Immigration

Immigration, Then and Now

|

Terrific and timely op-ed from Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam debunking the myth that there's something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants.

On language:

Proponents and opponents of immigration agree on one thing: Learning English is crucial to success and assimilation…

Most recent immigrants recognize that they need to learn English, and about 90 percent of the second generation speak English, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Research by sociologists Claude Fischer and Michael Hout published in 2008 suggests that English acquisition among immigrants today is faster than in previous waves.

On geographic assimilation:

Half a century ago, sociologist Stanley Lieberson showed that most immigrants lived in segregated enclaves, "Little Italy" or "Chinatown," for several generations. This segregation reflected discrimination by natives and the natural desire of "strangers in a strange land" to live among familiar faces with familiar customs….

That many of today's immigrants live in ethnic enclaves is thus entirely normal and reflects no ominous aim to separate themselves from the wider American community.

On intermarriage:

Immigrant intermarriage, then and now, also demonstrates steady progress over generations. In the 1960s, more than half a century after Italian immigration peaked, about 40 percent of second-generation Italians married non-Italians. This pattern characterizes today's immigrants: 39 percent of U.S.-born Latinos marry non-Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center. Intermarriage among second-generation Asian Americans is even more common. Today's immigrants are, on average, assimilating socially even more rapidly than earlier waves.

I'm not sure about all of their policy recommendations, but they're dead on here. We've seen the same criticisms with each new wave of immigrants: They're not assimilating. They don't speak the language. They're just here for a handout. They're bringing disease. We're getting the dregs of the rest of the world.

I guess it would be subjective to say that each wave of immigrants has made America stronger, though that's certainly my opinion. But when it comes to the retread fears about assimilation the critics have been wrong every time.

NEXT: California State Workers Still Overpaid At $7.25 Per Hour

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

  1. The irrational crackdown on immigrants is probably a major factor in why Obama’s “recovery” is nonexistent.

    1. Teh brows er proventin teh rekovary!111!1!!11!111

      (doing it right, am i?)

    2. Prosperity can only occur on the backs of underpaid, illegitimate labor?

      1. define “underpaid”, and hey, wouldnt be illegitimate if they were allowed a legitimate status as citizens or migrant workers.

        But hey, lets just keep raising the minimum wage and keep out as many brown people out as possible, it’s worked so well, right?

        1. If they were “legitimate”, you wouldn’t be able to get them to work so cheaply. Then you’d have to go and find some more illegitimate ones.

        2. Shoulda said low-paid, unskilled. That better? I was really going more for a snark anyway – prosperity built on the backs of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

          1. Yes, low skill workers would be much better off if they had no jobs.

  2. With the exception of the Terry Schiavo case, Jeb Bush was a fairly competent governor. I’ve often said the wrong one got elected President – I’d take Dubya fucking up the state of Florida to have had Jeb as President.

    He wouldn’t have been a libertarian by any means, but he would have been much better than his brother.

    He has a Hispanic wife, so you could say he’s commenting on a race he has a horse in. But then, the fact that he has a Hispanic wife kind of proves his point a bit.

    1. I’ve often said the wrong one got elected President

      Tell me about it!

      1. “Of any of my 6 sons that couldve goteen elected..wait, did i just get the number wrong?! Barb, put the cyclops back the baseme…OMG he loose!!!!”

        1. It troubles me greatly that I wax nostalgic about the Bush era here in the FLA when I loathe the rest of the family (except for maybe his niece Jenna in those internet pics).

          1. Waxing-poetic for the days that were a decade before our imminent financial collapse is nothing to be troubled over.

            1. There is something very wrong with discussing waxing, poetically and Bush girls.

              1. Wrong? I think the word you wanted is “Hot”.

    2. He has a Hispanic wife, so you could say he’s commenting on a race he has a horse in.

      So you’re saying Jeb is, err, well-equipped?

  3. 40 percent of second-generation Italians married non-Italians

    Exactly. He married me with only 60% of himself; the rest he kept for his mamamia.

    *sniff

    1. STFU, then look up “prenup”?

    2. STFU, then make me a lasagna sandwich?

  4. Yes, but as far as I’ve read, statistics show the ‘crackdown’ has had little real effect, and that the slowdown in immigration recently has been more an effect of the depressed economy, not the other way around. Although I agree about your point in theory. Laws passed making it harder to employ transient labor have certainly had a negative effect in some regions. I wonder what Arizona shows from their own recent policy changes.

    Here’s an article that says it may be accelerating forclosure rates =

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizo…..sures.html

    Interestingly, the article produced 135 pages of comments (~700 or so)… Most supporting the idea of ‘immigrant flight’, by my rough scan, economics be damned. Most people seem to be thrilled that they’ve cut off their nose to spite their face.

    In any case, its an interesting case study in what people think about the issue over there. Most are apparently very supportive of the idea of booting out all the ‘mexicans’. And the points raised above are all cited by the endorsees = Immigrants dont learn english; Immigrants cause crime; immigrants don’t assimilate; immigrants take away jobs Americans would otherwise do , etc etc.

    1. You may be right, but I get the “feeling” the crackdown is having a fairly big impact.

  5. The anti-immigrants have sung the same song every time since the mid-1800s (maybe before!), and been wrong every time. Even THEY know that their track record is abysmal, so every “thoughtful” critique of immigration (whether legal or illegal) that I have read recently has a section that talks about why “this time” is DIFFERENT from “all the other times.” The justifications remind me of how go-go financiers and pundits kept telling us during the dot com boom (and the subsequent housing bubble) that “the laws of economics no longer apply.” So many of us keep falling for that crap.

    1. But, it hasnt been true in the past 6 months, so how could it be true now?!?!

  6. If only we could have kept out the micks. Then this country would have been great.

    1. The Italians?

      1. I mean the Dutch. They ruined New York.

        1. you write like an Italian, smell like an Italian, and I hate Italians

          1. That’s cool. I hate Italians almost as much as I hate you.

            1. Epi, you would miss me …and you’re my favorite piece of shit.

              1. Unfortunately, my favorite piece of shit is Warty, so your love will have to go unrequited.

                1. Epi, have you ever considered an upgrade to the class/group of people that hate you?

                  1. juris imprudent|11.22.09 @ 7:43PM|#
                    There is more sand in HuffPo’s collective vaginas than in the whole of the Sahara.
                    Mar 25, 2010 … juris imprudent|3.26.10 @ 12:10AM|#. Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and Hugo Chavez – that really should be a porn flick.
                    Nov 11, 2009 … juris imprudent|11.11.09 @ 2:18PM|#. How about driving a dozen ten penny nails through the Chief’s ballsack and into a 4×4, …

                    1. Cool. I must’ve been pretty drunk when I posted that first one, I just don’t recall that at all. The second I believe had to do with the Police Chief that thought killing dogs as standard operating procedure was okey-dokey. I don’t like dog-killing cops.

                      I think my most tasteless comments are usually on the photo alt-texts. But I suppose that’s a matter of opinion.

          2. you write like an Italian, smell like an Italian, and I hate Italians

            If it walks like a noodle, and talks like a noodle….smother it in tomato sauce?

            1. wouldn’t eat him

              1. I just said “smother in tomato”…i never mentioned eating the results.

    2. The micks at least brought us Guinness and a drunken pseudo-holiday. What the fuck did Italy give us, besides their shitty carb-laden food? You fucking guineas disgust me.

      1. What the fuck did Italy give us, besides their shitty carb-laden food?

        Organized crime.

        1. What the fuck did Italy give us, besides their shitty carb-laden food?

          Columbus Day

          1. they gave us guidos, so hobos and child molesters would have someone to look down upon.

            1. Da fuck you talkin’ about? This shit is tight.

              Time for some manscaping!

          2. Uhhh… The jacket?

            1. So an argument for having immigrants is that they’ll have descendants that will knife their countrymen in the back?

      2. The real question, you huge schmuck, is what are you? You’re Ferengi or something, aren’t you? You know, Rick Berman and Brannon Braga’s thinly veiled Jew stereotype? Do you want some gold-pressed latinum, you cheap, grubby capitalist?

        1. Even worse, fuckface: I’m Scottish and German and Scots-Irish and English and hillbilly, and my ancestors got here the honest way: by killing Indians.

          1. How boring. But then again, you are from Ohio.

            1. That calls it: Epi gets to be DanT’s tag-team partner in the ReasonCruise wrestling match.

        2. “Rick Berman”

          Fuck Epi, why do you have to use such vulgarities?

          1. You can’t sugar coat the evil that is the Berman.

      3. And patronage!

      4. What the fuck did Italy give us

        Fascism?

        1. Oh, and for Epi’s stupidfuckingrecodofwhocamefromwhere, 1/2 “white” (scotch, english, german…i think), and 1/2 Hunagrian (cant trace the specifics on that, due to…oh shit, due to fascism! wooooo)

  7. I think most of the backlash against immigration is actually a backlash against the welfare state and faux multiculturalism

    Certainly, the contrast in the levels of animosity towards immigration in supposedly enlightened and tolerant California versus supposedly bigoted Texas is significant. You don’t see anything like the resentment against illegal immigrants in Texas that you see in California.

    In Texas unless you’re disabled or a child, you work or you starve. That means that the free-market is perceived as mediating immigration. It also means that the externalities of illegal immigration are much less. Crime rates are also much lower so fears of crime do not entangle with fears of open borders.

    I can’t but think that faux-mulitculturalism hurts as well because instead of being a real appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of other cultures, it is usually used as a social and political weapon to attack the values and beliefs of existing cultures of American itself. “Multicultural” is usually just a code word for, “two hours of some foreigner and/or a pretentious pseudo-intellectual telling the average American how much they suck.”

    I think the backlash against immigration is a backlash against failed leftwing authoritarian policies and pronouncements that hold the ordinary citizen in utter contempt. The illegal immigrants are just caught in the crossfire.

