Hong Kong Kerflooey

Earlier this week in The Corner, the anti-immigration crusader Mark Krikorian argued that "a libertarian approach to immigration lead[s] to a bigger and bigger state" because immigration increases population, and places with higher population densities require more regulation. His fellow NROnik John Derbyshire -- by no means an open-borders man -- wasn't convinced:

My own formative political experience was living in one of the most densely-populated places in the world -- Hong Kong, in the early 1970s. In some of the working-class areas of Kowloon, spot density hit one person per square meter. It's all high-rises, of course; but on evenings around Lunar New Year, when everyone came out to stroll on the streets, you got the full effect.

The place had almost no government, just a few hundred British civil servants on temporary assignment administering the affairs of five million people. Law enforcement was sketchy: If you called the police for any occurrence less serious than homicide, they just asked you for money, and arrested you if you didn't give them enough. Living conditions were awful, families with four or five kids packed into one bare room. There was no welfare at all. If you didn't work, and had no family to help you, you starved. The place had no natural resources -- Hong Kong's just a lump of bare rock. Even the water was piped in from China.

Yet it worked very well. You could walk those Kowloon back streets late at night -- I did, many nights -- without coming to any harm; catch a movie; stop off at a food stall for a delicious snack; have your fortune told; come upon a Cantonese Opera troupe doing a full-dress production to an appreciative audience in some little public square…and next morning everyone was back at work doing something productive. The schools were excellent, basic medical care was cheap, and there were fewer beggars than I see in Manhattan today.

And now, 40 years later, the place ranks sixth in the world by GDP per capita, just behind the U.S.A. By economic freedom, it's number one.

Comments

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

Yes well of course Hong Kong didn't have to contend with IllllegalesMexxxxxicanos.

[PapayaSF]

OK, more people doesn't necessarily mean more government. But in our sort of welfare state, mass immigration of poor people does seem to lead to more government.

And yet, you left out Darbyshire's last paragraph...

Plainly Hong Kong's density hasn't held it back. Nor - astounding to relate! - has the territory's lack of demographic diversity. (The population is 95 percent Chinese.) What accounts for Hong Kong's success, I wonder?

[Jesse Walker]

I left out his first paragraph, too!

[24AheadDotCom]

mass immigration of poor people does seem to lead to more government

Obviously, Jesse Walker is living in a different universe, the one with the rainbows and unicorns and cotton candy and workhouses and such. In that magical universe, our present-day reality doesn't apply.

What also doesn't apply in this case is that Krikorian made a better point earlier. To deny that it to deny reality, something libertarians specialize in. I mean, there's a reason why the far-left and the Dems push for loose borders, and it isn't just because they're taco fans.

I make similar points in my comprehensive immigration reform backgrounder, and if anyone wants to find out exactly what's really going on, I've been covering immigration and politics in thousands of posts since 2002.

[Jesse Walker]

I certainly agree that you and I live in different universes, Chris. Mine is the one with other people in it.

I'm still awaiting the answers to my questions, by the way.

[tarran]

Jesse,

Have you checked youtube? Maybe Chris posted them there.

[brotherben]

Props for the gnarly cartoon referance.

[24AheadDotCom]

From the link above, here's Krikorian's earlier quote:

The Cato Institute and Grover Norquist (not to mention Bush and McCain) are objectively pro-redistribution, regardless of their stated views, because they are instrumental in soldifiying a pro-statist electoral majority.

In fact, back in 2006, I saw Grover Norquist on CSPAN, sitting cheek-by-jowl with a whole series of far-left groups, and all were supporting MassiveImmigration.

Now, I certainly have a strong idea why Cato and Norquist would support that, but I'm sure I'm wrong and I'm sure they aren't just corrupt, paid-off hacks. There must be some other reason. Of that I am sure.

[Morgan]

Inasmuch as open borders in general means more people, I have no problem. I actually like people, I love productive people, and I believe human ingenuity, not stagnating paranoid populations are the way to a brighter future.

The problem in our case is that we incentivize non-productive people to come here. Hong Kong obviously did not in the example above.

But that doesn't make immigration the problem, the welfare state is the problem. A state that makes me responsible for someone else is the problem.

I don't really see the point of trying to make a 'libertarian' argument about immigration from the perspective of living under some degree of socialism. Neither the problem, nor the solution, are in that arena at all.

