that was just the beginning. Digging a little deeper, Hazelton, Pennsylvania passed a similar law, and is now stuck with a legal bill of over $2 million dollars - and the battle's not over by a long shot. This for a bill which will just be thrown out by the courts anyway.

If Riverside ends up with multi-million dollar legal fees, every taxpaying household could end up paying thousands of dollars of extra taxes. Even David Duke would balk at that. Well, maybe not David Duke, but everybody else would.

Reason elides even that measly sliver of text alluding to an alternative explanation, because this article is meant to propagandize rather than inform, in an even cruder way than the original article.

The article doesn't present one shred of evidence that the typical Riverside resident wants the immigrants back (typical Riverside residents not including immigrants who own businesses which cater mostly to immigrants), and favors the repeal of the bill for that reason instead of because they're going to get stuck with heavy taxes for what amounts to tilting at windmills. Probably because there isn't any. Not that we'll ever know, with the press corps that we have.

[Mike Laursen]

Reason elides even that measly sliver of text alluding to an alternative explanation, because this article is meant to propagandize rather than inform, in an even cruder way than the original article.

It says right there in Weigel's post, at the top of this page: "Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town's already tight budget."

[Tacos mmm...]

Going for 300! Going for 300!

[Tacos mmm...]

Come on! We can make 300!

[Tacos mmm...]

Don't give up *huff* now *puff*

[Neu Mejican]

MNG,

I really do have no specific animus for other cultures, they are just not for me. I don't want to live in them, they don't fit me so to speak.

You'll live in your own micro-culture even while your neighbors live in their own. The intersection between those disparate cultures in your community only enriches the choices for everyone. You don't have to adopt any particular piece of culture that is offensive to you. You can partake at your own level of comfort.

Your specific complaints seem to be more about the impact of immigrants on the political life of the nation. But as with any market, the market of ideas benefits from variety. We don't want the PRI running things in the US, for sure, but a shift in the political landscape in this country can only be beneficial in my view.

I still find your position fascinatingly incongruent based on your position on other issues.

Have a Mr. Nice Guy day.

[Neu Mejican]

298

[299]

299

[Neu Mejican]

300

[As Tacos MMMM - skeet skeet skeet's in glee]

[Neu Mejican]

Not to mention that we want to have LESS, not MORE social pathologies in our nation, and to the extent that current immigration contains a great deal of this, we need to limit it. At the least we simply do not need more public charges, or criminals, or infected people.

But there is no evidence that those crossing the border to work increase any of those "social pathologies." Enforcement for crime takes care of the criminals. Infectious people are more likely to stay underground when not given legitimate status by our society, and on balance undocumented workers contribution to the economy more than offsets any social burdens they bring.