    1. What does it feel like to live your life in a perpetual state of TEAM RED TEAM BLUE? Because every time you post anything, you’ve re-framed it in your partisan focus, even if not directly. You should try and get a life; they’re a lot better than endless partisan war.

      1. What does it feel like to live your life in a perpetual state of TEAM RED TEAM BLUE?

        It’s selection bias. You only see me post on political issues.

        The primary political dynamic in the US right now is the struggle against the increasingly authoritarian Left. Most political discussions involve the left trying to limit the expansion of state power on the part of the left. Most political issues are best understood as the attempt by a relatively small of elite of articulate-intectuals to dominate the rest of society by the violent coercive power of the state.

        The politically established right is not much better but usually they merely advocate traditional forms of state power i.e. things we know we can survive because have in the past.

        The left by contrast finds new and innovative ways to dominate people by violence. E.g. environmentalism gives them the excuse to regulate literally every material actions an individual takes. The pound away at vital systems such as the power grid with the wild abandon of a monkey on meth with a mallet. I worry they will destroy the life support systems that keep us all alive.

        I would say in general that the politics of all human civilization boils down to an attempt by the non-productive to control the productive. In pre-industrial civilizations, it was the non-productive warrior aristocrats creating entire cultures to justify their violent domination of the agricultural peasants. In the industrial world, all variants of socialism can be viewed as attempts to control those who organize, manage and otherwise make industrial production produce wealth. In the modern world, the Western left has taken over the role of military aristocrats (the mandarins of China who directed armies but never touched a sword are an even better parallel.

        In short, those on the right are usually merely annoying in the grand scheme of things. Those on the left are dangerously lethal on a grand scale. That is why I spend a disproportionate amount of my time examining the problems caused by the left.

      2. I call bullshit. Shannon Love is often a tool and has the name of a woman, but Texas is far better than California by a long shot, even with its shitty weather and less attractive menfolk.

    2. actually a backlash against the welfare state

      And so the defense becomes “i want my skrimps, but none for those non-citizen bastards”.

      What does it take to teach people that they dont get free skrimps?

      1. What does it take to teach people that they dont get free skrimps?

        Not giving people free skrimps.

        1. So you’re in favor of not giving kids and the eldery free skrimps….me too.

        2. (wehat the fuck are their parents/kids spending on that DOESNT take care of their people? “omgz, what about the people on *insert federal assitance here*”…well theyre on assistance..which assists with medical care too, wtf?

          1. Oh, nm, the parents/kids of those kids/elderly needs their own skrimps too!

      2. And so the defense becomes “i want my skrimps, but none for those non-citizen bastards”.

        No its more like I’m tired of supporting 80 million native born deadbeats and see no reason to import another 80 million.

        What does it take to teach people that they dont get free skrimps?

        You oughtta get out more, cause in CA they do.

        1. I’m tired of supporting you, you elderly, and any other family you have.

          What does that have to do with letting more people into the country?

          Stop making us pay for your shit.

          1. Are you really that dense? Did you read his comments?

            Let me sum them up:

            1. I don’t want to support current deadbeats.

            2. I don’t want more deadbeats.

            How hard is that to understand?

    3. Epi has it correct, unfortunately. There is an idiotic dislike (tending to full out hate) in most human beings. Today most human beings externalize it to their enemy party, but privately in their midst it expresses itself more directly.

      There really is no real or faux multiculturalism. There is merely recognition of different cultures and honest critique of aspects of each culture vis-a-vis one’s one. Some cultures suck nearly 100% and others less than 50%.

      When considering fiat ‘illegal immigration’ the exaggerated negative (usually because the judge is little informed beyond stereotype) is inflated to the point of self-satisfaction of the judge.

      Idiotic notions of ‘racial’ superiority trump the notion of a birthright of free will and from there arises bigotry sans pareil.

      Oh, to travel the world and beyond cultural despotism. It’s not to say that you don’t appreciate your own culture, but it’s seeing how other cultures are equally inovative and how differing cultures might have among its ‘members’ those that might bask in the sun of libertarian thinking.

      1. There is an idiotic dislike (tending to full out hate) in most human beings.

        You call it a bug, i call it a feature.

    4. I would invite anyone to attack my values. The problem with most Congress critters is that they don’t know what values they have while the rest of us know that they lack any.

    5. The ‘backlash’ is bullshit. Inform your friends that it is bullshit. To backlash against a false premise is a waste of effort. Instead champion the good. else you waste your while where your while is wanted to be wasted by those who benefit by the wasted while.

    6. I think most of the backlash against immigration is actually a backlash against the welfare state and faux multiculturalism

      Damn straight.

    7. “I think most of the backlash against immigration is actually a backlash against the welfare state and faux multiculturalism”

      Which might make sense…if this exact same form of backlash had not been happening in this country long before there was a Welfare State.

      Fear of the Alien is what drives this and every immigration debate in this country…read immigration debates dating back to before the revolution and if replace the Ethnicity with Mexican or Hispanic you would think you were reading current day rhetoric.

      1. Fear of the Alien is what drives this and every immigration debate in this country…

        Except that fear of the alien is a constant in human nature and opposition to immigration fluctuates dramatically over the decades. If your hypothesis was true, then we would expect to see a constant level of opposition to immigration. Instead, it varies significantly usually linked to concerns about lower class unemployment.

        The idea that all fears of about immigration are nothing but primitive emotion is just a form of intellectual and class snobbery in which the concerns of the “lower” classes are casually dismissed.

        If illegal aliens where taking the jobs of skilled professionals like college professors or journalist (hmmm, maybe skilled is not the right word) we would have a much different tenor to the debate.

        If nothing else, people like you would at least acknowledge that the law of supply and demand applies to labor as well.

        1. Fear of the Alien is by no means a “primitive emotion” that is only experienced by the “lower classes” it includes all factors that make someone different from yourself, including:

          Ethnicity, Class, Appearance, Culture, Religion, etc.

          While class issues drive much of the immigration debate, my rebuttal was in response to the claim that this current debate is different than past debates because of “the welfare state” and “faux-multiculturalism”. That claim is to be dishonest about the roots of fears about immigration.

          Even if we had no welfare state, people in this country would be wary of the immigrant…as past debates have shown.

          Even if we no “faux-multiculturalism” the people in this country would be wary of the segregation of immigrant populations…as shown by past debates.

          As for the cyclical nature of the debate it has more to do with the cyclical nature of immigration (which has also come in waves every few decades).

          “If illegal aliens where taking the jobs of skilled professionals like college professors or journalist (hmmm, maybe skilled is not the right word) we would have a much different tenor to the debate.”

          I take it you have never listened to professionals, especially in the engineering, tech, and IT industries, complain about the legal H1-B visas that they claim is killing jobs in those industries. There is plenty of “primitive fear” among all classes of people in this society about the percieved harms of immigration.

        2. If nothing else, people like you would at least acknowledge that the law of supply and demand applies to labor as well.

          Will that be before or after people like you acknowledge that the law of comparative advantage applies to labor as well?

    8. I think the backlash against immigration is a backlash against failed leftwing authoritarian policies and pronouncements that hold the ordinary citizen in utter contempt. The illegal immigrants are just caught in the crossfire.

      Some of the backlash is due to people who feel the most recent wave of immigrants are voting in politicians who support and increase leftwing authoritarian policies.

      1. And Arizona Republicans just did what to encourage Hispanic voters to support their party’s policies?

  8. But THEYLLTAKERJOOBBBBSSS!

    And don’t forget leprosy!

    1. Actually, try not forgetting tuberculosis. It is a real health concern and is becoming more of a problem here.

      1. Which carrier of tuberculosis is more likely to be screened and stopped at the border – the one trying to go through legal channels, or the one running through the desert?

        Now in which case is the intended immigrant more likely to go through legal channels: under the system we have now that essentially denies every non-skilled worker, and has pathetically small quotas for skilled workers, or one in which anyone who has no criminal record or disease can enter?

        The law of unintended consequences is a bitch.

        1. Yeah, even little Vito Corleone was screened for TB

        2. BP, youre clearly a racist who wants little white chillens to get TB, so you can…um wait, can we elect you preztledent yet?

        3. It would seem that the immigrant in question would be equally as unlikely to go through legal channels in both systems, as per your criteria he, as a TB carrier, would be denied in both.

          1. But if there was a free market in labor, then there would be no reason to hire an illegal immigrant over a legal immigrant — thus reducing demand for illegal and/or ill legal immigrants.

            1. Mike, c’mon, stop making non racist sense.

          2. Perfectly true. But in addition to what MikeP said, the only people who would sneak over the border would be those who wanted to break the law in some way. If it was easy to gain legal entry, there would be no other reason to enter illegally.

    2. But THEYLLTAKERJOOBBBBSSS!

      I am reminded of the South Park “Goo Backs” episode in which people from the future are traveling back to the present and taking low wage jobs.

      Randy, a degreed geologist, mocks the rednecks who are losing their manual labor jobs to superior competition. Then he goes into work one day and finds out that Goo back can do his jobs. Suddenly he starts with the “Theyretakingourjobbbbs!”

      I have a strong feeling that if we were importing a lot of people to compete with your job, you would feel differently.

      1. “I have a strong feeling that if we were importing a lot of people to compete with your job, you would feel differently.”

        You would most likely be wrong. Libertarians believe in free trade in all its forms… goods, services, AND labor.

      2. Riiight. Because immigrants just take jobs. They don’t spend the money they earn on food and housing and whatnot for themselves, thus creating other jobs.

        1. Not to mention they allow greater specialization of labor — meaning both they and those already here can be more productive.

          Seriously, arguing against skilled immigration is an insanely losing proposition.