And the problem is ours to fix. No illegal Mexican voted yes for Medicare or any other of our ridiculous problems. Blaming them for bringing those programs to their logical conclusion earlier than otherwise is just naive.

[booya]

Morgan, thus far, wins the thread . . . spot on assessment sir! The problem most certainly rests with a welfare state that encourages non-productivity for citizen and immigrant alike. If any policy changes need to be made, it is in the arena of incentives/disincentives.

[24AheadDotCom]

OK, I'll play along. Let's assume that the problem is the welfare state. Since the Dems are mostly responsible for that, please give us the libertarian answer that would result in the Dems being unable to use MassiveImmigration in order to maintain and increase the welfare state. Please also avoid answers involving Siberian workcamps.

Stumped? Lightbulb went off for the first?

Good. Let's keep it going. Now, you realize that we don't live in your libertarian paradise and that increased imm. means increased power for those who'll increase welfare spending. Without Siberia, there really is no way around that.

The only responsible libertarian position in support of MassiveImmigration would require first ending welfare spending. Anything else is irresponsible.

Reason, of course, has never made ending such spending a pre-condition, but has consistently promoted MassiveImmigration despite (I think) being somewhat smart enough to figure out what would happen (see California).

[MNG]

I've never thought Hong Kong to be a very good example of how great libertarianism works, as it's just a city...Hell, "quasi-socialist" NYC has a GDP per capita that is better than Hong Kong's...

[booya]

24 . . . uh, are you ok over there? Your rant is nothing more than a bizzare repackaging of the argument that Morgan and I made. I do not, for one, support massive immigration. I support a legal immigration apparatus that welcomes all that would come to our country and contribute something of worth. Unfortunately, the status quo actually encourages the opposite . . .

[EJM]

Props for the gnarly cartoon [reference].

Sit back and enjoy the timeless work of Scatman Crothers and Joe E. Ross (here and here).

[Mike Laursen]

OK, what's this talk about the United States being a welfare state? Corporate welfare and middle-class entitlement state, yeah. Welfare for the common folks -- not so wonderful that people would immigrate here just to participate in it.

[booya]

Mike Laursen . . . you are kidding, right? Please tell me you are joking. This, my friend, is simple math. Poor Mexican, makes 400 per month and has no health care while he busts his ass working some heavy labor job. He can come to the US and either . . .
A. Bust his ass but make at least three times the amount he did in Mexico, or
B. When all else fails, hop in the unemployment line or apply for generous welfare benefits.

[MikeP]

When all else fails, hop in the unemployment line or apply for generous welfare benefits.

No, he can't.

[BlueBook]

MNG, source for the NYC GDP per capita? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I can't seem to find it and now I'm curious...

[smartass sob]

No, he can't.

No? Well perhaps not yet, but given the fact that the Democrats have a lock on the government for the forseeable future, I'm sure it's only a matter of time. Which party got the Latino vote in the last election? Obama and his friends have been only too happy to reward their various supporters - especially if it will help expand their voting numbers. They've been pulling that kind of crap forever.

[Elemenope]

I just really kinda shocked that LoneWacko has come out solidly against Siberian work camps.

[24AheadDotCom]

booya opines: I support a legal immigration apparatus that welcomes all that would come to our country and contribute something of worth.

That certainly doesn't sound as objectionable as some of the loony ideas to be found here. Until, of course, you actually think it through. Rather than spending much time on that, let me keep it brief by asking what would happen to Israel if they had such a policy? Whether you support it or not, they wouldn't have much of a future as "Israel", now would they?

Here at home, if you support such a scheme, you automatically support strong, centralized foreign countries such as China and even Mexico flooding us with people in some form of colonization. In the unlikely event that you're able to figure that out, let me suggest reviewing your citizenship options. Somalia is great this time of year.

[MNG]

Bluebook
Here are the relative GDP's. Then just factor NYC's 8.5 million and Hong Kong's 6.9 million. I didn't work it out, but you can tell NYC's is better.

[Elemenope]

That certainly doesn't sound as objectionable as some of the loony ideas to be found here. Until, of course, you actually think it through. Rather than spending much time on that, let me keep it brief by asking what would happen to Israel if they had such a policy? Whether you support it or not, they wouldn't have much of a future as "Israel", now would they?

That is because, frankly, Israel as a nation is tied to a specific religious identity. That was its reason for creation, and is its reason for being.

America is not. Emphatically so, in fact. We've had waves of immigration from all across the globe for as long as we have existed, and it's been going great, TYVM. If anything, our nation's identity is tied to the very fact that we are a nation of immigrants.

[Mike Laursen]

Chinese and Mexican people, or any other group of people, would immigrate only to the degree that they can make a living here. Self-regulating system, no flooding.

[Some Hong Konger]

NYC is much older than HK. Those extra centuries of existence must have accounted for something. There's also the issue that NYC serves as the financial and business center for the entire Northeast United States (if not the United States as a whole), while investment from China into Hong Kong was restricted until pretty recently. We also have to compete with Singapore, Taipei, Shanghai and Tokyo, which means we may not earn as much as we could.

The comparison should not be between absolute values, but on the relative change in the two cities since the 60s, when Cowperthwaite was the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong. That would be far more interesting to me.

Derbyshire makes a rather astounding mistake: not all Chinese are alike. Mainland Chinese can be quite different from each other. Southern Chinese are usually very different from Northern Chinese, while those on the East Coast are quite different from those in the interior. Hong Kong Chinese are completely different altogether, as are the Taiwanese and the Macanese. They may all be ethnically Chinese (or Han, most likely), but they are culturally very different. These distinctions matter not only in what each of them brings to the table, but in the way they treat each other.

It's also quite surprising that he claims to have lived in Kowloon and hadn't heard about the immigrants in Chung King Mansions (and other nearby areas). It is in fact the areas full of immigrants (Central, Sheung Wan, Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok, Wan Chai) that were/are richer. It's also no accident that these are the tourist areas.

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

People responded to LW with something other than ad homs... and he was still a shithead.

Get raped, Lonewacko.

[Wong, Suzy]

It is in fact the areas full of immigrants (Central, Sheung Wan, Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok, Wan Chai) that were/are richer.

I not dirty Wan Chai street girl! I not dirty Wan Chai street girl!

[Jenny Jones]

LOL, Hong Kong like totally ROCKS. used to go there 2 times a year.

Jenny
http://www.privacy-web.tk

[MNG]

Sorry Blue Book, here is the link!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

Oh and anonymity bot, I continue to look forward to your eternal torture by Beelzebob and his minions for your infernal spamming!

[J sub D]

Sorry I'm late to the party.

7838 Lonewacko.

Just to be picky, the finest deepwater harbor in all of East Asia might be considered obviously is a valuable natural resource.

[Elemenope]

(In a bad Cantonese accent) "It is not advisable for s tourist to visit the canals at night..."

[Mike]

"Derbyshire makes a rather astounding mistake: not all Chinese are alike. Mainland Chinese can be quite different from each other. Southern Chinese are usually very different from Northern Chinese, while those on the East Coast are quite different from those in the interior. Hong Kong Chinese are completely different altogether, as are the Taiwanese and the Macanese. They may all be ethnically Chinese (or Han, most likely), but they are culturally very different. These distinctions matter not only in what each of them brings to the table, but in the way they treat each other."

These differences pale in comparison to the differences between these cultures and Latin American culture. If America had the opportunity of letting in 100 million libertarians with an average IQ of 120, I would be at the border welcoming them in, but that is not our current situation.

[Do?illa]

"..immigration increases population.."

No, people having babies faster than others are dying off increases population. Immigration just moves them around.
I suspect it won't be long before the US starts losing population due to immigration/emigration.

[Neu Mejican]

I seem to remember that something like 50% of Hong Kong lives in public housing...but that seems too high. Anyone got a figure on that one?

[MikeP]

You're right: 50% is too high.

It's 48%.

[Xeones]

Why has nobody told LoneWacko to shut the fuck up yet? I'm so disappointed in you people, all being civil to that rancid piece of dogshit and whatnot.

[J sub D]

Why has nobody told LoneWacko to shut the fuck up yet? I'm so disappointed in you people, all being civil to that rancid piece of dogshit and whatnot.

J sub D | June 20, 2009, 11:21am | #

Sorry I'm late to the party.