  9. something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants

    Cinco-de-Mayo nationalism is worrisome, but that’s only a once-a-year fake holiday, like Kwanzaa. When this taco-tribalism becomes more than just an excuse to drink, listen to annoying music and fire guns into the air, I’ll take notice. Pass the nachos, amigos! And pull your silly ankle-shorts up, dammit.

    1. more than just an excuse to drink, listen to annoying music and fire guns into the air

      And yet you don’t recognize the Americanization that has already happened to these people?

      I guess our holidays are more meaningful than that, huh?

      1. I thought he had shifted topics to hating on the Irish.

    2. The true joke is that while Mex-Am’s go nuts over Cinco de Mayo being “disrespected”, the holiday is largely ignored in Mexico.

      1. It’s true then, they are as bad as the Irish.

    3. Um, Cinco de Mayo is this 20th Century’s version of St. Patty’s Day. If you feel threatened by a full day of tequila and Dos Equis, you should probably avoid college and the 49 states that aren’t Utah.

      1. “I hate holidays that are all about drinking!”

        “They you can GTFO…or go to Utah.”

        *standard american nationalist BS*

    4. It’s been pointed out here before (guessing by Old Mexican) that Cinco de Mayo is massively unimportant in Mexico compared to 16 September and 20 November.

      Here in the states we know about 5 de Mayo but know nothing about the true Nationalist Holidays of Mexico. That is a paradigm shift worth noting.

      And Cinco de Mayo refers to Benito Juarez defeating foreigners (Napoleonic French) at the battle of Puebla. Seems like an attempt to parallel ‘our’ independence from England. The 16 & 20 refer to internal conflicts. Interesting.

      1. So, another holiday where Americans get to say “FU FRANCE”…i’m not seeing the problem.

    5. Ricky Martin??

      1. “something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants”

        Ricky Martin??

      2. something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants

        Ricky Martin?

  10. But when it comes to the retread fears about assimilation the critics have been wrong every time.

    You mean like they are on the drug war and ecology and gun ownership and…

    “It ain’t what we don’t know that hurts; it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

    1. And i think some of my posts are incoherent.

      1. And you are right.

        1. Suck a double “–“, you haven’t said anything worth reading either.

          Least i try to inject some humor.

  11. Not sure that much of the issue with the current wave of immigrants is related to the points made in the article. I think it has more to do with total lack of screening for disease, likelihood to contribute rather than take away from society, job skills, gang membership, and so forth. Add into the mix that illegal immigrants receive most of the same benefits under the law that citizens do without having to be responsible for any of the costs, hassles, or inconvenience that comes with being a citizen, and there’s a perfectly valid reason for the issues that many have with illegal immigration.

    Of course, there are those who do not want any immigration from Mexico and other countries, but most of us are fine with regulated, sensible, and legal immigrants who want an opportunity for a better life in this country. The problem we have is when there are no controls or safeguards. The country, in the end, belongs to us, the citizens, and it is up to us to decide who we wish to include in our midst from among those who wish to come here.

    1. white of you

      1. GET THE FUCKING QUOTE RIGHT, Jesus F. Christ!!!

        “That’s awful white of you”

        It’s not that hard, jeez.

        1. Actually it should be “mighty white of you”.

          1. DAMN! Well, i know what i have to re-watch today.

      2. Speaking of race, CATO posted that is Tea Party is a bit Whiter than the general USA population but not as White as the Sierra Club.

    2. Right, it’s “disease” that you’re worried about. It’s amazing the shit you people pull out of your ass to cover your plain, old-fashioned outsider-hate.

      1. your plain, old-fashioned outsider-hate

        Ad hominem. So typical of you, “Episiarch.”

        1. And a contentless post from you. How typical of you, nameless dot.

          1. Thanks, “Episiarch.” Your “content” consists mainly of ineffectual sarcasm, adolescent invective and ad hominem “wit.” I’d suggest that maybe it’s time to finally change your handle, but your inherent narcissism is too firmly established here.

            Is “Episiarch” more worthy than “dot” or any other pseudonym?

            Discuss.

            1. Poor baby, did I hurt your feelings? Here’s a quarter; go downtown and buy yourself a thicker skin, nameless dot.

              1. did I hurt your feelings?

                My “feelings”? No, but nice clich?. Emotions have nothing to do with it, at least amongst adults.

            2. consists mainly of ineffectual sarcasm

              SEE, as much “ineffectual sarcasm” as i try to put in my posts, i still try to add a lil something more.

        2. I hate to be in the position of defending something as loathsome as Episiarch, but sometimes I’m forced to.

          That’s not a fucking ad hominem, you vomitous dolt. And do you realize that you ad hominemed Epi? You and Lonewacko should hang out or something.

          Here, to give your embarrassing post some redeeming value, I’ll do something typical of me.

          1. Warty, You’re a better woman than I am, I can’t defend Epi ever, even under force.

          2. Episiarch|7.3.10 @ 6:05PM|#

            Right, it’s “disease” that you’re worried about. It’s amazing the shit you people pull out of your ass to cover your plain, old-fashioned outsider-hate.

            Pronunciation: \(?)ad-?h?-m?-?nem, -n?m\
            marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

            1. Uh oh, somebody’s obsessed with me. I’d be flattered if it wasn’t pathetic.

              1. Stop trying to tax maxedwachonynrris’s place of having nothing worth saying. Its above you.

                1. errr, *to take

                  (though if he’s shooting for Max’s spot, i guess tax works too)

              2. Oh, come on, “Episiarch.” You know you crave attention. Why else post your crackpot invectives on an obscure site when you could be doing something useful in the world?

                “Obsessed”? It is you.

                1. Really? If it’s me, why do you seem to be thinking about me so much? There’s nothing wrong with a man-crush, but you should stop hating yourself for it. It just makes you bitter.

                  1. why do you seem to be thinking about me so much?

                    Exactly my point about craving attention. If you are not obsessed with me, and if you are not a narcissist, you can simply stop responding to me, starting now.

                    1. Your projection is fascinating. joe, is that you?

                2. You know you crave attention

                  To be fair, I carve attention too…i just want that attention to rethink its position, or at least to have a good laugh at my post. Epi seems to want more…

                  1. crave/carve….fuck it, if you dont rearrange the letters, i dont care if you understand.

                    1. “Carve attention” is a fortuitous mistake. I’d use it.

                    2. *carve carve carve*

                      (the question is…what was my medium?)

            2. You three need to get a room.

              1. Stop being jealous you weren’t invited.

                1. It’s not that.

                  I like tacos not hot dogs.

                  1. I like tacos not hot dogs.

                    *head asplode*

    3. Fine. If you’re sincere about this, read my reply to you above and answer it.

      1. *hour and a half later*

        Still nothin.

        1. sorry, threading got me. I though it was Epi at the top of what BP was responding to…and Epi, or ANY of the constant-commenters, wouldn’t let that amount of time lapse before responding.

          Contrarian P gets a bit more time.

          1. Not sure what I’m supposed to respond to, other than the assertion that I’m some sort of racist xenophobe for proposing that we have a well regulated immigration system. I just decided to leave that one alone as I don’t have the time or the inclination to argue with someone who resorts to insults as opposed to any kind of coherent argument. Had actually moved on to another thread.

            1. You: “Actually, try not forgetting tuberculosis. It is a real health concern and is becoming more of a problem here.”

              BakedPenguin: “Which carrier of tuberculosis is more likely to be screened and stopped at the border – the one trying to go through legal channels, or the one running through the desert?

              Now in which case is the intended immigrant more likely to go through legal channels: under the system we have now that essentially denies every non-skilled worker, and has pathetically small quotas for skilled workers, or one in which anyone who has no criminal record or disease can enter?

              The law of unintended consequences is a bitch.”

              Me: “Still nothin.”

              Good job on feeling insulted though. They teach you that in “Womens Studies” or “Religious Studies”?

              1. No, they taught me that in reading comprehension and debate, which are classes that you apparently missed.

                1. Such a great reading comprehension course that you don’t feel the need to respond to the question posed to you. Got it.

            2. (and yes, the threading made that SOMEWHAT difficult, but not fucking impossible. Try your browser search function sometime. No insults/ No Homo)

            3. “Not sure what I’m supposed to respond to, other than the assertion that I’m some sort of racist xenophobe for proposing that we have a well regulated immigration system.”

              As someone who’s married to a foreigner, I can tell you that our immigration system is HIGHLY regulated. So regulated in fact, that it’s created a black market along the southern border.

              1. By regulated, I meant it in the classical sense…made orderly, not controlled by a huge number of laws. Sorry for the confusion.

                1. By regulated, you mean in the imaginary fairy-tale way Democrats and some Republicans think Wall Street activities should be conducted.

      2. How about I respond to something that actually had to do with the argument I presented in this post, rather than several slots above? If you’ll look at what I wrote and actually tried to read it, you’ll see that I advocated a reformed system that allowed people to work here, but had controls and safeguards designed to protect those who are citizens. Diseases are only one of a number of factors at work here, as I posted above.

        I have absolutely nothing against a free labor market. Right now there is no free labor market, as illegal immigrant labor is not subjected to the costs involved in hiring an American. Any immigration reform has to fix this.

        1. I responded directly to your comment. I can’t control when a comment in between gets 20 replies and pushes my reply a page or more down.

          wylie was drunk off his ass, and still figured out the sequence.

    4. Remind me not to follow Contrarian P through a door. He seems like the kind of asshole who would rather let the door slam in your face than hold it open for the the people behind him.

      1. C’mon Jeff, let it slide. It’s just a door, man. You can open it yourself.

        (Not negating your right to slap ConP in the face if he says ANYTHING to you.)

      2. Normally, no, but in your case I’d gladly make an exception.

        1. Oh, see guys, ConP is sooooo generous as to make an exception to hold the door, EVEN if someone he doesn’t agree with is about to walk through it!

          Clearly, ConP, you ARE the Right People to “put in charge”. (the charge of a firework, the charge of a mortar, the charge of america, take your pick. your ass is gonna be burnt whichever.)

          1. You really can’t read, can you? Allow me to explain, since you missed what I said entirely.

            Jeff: “He seems like the kind of asshole who would rather let the door slam in your face than hold it open for the the people behind him.”

            Me: “Normally, no, but in your case I’d gladly make an exception.”

            In other words, Jeff says I’d slam the door in people’s faces. I reply that I don’t normally do this, but would make an exception in his case. Get it now? Seriously Wylie, you spend more time figuring out what insults to put down than actually figuring out what was said.

            1. In other words, Jeff says I’d slam the door in people’s faces. I reply that I don’t normally do this, but would make an exception in his case.

              Which….is EXACTLY what i said. Oh, but I’m the one with the reading comprehension problem.

              1. No, it isn’t and yes, you are.

    5. B-I-N-G-O, Contrarian P. Thanks for that input – exactly what, I think, most americans are so infuriated about re: illegal immigration.

    6. Add into the mix that illegal immigrants receive most of the same benefits under the law that citizens do without having to be responsible for any of the costs, hassles, or inconvenience that comes with being a citizen

      Bullshit. Prove it.

    1. Derb? Pass. The fact that he’s an “honest” racist doesn’t make his ravings any less embarrassing.

      1. Having given a good bit of drunken thought to this issue…I actually prefer honest racists. Its that whole “disguising you bias” shit, that i just don’t have the time…well i have the time, just not the desire, to decode.

        Just admit your racism. Which leaves me at a loss….I think I hate white people the most. I always knew i hated myself though, so it should’ve been obvious?

        1. Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

          1. Go fuck yourself with an erect dead man’s dick.

        2. I do actually appreciate that he’s honest about the uglier side of his nature & in fact I enjoy reading a lot of his stuff, even when I disagree with much of it – especially on the topic at hand, where his enthusiastic support of junk coming out of places like VDare – junk which completely rejects the individual in favor of the tribe – makes it impossible for me to take anything further he has to say about immigration seriously.

  12. Bush and Putnam make an excellent point but I think they gloss over the fact that throttling off immigration at times has proven key to our ability to absorb large numbers of immigrants over our history.

    Our historical success with immigration wasn’t magical. There were a lot of real work mechanisms that we used to managed it. You can’t point to our historical success with immigration without pointing to all the real world mechanisms (such as conscious political indoctrination, English immersion, no welfare state, legal individualism etc) that made it work.

    Up until the post-WWII era, immigration was almost entirely through tightly controlled ports. This allowed for a real world control over the number of immigrants the country accepted. Mass illegal immigration was almost completely unknown. When times where good and jobs plentiful, we could let in immigrants to boost the economy. When times turned bad, we could keep immigrants from competing with natives. Roughly every 30 years or so in American history, we have had an anti-immigration backlash that lead to a serious and effective restrictions on immigration (some quite draconian.) This throttling mechanism prevented anti-immigration sentiment from reaching dangerous levels and let us absorb and assimilate one wave of immigrants before moving on to the next.

    In short, anti-immigration concerns are just as much of a part of the story of American success with immigration as any other factor.

    In the last few decades we have progressively dismantled almost every mechanism that made us a diverse and accepting country. We’ve lost the ability to control immigration so we have no means to meditate the real and perceived negative effects of immigration. We’ve stopped actively fostering assimilation and instead assume it will just happen by magic regardless of circumstances.

    We can’t expect to have the successes of the past if we can’t or don’t use the same mechanisms that led to those successes. Our past success was magical or accidental. We need to think real hard how the world has changed and not just assume everything will work out if we just go limp.

    1. History can fail as a road map for contemporary political policy. We still have to think. Whether the current wave of Spanish-speaking immigrants embraces or scorns our ruinous welfare statism is yet to be proven, but how can we hope to dream that they might reject the socialism that we ourselves have created?

      1. History can fail as a road map for contemporary political policy. We still have to think.

        THANK YOU. Precedent is not a demi-god, people!

    2. Starting in the post-WWI era and Up until the post-WWII era, immigration was almost entirely through tightly controlled ports.

      Fixed.

      1. Not sure what you meant. Immigration was overwhelmingly seaborne and ports where the most strictly controlled areas in any country. (Mostly, because tariffs where the major source of revenue for most governments and virtually the only source of Federal revenue until the income tax.)

        Looking at graphs of immigration over the last two centuries it is trivial to see that changes in immigration law at different points either opened up or throttled back immigration significantly. In the past, we did have the ability to tightly control immigration rates and we used it often (whether wisely or not is a different question.)

        If we had such a wild and open free immigration in the past as the current political mythology suggest, California would literally be 25%-P Chinese by now. For several decades, it was easier to get to California from China than from anywhere in the Atlantic. The Chinese where desperate and came in large numbers. Racist immigration laws locked out Asians because they out competed whites. One shudders to image what kind of horrible backlash might have developed if the resentment against Chinese economic competition had not been dampened by immigration restrictions.

        1. California would literally be 25%-P Chinese

          If you add in the Japanese, the Thais, the Koreans, the Lao…we close to 25% yet?

        2. Prohibition of Chinese and Japanese immigration is the single example of seriously limiting immigration prior to 1917.

          That’s what I meant by the fact that immigration wasn’t controlled until WWI — because it wasn’t.

  13. An oldie but goodie: Bill Murray on being the dregs of the world:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCHTzumpk4Q (2:50)

  14. Generally speaking I’m anti-anti-immigration, which is to say I don’t think the immigration “issue” is a big deal, but there’s one big difference today compared to immigration waves of yesteryear: entitlements and a tax structure that exempts most low-earners from paying federal taxes (ignoring payroll tax).

    If someone were to wave a magic wand and make all current illegal residents “legal”, I suspect some of our support systems (Medicaid, TANF, etc.) would have undergo fundamental change.

    As things stand, “we” (citizens) are sort of getting the best of both worlds. Cheap labor w/o having to pay any of the benefits we give to the native “working poor”.

    1. As things stand, “we” (citizens) are sort of getting the best of both worlds. Cheap labor w/o having to pay any of the benefits we give to the native “working poor”.

      And they can’t even vote! Win win win.

      1. The voting thing will change, eventually. And when it does, I’m sure that the libertarian/austrian economic model will flourish even more here in America, eh?

    2. But we are paying out benefits. Go visit your local Social Security office. SSI benefits for disability are paid to anyone – legal or not.

  15. I’m not sure about all of their policy recommendations,

    Well, that’s the thing.

    The DEY TUK R JOBZ guys have various economic, cultural, and politics-as-demography (and vice versa) arguments that vary in ridiculousness, from the super-retarded to the probably true, and policy ideas to match, from “RACE WAR!” to “Come on in, but you have to sign the guestbook.” The no-borders guys have fine principles that entail their position. Everyone “between” those two groups is a fucking liar.

    These guys are “between.”

  16. Last time, the immigrants weren’t moving to land that they thought was stolen from their home country.

    Mexicans in Florida and New York and wherever understand that they are foreigners in a different country. They are fully analogous to previous waves, and there is no problem with them.

    Mexicans in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are, however, often of the opinion that they are natives in the land of their forefathers, the “Anglos” being colonial interlopers. This dynamic did not exist in previous waves of immigration to the US, and cannot prudently be dismissed.

    I’ll take as many non-Mexican immigrants to Texas and the Mexican Cession as you like. Hispanic, sure; Guatemalans, Hondurans, Cubans, Salvadorans, whatever. And I’m happy to let Mexicans into the rest of the US.

    But I don’t want unchecked, large-scale Mexican immigration to places where Mexicans are tempted to see the laws and customs of the United States as the imposition of thieves on rightfully Mexican territory.

    1. Exactly. There were no revanchist movements among the Germans, Dutch, etc. That’s just one thing that makes it different now. Another is the welfare state. Another, as noted above, is our official multicultural/multilingual dogma: every time someone has to “Press 1 for English,” there’s less support for immigration.

      Plus, it’s a matter of degree: huge numbers of immigrants from one culture is more destabilizing than the same numbers from different cultures. Yes, I know about our wonderful stew of a country made of ingredients from all over. That’s fine, but if you add too many carrots (say), you get carrot soup. Add some more, and you end up with a lot of wet carrots.

      This is one of the areas where I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. I think there is something special about the social fabric of this country, and unlimited immigration is a strain or worse. Libertarians don’t seem to notice that we are importing tens of millions of people from countries with basically no history of libertarian ideas. To speak in general terms, the average Mexican immigrant is both socially conservative and economically liberal, due to the socialist ideas they got back home in school and from their government in general. They’re in the opposite quadrant of the Nolan chart. Combine that with being poor and a racial minority, and you’ve got a voting block that the Pelosi and Reid types salivate over. And they’re certainly not going to pick up libertarian attitudes in the public schools, are they? So mass Hispanic immigration means more political power for anti-libertarian politicians.

      1. This is a really weak argument. Libertarians form, what, 3% of the voting population? Its not like a few more Mexicans applying for US work visas or green cards is going to upset some delicate balance of power. The vast majority of the US population has spoken and they love big government.

        1. But libertarian ideas, in specific areas regarding taxes and the economy and regulation, have a much wider appeal. Look at the Tea parties. I won’t claim Reagan or Gingrich were libertarians, but they were much more friendly to libertarian economics than, say, Obama and Pelosi. And when you import tens of millions of South Americans, I’m afraid you get more voters on the Obama/Pelosi side of those issues.

          1. Arguments which turn the meaning of the word “import” on its head cannot be taken seriously.

            1. How am I turning the meaning on its head? Anything coming into the country is in a sense “imported.”

              1. “interstate commerce”

                Try and turn THAT on its head. Any way its oriented, you’re gonna pay up bitches, OR ELSE.