7838 Lonewacko. [link added for the clueless.] 😉

[Brett Stevens]

Hong Kong is a trade center.

Not every place will have the same experience, as their economies and needs are radically different.

Comparing a city to a nation is pretty broken logic, don't you think?

[Mike Laursen]

Comparing a city to a nation is pretty broken logic, don't you think?

Not really. An entire nation would presumably have even more room for immigrants than a single city. So pointing out that a city with dense population can have a thriving economy is a pretty spot-on rebuttal to arguments that immigrants would overcrowd our cities and tank our economy.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Constitutional amendments, at the Federal and State levels, can solve the welfare-state problem with respect to immigrants. Just deny eligibility for welfare-state benefits to people who aren't citizens or who haven't been accepted into the official naturalization program. Of course, as a libertarian, I would rather the welfare-state apparatus go away completely, but it bothers me that certain people won't even entertain "open borders" talk because they insist on the necessary precondition of scrapping the welfare-state first -- fully expecting that will never happen. It's just a lazy and transparent way to stifle valid discussion.

I suspect that the "drain on social services" argument against immigration is used primarily as a convenient way to deflect attention and inquiry away from people's real objections, which center around fear of job loss and unwillingness to associate (or even put up) with "those people." This may be why there hasn't yet been a concerted effort to draft and pass the necessary amendments. Too many people need the convenient, rational excuse to shut out "the others."

[Mike Laursen]

Lot of truth in what you wrote, J.A.M. Don't forget, though, Lonewacko's groundbreaking work in developing a theory that people who come here to get away from economy-stifling government carry some kind of dormant economy-stifling government-loving virus that makes them want to join socialist organizations like La Raza and Kidz Love Soccer once they get here.

[MikeP]

Just deny eligibility for welfare-state benefits to people who aren't citizens or who haven't been accepted into the official naturalization program.

At least at the federal level, there are no Constitutional amendments needed to do that. In fact, it has been the law of the land since 1986.

The most important addition to the law to help the situation would be to disqualify any citizen child of immigrants from any welfare that his parents don't qualify for.

Nonetheless, I have yet to see a whit of evidence that anyone comes to the US because of the copious government welfare package granted to illegal immigrants.

[Elemenope]

The most important addition to the law to help the situation would be to disqualify any citizen child of immigrants from any welfare that his parents don't qualify for.

That doesn't seem right.

[BlueBook]

No worries MNG, thanks for the followup. I think part of the confusion is the difference between NYC proper and the larger New York metro area, which spills across three states. Whereas Hong Kong is, well, just Hong Kong. Anyway, the numbers check out, NYC per cap GDP exceeds HK by a wide margin.

[MikeP]

Oh?

[Elemenope]

If the kid's a citizen he is entitled to whatever a citizen is entitled to. Nobody can choose their parents, and the law can't hold who your parents are against you.

[Richard Hoste]

America is not. Emphatically so, in fact. We've had waves of immigration from all across the globe for as long as we have existed, and it's been going great,.

What's happened to the crime rate, school test scores, out-of-wedlock birth rate and size of government since non-White immigration began in 1965?

[MikeP]

What's happened to the crime rate, school test scores, out-of-wedlock birth rate and size of government since non-White immigration the Great Society began in 1965?

[MikeP]

If the kid's a citizen he is entitled to whatever a citizen is entitled to.

In that case, where's my welfare? After all, if I'm a citizen, I'm entitled to the welfare another citizen is entitled to.

Or is it just possible that there are loads of requirements and qualifications before one is "entitled" to welfare, and one's parents' citizenship could matter just as much as one's parents' income or marital status.

[Richard Hoste]

I'm not a fan of the Great Society either, but Sweden didn't see their test scores drop to the lowest in the industrialized world and the destruction of their inner cities in the second half of the twentieth century.

A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."

[MikeP]

You also need to explain your amazing choice of watershed moments during the 60's with respect to the virtual open southern border of the US all the way up to the 1930s.

Oh, and surely you can explain how the 1990s saw the greatest immigration of non-Whites of any decade, while crime rates across the board fell like a stone.

[Mike Laursen]

re: "n that case, where's my welfare? After all, if I'm a citizen, I'm entitled to the welfare another citizen is entitled to."