              2. Goods and slaves are imported. People who come here of their own free will are not “imported”. It’s a common perversion of the language used by those who are opposed to immigration and who would trivialize or ignore the actual reasons people choose to come here, generally as part of an argument that not enough of them are voting Republican.

                1. Well, jeez, Mr. Nitpicker, then please read “tens of millions of people who come here of their own free will from South America” where I wrote (more concisely) “import tens of millions of South Americans.” It doesn’t change my point.

          2. While their government welfare/spending policies might be more in the “Obama/Pelosi” model, their moral/cultural values are more in line with the “Christian Right”.

            It was one of the many reasons that GW Bush was popular among the Latino community…

            All of which really doesn’t matter. Blocking groups of immigrants, because of the way we THINK they may vote is a poor argument.

            Punishing people for things they haven’t even done yet smacks of Big Government paternalism at its worst.

            1. Hey! you haven’t already voted for Obama in ’12….BOO THIS MAN!

              (we can’t lock ya up yet, but we’re working on it!)

              ((i like that Firefox still doesnt accept “obama” in the spellcheck))

        2. The political threat (such as it is) poised by Mexicans and other 3rd world immigrants is that they have no cultural experience with a free and largely meritorious economic or political system. In Mexico and other similar countries, everyone gets ahead primarily by patronage and corruption. I know from personal experience that many Mexicans bring the assumption that vast conspiracies control everything to American when they come. This belief, utterly valid in the old country, is exploited by socialist here in the US. If people believe the game is fixed, they will vote for greater state power to try and fix it in there favor.

          We’ve seen this before. The great leftwing political machines of urban northeast where based almost entirely people who where exploited agricultural peasants from Ireland, Italy and Eastern Europe. When they came to America, they created politics based on control and patronage just like the ones they left behind in the old country.

          Even today, the political attitudes between people of the mid-west, west and rural areas which are descended from a yeoman culture is much different from areas descended from peasant cultures.

          We do have wonder what the effects will be of importing vast numbers of peasants will be. Even if they abandon the vast majority of their old ideas, they could still seriously damage the functioning of meritocracy.

      2. Half of the libertarian theorists of the 20th century were raised in polities that were profoundly unlibertarian.

        Ayn Rand grew up under the Czar and Lenin. There was no history of libertarianism in Russia. So wha happon?

        1. *insert pic of Fred Willard*

        2. That’s a handful of individuals. I’m talking about the aggregate voting tendencies of tens of millions.

        3. Did twenty million Ayn Rands migrate in mass?

          And oh yeah she was really a wanna be dictator not some proto-libertarian.

          Her real problem with socialism is that she wasn’t the one calling the shots.

          1. Well, with the Right Poepl..no you know what, STFU Josh.

            1. Oh did I insult your pissant demi-god.

              1. Missed the “The Right People in Charge” joke…yeah, i stand by my “STFU” there.

          2. Bullshit, there’s a huge difference between being a controlling asshole within a private social group and using your power and charisma to control others via the law. As much of a mean cunt I think Ayn Rand was, saying she wanted to be a “dictator” is so ignorant of her deep moral convictions against government power that there’s almost no helping such an uninformed opinion.

      3. “”Libertarians don’t seem to notice that we are importing tens of millions of people from countries with basically no history of libertarian ideas””

        by this line of reasoning, America should have become a western european style aristocracy with a state-sanctioned religion and rigid class system because of all the immigrants in the 19th century…

        Truly – you act as though human beings are simple unchanging ideological units by virtue of their geographical or ethnic birth.

        Do you see Chinese in Chinatown demanding a socialist state? Is it possible people come here precisely because we have an alternative notion of individual liberty that appeals to people? The idea that libertarianism (in the weakest, most general sense) is constantly diluted by exposure to the “other” is preposterous. Compare things like the # of democratic institutions in the world in 1900 versus now (and I dont mean perfect democracies – I mean the bare minimum, where people have a vote, where there is some basis for freedom of expression, etc). Libertarianism, or classical liberal ideas, spread in foreign lands without the aid of our own direct cultural imperialism. The assumption that our own American version of individual rights and free markets is weakened by the acceptance of immigrants is frankly stupid, following its own logic. The truth is that the weakening of our American tradition of individual rights and free markets is coming directly from within the very native population who have lived under it for so many generations that they fail to see the enormous benefits it has brought them, and yearn for some more ‘idealized’ system, which turns out to be some kind of creeping social-democracy and welfare state. It is the outsiders looking in who see the difference between America and the rest of the world, and want to enjoy those freedoms. Americans who know no other form of Government are the ones so likely to piss away our tradition of limited government and individual rights out of naivete.

        Yes, immigrants will more likely vote democratic, and democrats are more likely to impose socialist type policies. But this is not inherent in immigrants ‘racially-determined’ beliefs so much as it is the fault of the GOP virtually going out of their way to malign and disparage hispanics on a regular basis. Frankly, most Hispanics have far more conservative beliefs than most democrats because the majority of them are practicing catholics or pentacostalists; they believe in ‘family values’, freedom of religion, hard work, and respect for individual rights and property. It is your very “hispanics are incapable of reasoning”-type-attitude that produces the result you loathe so much. Ironic? If you had a better appreciation of the potential benefits of wooing immigrants to classical liberal beliefs, perhaps the outcome you so fear wouldn’t be so ‘inevitable’. It is not immigrants, so much as your inflexible racial-determinism that drives hispanics into the arms of the dems. Its the “VDare” type attitude that pretends to scientific analysis of race, which ignores the past allegiance that Hispanics have traditionally had with the Republican party. It has in fact only been in the last 10 years that that trend has reversed itself, and largely EXACTLY BECAUSE of simplistic (and frankly xenophobic and racist) attitudes like yours. Hispanics are leaving the GOP because the GOP treats them like scum!

        See here for actual facts: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf

        Other historical details:

        California was the first state to have a Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco, in 1875.

        The first Hispanic U. S. Senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, came to Washington from New Mexico as a Republican in 1928.

        The first Hispanic presidential Cabinet member was a Republican, Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan.

        It has only been in the last 20 years that there has been a major shift, and its not because hispanics “have no tradition of libertarian ideas”… its because of douchebags like you.

        1. Wow, nice straw man you have there, and way to raise the tenor of the conversation with name-calling. I said nothing about race because it’s about culture. I didn’t say “Hispanics are incapable of reasoning”(?!). I didn’t say humans are “unchanging ideological units.” Etc. What you read isn’t anywhere close to what I wrote.

          1. OK, you’re right: sorry about the douche comment.

            But I still take issue with your argument that ‘people coming from countries which have no history of libertarian…’ have any connection with whether or not they are capable of adapting to or endorsing same principles. You *are* saying that there is a predisposition; I’d like you to show this with some data; surveys (a la the Pew study linked) show that Hispanics actually break down between dems and republicans *largely the same as the general public* of the same economic characteristics.

            Secondly, you omit responding to the more important point, which is that this sort of deterministic view of the way people think based on their nation of origin actually *drives* hispanics into the arms of democrats. This sort of isolated anti-hispanic sentiment is exactly what produced a rapid politicization by an otherwise disinterested population, and gave the dems a bloc they could use.

            I may have hit back not just at you, but similar (odious) views I’ve seen propagated by VDare, and for that I apologize. But you just wave your hand here and dismiss these points as “not what you said”.

            1. I appreciate the apology, but I was actually more annoyed about the “xenophobic and racist” part than the “douche” part.

              Of course, Hispanics are capable of being libertarians. Again, it’s about the aggregates. As a rule, South American politics is not filled with limited government advocates. The governments are often nominally socialist, their media and educational systems tilt that way, and there’s much more support for caudillos. And given the way Hispanic immigrants tend to vote, they seem to be a net gain for Democrats, so it’s not as if it’s just their free market types moving here.

              As to your other point, of course this is hard to talk about. It’s a political conundrum for Republicans, because any concern about massive immigration is inevitably labeled “racist.” But my concerns are cultural, not racial. And frankly, there are some pretty screwed-up cultures south of the border. I want to take some of those people and have them assimilate into this culture, but if too many come, it’s our culture that gets assimilated into theirs. If that happens, I’m afraid libertarian ideals will be outvoted even more than they are now.

              1. 60 years ago you would have come up with arguments for why black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. And they would have sounded just like this.

                “That’s not fair, I’m talking about aggregates. Sure, some black people adopt the right ideals, and I’m not talking about the good ones. But as soon as I talk about aggregate effects that should be obvious to everyone, people say I’m a racist. Can’t you see that I’m talking about culture?”

                1. I find the “foreigners are socialists” argument amusing, when the LP gets around 1% of the native vote.

                  I’ve really believe that the LP has lost a huge potential constituency by not having outreach materials in other languages. Immigrants tend to be far more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans. This shouldn’t be surprising, considering the risks involved with moving from one country to another. And no one feels the heavy hand of government more than the small business person.

                2. Jeez, another straw man….

              2. As a rule, South American politics is not filled with limited government advocates.

                Name any continent in the world full of limited government advocates. Or any country.

              3. “” But my concerns are cultural, not racial””

                Same difference?

                There were many in the majority convinced that the Irish were ‘culturally’ unable to participate in liberal democracy, for many of the same kinds of reasons. “They all just do what the pope tells them to do, etc” Their ‘domestic culture’ was something considered irreconcilable with the majority WASP natives.

                Whether you call it ‘cultural’ or ‘racial’ is secondary to the fact that you don’t seem to admit that *cultures change* when exposed to each other. re: my point about Chinese in NYC not agitating for a Great Leap Forward, or generally being pro-socialist. Yes, they mostly still speak chinese at home. They also maintain a wide variety of habits and behaviors that go back many generations. Did this have any effect on their Italian neighbors next door (across the street, really)? They mostly just eat each others food. If you do a survey of their political opinions, they are generally indistinguishable from the rest of New Yorkers. Except they probably have their own racist opinions about different other groups.

                Where people come from is not a predetermined outcome for where they will end up. Assimilation is not just the job of the immigrants, but also of the ‘culture’ that chooses to welcome them or not. If we choose to isolate and disparage hispanics (more specifically, mexican undocumented immigrants) as being unsuited for assimilation into American society, then you WILL create an underclass that doesnt see itself having a place here, and will remain entrenched and uninterested in becoming more ‘american’. I don’t think Hispanics are any more or less unique compared to waves of immigrants from other countries, and you can’t point a finger at any one of them and say, “see, they didnt assimilate”. The idea of a Hispanic execptionalism is silly to me. And the idea that “if too many” come, “our culture will be assimilated into theirs”… Well, thats been happening for 234 years now; seems to have worked out reasonably well. They call it a melting pot for a reason. It’s not like ‘American culture’ is some pure, rarified, unchanging thing, and all that immigration was just so much sauce to spice it up a bit. The “America” of the 19th century was not some special thing that we should revere as more pure than the America of the 20th century. I dont think immigration does *anything* to dilute ‘american’ culture. American culture is in its very flexibility. And if the question is put as to whether Libertarian ideas are more or less likely to succeed with or without more immigration, I would argue it doesnt matter that much. Again – I think the biggest threat to classical liberal thinking are naive and idealistic native-born Americans, not immigrants. You dont see hispanics agitating for massive social programs = its the liberal-arts educated children of the middle class who believe they speak for the poor. The poor just want jobs. The leftist white kids want to enlist them in a program of progressive politics. I personally think the best approach to dealing with this dynamic is to do the most we can to sell libertarian principles to *everyone* = not write off a large and growing segment of the population as ‘unreachable’ because of some deterministic cultural factors that dont really exist.

            2. The effects of culture on political behavior cannot be ignored.

              There are still wide differences in political culture between Americans who descend from the middle-class, largely protestant northern European immigration wave in the early 1800s and those descended from the peasant, largely Catholic immigrations of the late 1800s.

              A community founded by middle-class artisans, business people and yeoman farmers has a much different political culture than one founded by agricultural peasants. Historically, Protestants have been much more comfortable with decentralized, non-hiearchial political power while Catholics much more comfortable with centralized hierarchal power.

              It’s obvious that the people descended from Catholic, agricultural peasants, shed most of the political habits of their old countries but it is also perfectly obvious that neither they or their descendants managed to move to the same politics of the middle-class immigrants. Even today, in America you can fairly accurately map politics just by getting a good idea of the cultural heritage of an area.

              The big push for centralized state power in America came largely from the culture of Catholic peasants who concentrated in the large urban areas. Even though they had abandoned the vast majority of their old political ideas, compared to the middle-class immigrant descendants, they are still much more likely to view success in life as a matter of patronage than individual merit and hard work.

              That difference, minor in the grand scope of all human political culture, is nevertheless enough to produce support for a much larger, more powerful and more centralized American state. The Catholic peasants supported big city political machines that depended on patronage to function. That culture has almost destroyed the great cities of the Northeast.

              Today, we face an uncontrolled wave of immigration from cultures in which patronage plays an ever greater role and in an economic milieu in which the gulf between the rewards for unskilled work and skilled work are larger than ever. Even if they assimilate to huge degree they could still accidentally undermine freedom and meritocracy enough to prove economically and politically fatal in the long run.

      4. YES!! That is something that is just totally laughed off and looked away from by so many of ‘cosmo’-tarian nomenklatura that post here on this forum. And all just for a few more pennies on the bottom line! Incredible…

  17. Starting in the post-WWI era and Up until the post-WWII era, immigration was almost entirely through tightly controlled ports.

    Fixed that for you.

  18. Threadjack: Brighton jury lets factory-destroying activists go free because they thought (mistakenly) that weapons were being made there for Israel.

    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=180316

  19. I don’t know how much longer this will be true if public schools continue to increasingly insist American identity bow before ethnic identity.

    Bit of a strawman, though. The real debate is about whether they come here legally.

    1. Let kids not stand for the pledge, problem solved.

      As soon as 51% don’t stand we can elect a president…errr…. i mean they don’t have to do the pledge?

      1. What about schools that graduate kids that can’t speak a lick of English?

        Oh and if those same schools have La Raza member teachers propagandizing the kids that this is really “their” territory, is that a problem?

        1. OH SHIT, yeah, what about the totally english-speaking suburbs where they pass WHITE kids who cant even pass a literacy test?

          That was you point right?

          1. That is what I thought the point of his statement was…

            1. No, it only matters to Josh if they terk es jeorb aren’t natives.

          2. That was you point right?

            Sure,

            Maybe we need to get the governmental house in order before importing tens of millions of low skill people.

            Nah what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

            Just ask those libertarians Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

            If those three are for something it, then it must be good for the free market and lead to a small government.

            1. Maybe we need to get the governmental house in order before importing tens of millions of low skill people.

              And i say that letting in those people will FORCE the our house into order. You know a better way to end the welfare state besides overwhelming it, I’m listening.

              1. Hmmm

                Interesting theory.

              2. Yes, a MUCH better way would involve simply voting against it. Personally I would rather not experience the country entering junk-bond status.

                Go this route, and they may elect Democrats for Pelosi and Obama who will recreate the economic wonder and beauty of their beloved Soviet Union, right here in America.

              3. No, that is the worst possible solution. They won’t fix the welfare state, they’ll immortalize it, with junk bond ratings and hyperinflation for all.

              4. No, that is the worst possible solution. They won’t fix the welfare state, they’ll immortalize it, with junk-bond ratings and hyperinflation for all.

    2. (and at least you recognize the strawman there)

  20. “immigrants take our welfare”

    Not that it should exist, but the legal immigrants would be paying taxes to pay for that welfare as well (probably more taxes than our lazy white asses pay too, so stfu!).

    To argue with anything other than racism does Obama an injustice.

    How can you still hide your racism in this day and age when everyone else BESIDES the real racists are being labeled racists?! Don’t you have to come-out yer burrows and speak the white word!!!! FUCK THEM BROWNIES, I WANTS EM DEADS!!!!

    1. *disclaimer: i want you all to die, me too. Fiery death at the hands of a comet or asteroid. Preferably a slow one, for extra waiting time.

    2. (and it’ll be the Reason Party to end ALL parties….it’s gonna rock)

      1. This is what happens when you comment while drunk.

        You’ll be embarrassed tomorrow. Just ask “Epi.”

        1. From experience…No, I’ll just be disappointed in how few responses i get from the rest of the drunken posters. Diversity i guess, huh?

        2. oh, and, STFU, or bring over a six pack and lets make fun of them together, Capt. Killjoy.

          1. You made at least one semi-cogent comment tonight.
            Around 7:30, I think. Before the Jack kicked in.
            But I kid. I’m like that.

            1. Don’t blame your drunkenness on my cogency.

  21. To refute “-“:

    If anyone has an argument against allowing any immigration that wants to immigrate, that doesn’t include the following:

    1) racism/culturalism/nationalism

    2) how they don’t pay into the (unsupported) Welfare State

    3) or how legal immigration would somehow let in a bunch of 9/11 terrorsists

    …I’m here and willing to argue it.

    1. Challenge accepted.

      It’s an object lesson to Mexico on tolerance of immigrants. The United States must show our southern neighbors how it feels for those moving north into Mexico in search of a better life to be treated as unwanted.

      1. So, by rejecting mexicans, we teach mexico what its like to reject their further-south immigrants?

        (Disregarding the question of “who the FUCK immigrates to mexico?!”)

      2. You are kidding me.

        To teach a lesson to some other government, the elected government of the US should abrogate freedoms of migration and labor and forcefully condemn tens of millions of people to lives with standards of living a fraction what they could be under free migration?

        1. I don’t know if “teach a lesson” is the right approach, but Mexico certainly talks out of both sides of their mouth on the issue. If they really felt northward immigration into the US was such an unalloyed benefit to the US, why are they so harsh on Hondurans etc. who try to cross into their country?

          1. Because its corrupt-ass crooked crazy Mexico?

            1. Yeah, that Mexico, the one with the corrupt motherfuckers running the place who would have to deal with a bunch of people that want to improve their lives and might demand a more accountable govt if they didn’t just give the fuck up and head north.

              We are the ultimate safety valve for the Mexican oligarchy. You better believe they are gonna bitch if we squeeze that off. Fuckin’ Calderon.

              1. Sorry, “corrupt-er-ass mexico”. That better

                1. Your technical precision is to be admired.

                  1. I’ll admit to being an engineer-wannabe.

        2. I simply wanted to put forth an argument without violating wylie’s three laws. When I actually advocate something, my comment will be in all caps and peppered with profanity.

          But as Paps points out, Mexico does not exactly open its arms to those from its south.

          1. You passed my three laws…sadly it was less valid than the bullshit the 3 laws want to promulgate.

            (i couldn’t come up with a smaller word for “promulgate”, sry. “Make known”?)

            1. Speaking of wylie’s three laws made me think of another three laws which, implemented with a little tweaking, might help ease anti-immigrant people’s minds.

              I give you the Three Laws of Immigration:

              1. An immigrant may not injure a natural born American or, through inaction, allow a natural born American to come to harm.

              2. An immigrant must obey any orders given to it by natural born Americans, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

              3. An immigrant must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law or the lawn work.

              I lifted the three laws concept from a short story about humans accepting non-humans into the role of their domestic help which I wrote a few years ago. I called it The Day of the Mermaid.