Assuming you're part of the vast American middle class, you have all kinds of entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, college grants for your kids, mortgage interest breaks on your taxes. Of course, you also part of the same demographic that's paying for most of it, too.

[Mike Laursen]

Let me amend that slightly: you'll get most of your entitlements when you grow old (or that's the promise). The vast middle class pays in while they're younger and collect their entitlements when they're older.

[Some Hong Konger]

"These differences pale in comparison to the differences between these cultures and Latin American culture. "

Naturally. We do have a large influx of people from South and South-east Asia which provides that cultural diversity. In no way is Hong Kong as multi-cultural as NYC or Singapore, but to dismiss the diversity we do have is misleading as well.

[Richard Hoste]

You also need to explain your amazing choice of watershed moments during the 60's with respect to the virtual open southern border of the US all the way up to the 1930s.

Before then America was actually a real nation and acted like it.

Oh, and surely you can explain how the 1990s saw the greatest immigration of non-Whites of any decade, while crime rates across the board fell like a stone.

We got tough on crime and ended up with the biggest prison population in the world. Of course you can get the crime rate drop if you turn into a police state. There was a time we had safe streets without needing to do that.

And it's not just immigration, since the most criminal group is blacks. But Hispanics are the population that's growing and will be filling up our jails and welfare rolls along for decades to come.

This isn't just speculation. The FBI breaks down crime statistics by race. The information is at your fingertips.

[MikeP]

You also need to explain your amazing choice of watershed moments during the 60's with respect to the virtual open southern border of the US all the way up to the 1930s.

Before then America was actually a real nation and acted like it.

I was talking about the 300+ years of open immigration that started the US off, not about the anomalous idiocy of the 1950's.

[Mike Laursen]

I'm looking at the FBI crime report as I write this. It breaks down arrests into two groups: white and the oh-so-unspecific "all other races". So, don't go around claiming the FBI has statistics that back up your quite specific claims about black and Hispanic people.

[Richard Hoste]

So, don't go around claiming the FBI has statistics that back up your quite specific claims about black and Hispanic people.

Um, it does back up what I say about blacks. Finding the neccessary stats about Hispanics takes a little more work, but here you go. And I understand this is from a White Nationalist site, but the facts remain and it takes someone unafraid of "the r word" to see things clearly.

In Los Angeles in 2004, 95 percent of the 1,200 to 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicide were issued against illegal aliens, almost all of whom were Hispanic. Up to two-thirds of the city's 17,000 fugitive felony warrants were for illegal immigrants.(29)

In a disturbing sign for the future, Figure 9 shows that young Hispanics are no less than 19 times more likely than whites of the same ages to be members of youth gangs (blacks are 15 times more likely).(30) Perhaps this explains why Hispanic high school students are three times more likely than whites to feel unsafe at school or on the way to and from school (Figure 10). This is a higher rate than for blacks, who feel unsafe at 2.7 times the white rate.(31) MS-13, the largest and most notorious Hispanic gang has an estimated 10,000 members and recruits heavily among young men.(32)

Hispanics are overrepresented in drop out rates, crime, domestic violence, disease, welfare, etc. and underrepresented as high school graduates, college graduates, doctors, inventors, etc.

Every type of failure correlates with every other. Now I ask you, how can a group of people be underrepresented in everything good and overrepresented in everything bad and be a plus for the nation?

Here's some more highlights.

Because of their low incomes, Hispanics are the major population group most likely to use welfare: In 2004, 50 percent of Hispanic households used at least one form of welfare, compared to 47 percent of blacks and 18 percent of whites (see Figure 6).(20) In 2005, 13 percent of Hispanic households used food stamps, as opposed to five percent of white households. Puerto Rican households were more than four times more likely than whites to use food stamps and Mexicans almost three times more likely.(21) Non-citizens are generally ineligible for many forms of welfare; if many Hispanics were to gain citizenship, Hispanic welfare use would rise...

Low Hispanic education levels and the low incomes that follow have broader implications. If the Hispanic population increases as projected and Hispanics do not improve their graduation record, the average per capita income in California is estimated to drop by 11 percent by 2020. The average for the entire country would drop by two percent.(45)...

In 2003, the illegitimacy rate for children born to Hispanic mothers was 45 percent, nearly double the white rate (Figure 19). Between 1980 and 2003, the illegitimacy rate for Hispanics increased by 91 percent....