              1. Nice. Don’t give us a link to the story or anything, though.

                1. And give the lawyers of some russky named Asimov any more ammo against me? No thank you.

                  HAPPY GODDAMN BIRTHDAY, AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

          2. Yep – and El presidente Calderon, inadvertantly I think, admitted as such to Wolf Blitzer around the time of his now infamous speech at america….

    2. I believe that sovereign nations do have the right to control who they do and do not admit, and that duly elected officials of a republic may draw that boundary however hay wish so long as it is in keeping with the rights of their citizens and the duties imposed by ratified treaties. Which is not so much an argument for anti-immigration, as an admission that I can’t find a way to justify national sovereignty and open immigration. Not being one of the anarchist flavors, I find myself defending sovereignty even though I think the current system is a cluster fuck of untenable laws that are ignored.

      I think untenable, unenforceable laws administered arbitrarily is the worst possible state of government, and therefore find myself with the “enforce the law” crowd, even though I find many of them execrable company.

      1. *hay = they

      2. I can’t find a way to justify national sovereignty and open immigration.

        Sovereignty is a positive fact: states can do whatever they want within their respective dominions.

        Sovereignty is virtually irrelevant when answering the normative question of what states should do with that power — including whether they should allow free migration or not.

        Thus sovereignty and open immigration are entirely compatible, and arguments against free migration that are based on sovereignty are simply non sequiturs.

        1. [South Park Council Member]

          This… this is making incredibly good sense to me.

          [/southparkcouncilmemberoff]

  22. If my only ability is to kill a thread…then i need to spread out my efforts..feministing, WaPo, NyTimes, shit i don’t even know the list of places my weapons-of-thread-destruction are needed!

  23. Are Libertarians aware of the fact that most of the law-breakers coming from Mexico aren’t Libertarian?

    1. Are non-libertarians aware that we already have a “criminal justice” system to take care of those assholes?

      1. Are non-libertarians aware that we already have a “criminal justice” system to take care of any dogs belonging to those assholes?

    2. Is there supposed to be a political-beliefs test for immigration?

      Besides… its not like the “law breakers” can vote, now can they?

      1. Well, as long as the dead keep voting, i guess GILMORE is right.

        Hell, does anyone alive plan on voting in nov’10 or even 2012?

  24. huffpo, do it, I dare you!

    1. damn you threaded comments!

      1. I got ya Bingo. I’ll have to prepare the experiment.

  25. “I guess it would be subjective to say that each wave of immigrants has made America stronger, though that’s certainly my opinion.”

    I’d say it’s coming from the same sectors of society too–those Americans who can’t compete with manual labor for jobs, but I am wondering how comparable past generations were, before, for instance, Medicaid and Medicare took off during the Johnson Administration…

    People look for someone to blame when whole regions are rolling back to 4-day school weeks, and it shouldn’t get lost in the shuffle that entitlement programs seem to make people less tolerant generally.

    In tough economic times, especially, when making sacrifices for other people gets harder, people become more picky about who they’re willing to make sacrifices for. I suspect ObamaCare, among other things, is throwing fuel on that fire.

    1. “tough economic times” aside, I’m still picky about who i help.

      Guess I’m just a racist. Where’s my monocle?

  26. Recently here in Alabama, one of our Democrat posing as a Republican goobernatorial candidates for Guvna decided to demagogue the race by making a campaign commercial in which he threatened immigrants that they would “Have to know English in Alabama.”

    This angered me at first, until I remembered an amigo from a few years back who was illegal and spoke perfect English. Perfect case of Arguing to an Irrelevant Conclusion.

    1. You should still be angered, unless what he meant to say was something along the lines of “you can speak what you want but you will have to deal with the gummit in the nation’s dominant tongue”; but in my experience, the sentiment is usually not so nuanced.

      1. Look, I SPEAK ENGLISH, better than average if i do say so myself (and i do)….

        ..and I STILL don’t understand most gov’t forms. They’re already written in doublespeak, right?

      2. Isn’t it possible for a legal immigrant to not speak English?

        And then there was my illegal Amigo Carlos, who not only spoke English as well as Tim James, but he was a good bartender too.

        Another source of humor is he lost the primary. We’re gitting tired of people who make us all look like idiots down here.

        1. Isn’t it possible for a legal immigrant to not speak English?

          Of course it’s possible. It’s kind of stupid, but not unheard of. I certainly wouldn’t immigrate somewhere and ignore the dominant tongue or demand anyone accommodate my own. And unlike some, I have no problem with “English only” so long as it’s restricted to gummint business. At the very least it would stop them from blowing precious tax dollars on translating everything into Tagalog and Gujarati.

          1. That was a rhetorical question. The point is that requiring English on forms does nothing to stop illegal aliens.

            It’s an old lawyer’s trick called arguing to an irrelevant conclusion.

            We don’t need anymore demagogues on the State or Federal level.

  27. The second generation immigrants don’t “assimilate”. If they were born here or came at the still impressionable age, they will become part of this culture as they go through preschool, kindergarten, and grade school.

    But their parents and young adults are more likely camp right inside their well established ethnic communities (like LA’s Koreatown) and rarely leave their comfort zone. They’re certainly not into multiculturalism – most elderly Asians aren’t fond of Mexican food and culture, and their American experience can be summed up as a few trips to Disneyland, Grand Canyon, mall, or In and Outs.

    Latinos have probably adapted more due to their overwhelming presence. But for most others outright assimilation is too much to ask. Their offspring is another matter.

    1. Nice explanation for different status for “immigrants/citizens” and “migrant workers”.

    2. You should spend some time in either Arlington TX or Arlington VA. Mexicans and Vietnamese living side by side in perfect harmony. Two or three Pho restaurants per strip mall plus a Taqueria.

      Apropos of nothing I tried to get a Vietnamese girl to go out with me in Arlington but she wouldn’t do it. I found out later from friends from California that was because she was first generation. They assured me the ones born here might go out.

      Dated a girl in Bethesda who’s Dad was German and her Mom was Colombian. Sweet girl but I couldn’t get her to stop cleaning my apartment when I wanted to take her out.

      1. Two or three Pho restaurants per strip mall plus a Taqueria.

        That EXISTS?!

        But i have to live in VA or TX? Hmmm….Texas it is i guess…no way in hell i’m moving to VA.

      2. Oh, and “stop dating the help.”

        1. She’s an accountant at HHS.

          Might be able to find the same thing in some other places besides the Arlingtons. I understand your revulsion for Northern VA. I wouldn’t live in either one of the Arlingtons and that goes double for Grand Prairie.

          Now, Ft. Worth and the rest of Texas is another story, “the friendliest people and the purtiest women you’ve ever seen!”

          1. She’s an accountant at HHS.

            I fail to see how i was incorrect in my initial statement, sry.

            1. Hey cabron! Ella fue mi Novia!

              Be a gentleman or you and I will go for a round!

              1. Health and Human Services Cabron !

                You are nothing but a Marica in my eyes!

          2. HHS? Hospital Housekeeping Systems? Pretty much every male I’ve ever met who worked for that company is an absolute douchebag but the women are super nice–they’ve probably learned how to put up with them all day.

            1. Yeah the boys are fags, the girls are fuckable! Take it from papa Van!

      3. Haltom City, a small suburb northeast of Fort Worth, is very similar in that respect: massive Vietnamese and Mexican neighborhood squished together. Also, directly north of it on Western Center Blvd is a placed called Pho King Way (Keep in mind Pho is pronounced “fuh”)–I say they need to put a no in front of that name.

        1. I love Fuh with a little fish fermented fish yum! Smells like a pretty girls asshole.

  28. Shannon Love|7.3.10 @ 6:02PM|#

    said:

    Mass illegal immigration was almost completely unknown.

    Movement back and forth across both the Mexican and Canadian borders in quite large numbers was the norm from “whenever” until the 1960s or so (good thing too, or else my half-Indian great-grand-mother from New Brunswick would never have ended up in New Hampshire). Whether it was properly documented or not varied but the fact of this movement went, for the most part, completely unremarked.

    The consequence of this is that there are a large number of people today who have relatives to whom they still feel quite close living within a couple of hundred miles of them but on the other side of an international border.

    While some restrictions on border crossing are sensible, the level to which they have been raised has gotten ridiculous.

    I’m willing to bet that ther’s a shitload of people in Saskatchewan (some of them are old friends of mine) and Alberta today who are wondering why the fuck they have to have a passport to visit their cousins in Montana or North Dakota.

    People who used to regularly cross from Texas to Mexico and vice versa for similarly utterly non-nefarious reasons feel the same.

    1. Same story in the Buffalo area where I’m from. I knew folks with daily commutes from one country to the other. I bet the traditional pilgrimage of underage Americans to Fort Erie or Niagara Falls bars and strip joints has disappeared, too – what a shame.

      1. Pilgrimages to strip joints? We’re not losing anything.

        All those young men are spending more money on their internet connections than they ever spent in lame-ass titty-bars.

        1. That seems strange to me. In the seventies and eighties, Florida had strip joints that showed more than anything available in Ontario. Now, Quebec, that was a different story.

        2. Heh OK, I suppose I had my college days in mind – late 80’s and early 90’s – the world may have moved on a bit since then.

          But in those dark days before the WWW changed everything, if you were 19 or 20, male, heterosexual, and lacked a convincing fake ID, driving ten minutes over the border to legally enjoy such pleasures as were denied in one’s own country was quite an adventure.

  29. I guess it would be subjective to say that each wave of immigrants has made America stronger, though that’s certainly my opinion.

    Do you ever read the fucking newspaper for anything besides cop stories? Whether you’re talking about crime, litigating discrimination suits, legislation favoring one group or another, transfer programs, hiring quotas, every other fucking story features some conflict between races, not a few of which weren’t even here 40 years ago. If that can be construed as any kind of strengthening a country, I’d hate to see what you’d call fucking one up.