I'm sure this welfare-dependent, crime prone, illegitimate children-making, affirmative action-receiving population will make natural libertarians, right?

[Mike Laursen]

Richard, what made you decide to group people into demographics by their "race" (fuzzy concept, anyway) and use that as the basis for analyzing their arrest rates, etc.? For example, why wasn't the starting demographic breakdown used in your analysis, country of origin, wealth level, sex, age range?

If you did the breakdown by sex and age, by the way, the FBI statistics clearly show that you should be worrying about allowing any teenage males to immigrate to America. And, conversely, you shouldn't be all for open borders for women and old people of all races.

[Mike Laursen]

Err, "should be all for..."

[Richard Hoste]

Richard, what made you decide to group people into demographics by their "race" (fuzzy concept, anyway) and use that as the basis for analyzing their arrest rates, etc.?

What makes the NAACP, Barack Obama and La Raza do it? To paraphrase Trotsky, you might not be interested in race, but race is interested in you.

Just to be clear, you're not denying that the influx of Hispanics has caused and will continue to cause welfare dependency, failing schools, and higher crime rates? You're just hoping we don't notice?

[Mike Laursen]

What makes the NAACP, Barack Obama and La Raza do it?

I wasn't asking them. I was asking you why it's your first impulse when thinking about government policy to start by classifying everybody by race.

Just to be clear, you're not denying that the influx of Hispanics has caused and will continue to cause welfare dependency, failing schools, and higher crime rates?

No. Your statistics may be totally spot on. But:

(a) My first impulse is to consider everyone as individuals. When thinking about immigration policy, I wonder why you skipped the step of thinking about how we could assess the characteristics of individual people that want to become part of our country.

(b) One of the categorizations that I mentioned above is wealth level. I have a strong hunch if you just looked at arrest rates among impoverished people, regardless of race, you'd find them higher.

[zoltan]

Just to be clear, you're not denying that the influx of Hispanics has caused and will continue to cause welfare dependency, failing schools, and higher crime rates? You're just hoping we don't notice?

I'm gonna say the majority whities voting to allow welfare, more monies to public schools, and the continuing War on Sanity are a good reason.

[JB]

Considering how well Mexicans run Mexico, maybe there is some room for concern about loads of them coming to the US.

[Mike]

"My first impulse is to consider everyone as individuals."

So is mine, but unfortunately most individuals don't think of themselves primarily as individuals. It is fact of life that people think tribally as well. 96% of black Americans voted for Obama. Do you think that all of them voted that way because they dispassionately considered his views?

"When thinking about immigration policy, I wonder why you skipped the step of thinking about how we could assess the characteristics of individual people that want to become part of our country."

I'll go along with that. I propose a rule that says that only college graduates and their spouses and children may become immigrants. Do you think La Raza would support this idea? Why not?

[Seamus]

Rather than spending much time on that, let me keep it brief by asking what would happen to Israel if they had such a policy?

By the same token, you can ask what would happen to Palestine if they had such a policy, and the answer helps you understand why the Palestinian Arabs were so opposed to Jewish immigration after 1917.

But there's no need to go that far abroad. You can just ask what happened to Mexico when they had such a policy for immigration into Texas. IIRC, that ultimately resulted in their losing half their country's land area. (Similarly, the American Indians probably wish they could have enforced a more restricting immigration policy.) I don't believe there's any moral law forbidding us from learning from their mistakes.

[Mike Laursen]

I propose a rule that says that only college graduates and their spouses and children may become immigrants.

That's at least a more rational proposal for immigration policy based on racial groups. I'd argue that allowing non-college graduate immigrants brings value to our nation's economy, but at least we'd be having a rational argument at that point.

[Mike Laursen]

Do you think La Raza would support this idea? Why not?

Who cares what the heck La Raza thinks about anything. I know they're a big bugaboo to Lonewacko, but he's a paranoid obsessive.

[Mike Laursen]

Seamus, nice cherry-picking of examples while completely discounting the fact that we have a very successful history of being a nation of immigrants.

[24AheadDotCom]

Mike Laursen writes: I was asking you why it's your first impulse when thinking about government policy to start by classifying everybody by race.

I think this saying has to be broadened to include libertarians. Specifically: "if you aren't a libertarian, a comic book fan, and a GeddyLee fan at 14, you might actually have a brain and a life."

And, what Mike Laursen fails to note is that thinking of people as members of race-based groups is how the Dems and the far-left maintain their power. That's what they're all about; without that, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. So, anyone who fails to take the impact of that into account - like Mike Laursen - is living in a magical world.

Also, here's more on the National Council of La Raza than anyone at Reason would even whisper to you. The summary alone is almost 1000 words, followed by over 150 posts concerning them since 2004.

[Mike Laursen]

Wow, Lonewacko responded to my points with an ad hominem attack.

[Mike Laursen]

That's what they're all about; without that, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.

So, your point is that we should all enhance the left's power by thinking about everything in terms of race, too? That's the reasoning of a 3-year-old: "He hit me first!"

And I just ain't going to follow any links to your website. Won't do it. If you actually want to enlighten me about La Raza, post something of actual substance right here in the comments.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

JAM,

but it bothers me that certain people won't even entertain "open borders" talk because they insist on the necessary precondition of scrapping the welfare-state first

And it bothers me, that certain other people have no problem insisting that I agree to open borders, without any consideration of the fact that the welfare state exists and I must help pay for it.

Yes, I do insist on not having to pay for the welfare state as a precondition to opening the borders wide.

I suspect that the "drain on social services" argument against immigration is used primarily as a convenient way to deflect attention and inquiry away from people's real objections, which center around fear of job loss

And I am now left to suspect that you are another of those open-borders types who has no clue why most people who oppose open borders, are opposed. Hint: "you're just a bunch of racists" is bullshit, no matter how many times people print it.

But you did get one thing right, some of them are afraid of loosing their jobs. Which leads to one of the central fallacies in "Open the Borders!" rhetoric. A surprising fallacy, given that we're talking about libertarians here.

What does a big wave of low skilled immigrants do to the job market (for Americans who are already here) for low skilled labor? For example carpenters, hotel cleaning labor, etc etc?

What does the law of supply and demand tell you must happen?

Libertarians claim to understand The Law of Supply and Demand. They can more or less apply it to Obama. But when it comes to immigration they suddenly, completely forget about it.

There are Americans who worry about what immigrants do to their jobs, and it is not an irrational fear. If you care more about poor Mexicans than you do for the poor Americans who we already have, speak for yourself.

Opposition to open immigration really isn't just about racism.

For those around here who may not favor open immigration --

It's much easier to handle the "Open The Borders!" types if you realize that most of them are also anarchists (though they may or may not openly admit it). This fact alone undercuts a major swath of their rhetoric right out of the gate, for those of us who aren't anarchists. Anarchists come to this debate with a fundamentally different set of assumptions.

But on this particular issue I've found that many of them are simply not honest in the first place. They will, for example, tell you that all these Mexican immigrants can't just walk in here and get welfare. I know they're wrong. When I stand in line at the drug stores watching people get free (government paid) prescriptions, a huge percentage of them can't speak English to the cashier behind the counter. What language do you suppose they do speak?

When I stand in line at the grocery store and watch who's using food stamps, a huge fraction of those people also cannot speak English to the cashier. Which language are they speaking? Same one.

Exactly how they end up getting this stuff I don't know. But I do know that lots of people who cannot speak English are in fact getting a chunk of that welfare state that I end up having to pay for.

Of course, the anarchists tell me I shouldn't be unhappy with any of this bullshit....

[Mike Laursen]

Man, I don't have enough time right now, but let's cover one of your points:

When I stand in line at the drug stores watching people get free (government paid) prescriptions, a huge percentage of them can't speak English to the cashier behind the counter. What language do you suppose they do speak?

Sanity check: you do realize that overhearing the language someone speaks at the drug store doesn't tell you their immigration status, yes?

What does the law of supply and demand tell you must happen?

From Adam Smith on, classical liberal economists have explained why expanding the number of people involved in your economy helps your economy.

[MikeP]

If you care more about poor Mexicans than you do for the poor Americans who we already have, speak for yourself.

Opposition to open immigration really isn't just about racism.

No. As you so aptly exhibit, it's about nationalism and protectionism.

Why are those acceptable while racism is not?