    Yeah, yeah, we know it’s all the fault of those Evil White Racist Nativist Xenophobes, everyone knows the sun shines out of the ass of each and every immigrant who is justtryingtomakeabetterlifeforthemselvesdoingthejobsamericanswontdo.

    Even if that were true, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s happening, and it ain’t gonna stop happening. And even if there was nothing more to say on the matter (and there’s plenty more that could be said on the matter), that alone ought to give pause to anyone trying to claim immigration is “strengthening” the country.

    1. I remember wathing Ross Perot during his ‘Quixotic’ run for the Presidency during 1992 saying during one of the debates…’diversity is our strength’. I thought he had outright caved to a huge amount of political pressure due to the fact (from what I have read about him) that he runs/ran his companies like a spartan galley ship. Perot had a reputation for picking people he wanted and they almost always were yes men/people. Technically maybe there were a few different looking people on board, but no leniency toward those who would counter his business philosophy……

      1. …watching..

      2. You can have a diverse group of “yes” men: black yes men, tall yes men, Mexican yes men, ,fat yes men, Asian yes men, ugly yes men, white yes men. Maybe he didn’t necessarily mean diversity of thought.

    2. Whether you’re talking about crime

      Dramatically lower over the past two decades – during a period of large growth in immigration.

      litigating discrimination suits, legislation favoring one group or another, transfer programs, hiring quotas

      Because none of that happens among natives.

      every other fucking story features some conflict between races

      To a fevered mind such as yours, that may be the case, but I don’t see it.

      it’s happening

      What is?

      1. Er, this, which really shouldn’t have had to be explained to anyone with a pair of eyes and a functioning brain.

    3. “every other fucking story features some conflict between races, not a few of which weren’t even here 40 years ago.”

      What “race” arrived in America only 40 years ago? Vulcan? Lizard People? Mutants?

      By the way, you need to stop reading Der Sturmer for your news.

  30. Hasn’t there been a study to show if the high rate of intermarriage with hispanics is due to the disprorportinate hotness of Latinas?

    If not, I will apply for a grant to study hot latinas.

    1. Me gusta Latinas muchisima!

      1. me gusta reggae,
        me gusta punk rock,
        pero la cosa que me gusta m?s es panochita.

        1. Panochita no es en la dictionaria.

          Que esta?

          1. I’m sorry, i just copypasta’d from the 1st link for the lyrics. I don’t actually speak spanish so i can’t understand them myself, i just parrot them.

    2. I’m not sure where you are getting the “disproportionate hotness of Latinas” from. I honestly don’t see it on the streets of San Francisco. Lots and lots of dumpy and homely ones. Maybe you’re judging from actresses and singers and such?

      When I was a kid growing up in the Midwest, I had the impression that Asian women were almost uniformly good-looking. It wasn’t until I moved out here that I realized my sample was skewed by the media, which rarely featured plain or homely Asian women.

      1. Lots and lots of dumpy and homely ones.

        Grats Papy, you just described the entire human race.

        1. Well, duh, that was my point: I don’t see the “disproportionate hotness.”

          1. The ones that ARE hot, are hotter. The disproportion is one of quality, not quantity.

      2. When I was a kid growing up in the Midwest

        That’s your problem. That explains why you couldn’t get laid in SF.

        Travel a little bit more, say Sao Paolo, Buenas Aries. You might learn something.

      3. I don’t know, of the most beautiful women I’ve seen so far, Hispanic top the list, face and bodywise: Salma Hayek, Jennifer Lopez, one of my friends, random soap opera stars I see in the supermarket dailies (compare the proportions of Mexican soap opera stars to American ones–the former win). Only a handful of Indian actresses compare. But I think blondes are uniformly ugly, so maybe that’s why (I have BSC: Brunette Superiority Complex).

  31. because this is the weekend thread:

    Without an unnecessary law, I’d be a menace to society

    At least the comments are on the side of common sense…oh, my bad: “My friends, if you want to live in a place with no government infringements on your personal freedom, please move to Somalia. You’ll love it there. You can do anything you want and there are virtually no taxes. It’s paradise.”

    1. HE-he-he-hee!!

      1. You’ll have to explain the joke guys, i couldn’t read more than a paragraph…or is THAT the joke?

        Its not funny either way.

    2. How could Somalia be an improvement over Alabama smart ass?

      Travel a little a free your mind.

      1. The voyage of discovery consists not of seeking new vistas, but of having new eyes.

  32. Salvador Lopez is Spanish for Joe Boyle.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/n…..-ban_N.htm

  33. No arguments besides the typical racist, naitonalist, and welfarist stuff.

    Nicely Done.

    So, why again cant we let in anyone who wants in?

    1. in this country, I’d rather have the option of being able to vote them off the island.

      1. Right. Who needs freedom when you can have democracy?

    2. There is a strain of thought in Mexico, still common and current, that runs, “Mexico is poor because the Yanquis stole our land”. This strain of thought is, as a consequence of being common in Mexico, also common and current in Mexican immigrant communities in the US.

      In the Mexican Cession and Texas (especially among second- and third-generation immigrants who have no personal experience of the problems with Mexican institutions of society and government), this results in a not-uncommon stance that these areas are properly Mexican, and that American institutions (governmental and social) are illegitimate and should be rejected.

      Since the reason America is freer, safer, and more prosperous than Mexico (Freedom House 1/1 vs. 2/3, homicide rate 5.4 per 100k vs. 12 per 100k, per capita GDP $46,381 vs. $14,495) is superior institutions, this attitude is a threat to the freedom, safety, and prosperity of current Americans and future immigrants in those areas. Probably not a big one, all said and done, but it’s pretty hard to be sure.

      Accordingly, while I do not advocate limiting the numbers of Mexicans allowed to immigrate to the US, I think it is legitimate to limit Mexican immigration to the parts of the United States ceded by Mexico in 1848 and 1853.

      But, hey, I’m probably just a racist nationalist whateverist.

      1. But, hey, I’m probably just a racist nationalist whateverist.

        Yes, DRM, yes you are. Now please eat shit and die.

      2. “But, hey, I’m probably just a racist nationalist whateverist”

        And a dickhead

      3. There is a strain of thought in Mexico, still common and current, that runs, “Mexico is poor because the Yanquis stole our land”. This strain of thought is, as a consequence of being common in Mexico, also common and current in Mexican immigrant communities in the US.

        Yeah, I’m going to need a citation, please.

          1. Where in those polls do they show Mexicans blaming poverty on those “damn Yanquis”?

            1. Granted it’s not quite the same thing, but pretty close. If your country is poor and the parts now owned by a neighboring country are rich, it’s easy to think the lose of the rich parts caused the poverty. It’s b.s. of course, but my impression is that it’s not an uncommon attitude.

          2. That still does not show the opinions of Americans of Mexican descent and Mexican immigrants.

  34. It is time to tripple the number of slots available for legal immigration by increasing the alotment of diversity visas to 1 million per year.

    1. This would have little affect on the illegal immigration, since they are almost all considered unskilled. Masons, carpenters etc are included since they often lack formal training or education credentials.

      The visa quota for this class is five thousand worldwide.

      The waiting list for these slots is so long that it currently takes around twelve years for your application to even get started in the processing phase. Getting the actual Green Card can take as much as three more years.

      Processing the most preferred class, spouses or immediate family of US citizens, takes a minimum of six months, with some, especially those of newly married spouses, can take much longer.

      How about this modest* proposal. Increase the quota for the unskilled and also increase the staff at ICE that processes applications rather than at the Border Patrol. Adopting better data management procedures would likely expedite the process too.

      And add a temporary work program with no “path to citizenship” for those workers only looking for a few years of high paid work before going back and settling down in Mexico while another family member takes over the responsibility of sending money home to help the family. This was a common practice until border crossing became so arduous that going back for family visits or when work was scarce or to go to the doctor or dentist.

      *certainly not in the Swiftian sense, since I am quite serious.

      1. Diversity visas are not based on skill level. They are based on a lottery. So, increasing the number of diversity visas would provide opportunity for unskilled workers. We currently allow 55,000 diversity visas. There were 13.6 million qualified applicants for the 2010 diveristy visas. Raising the quota to 1 million per year would make a big dent in the unmet demand for immigration.

        I do agree that we should process immigration applications more quickly.

        1. I agree, that would be an improvement.

        2. I do agree that we should process immigration applications more quickly.

          You have to fill out a few more forms for that to happen….wait, what?

  35. Speaking of intermarriage. The Pew Research Center 21% of marriages in Arizona in 2008 croseed racial divides or the Hispanic-Anglo divide. This is lower than the rate on the West Coast, but much higher than the national average of 14.6% and higher than the rate in any state east of the Mississippi by at least 4 percentage points. So, all those easterners that point at Arizonia and call it racist should turn the mirror arround.

  36. Immigration needs to be reformed so things likethis don’t happen.
    Both TeamRed and TeamBlue don’t seem to care that people are dying in the desert.

    I also hate the fact that I don’t feel safe in a lot of Southeastern Arizona because of the armed smuggling going on

    1. Please, continue to ignore the logic of how increasing legal immigration would make illegal smuggling easier to catch.

      1. increasing legal immigration would take away the need to pay smugglers to abandon you in the middle of the Sonoran desert with no supplies. Might just save a few lives, ya think?

        I’m all for making it easier to come here. I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m not.

        1. Wylie isn’t in this debate to help aspiring immigrants. He doesn’t bother to understand anyone’s position here. He is only here to feel smug.

  37. I can have a happy 4th now, after reading all the butthurt I’ve caused in this thread.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! WOOOO!

  38. Look at how easily many fall for the sweet nectar from a politician, this time Jeb Bush.

    Immigrants are legal entrants into the U.S.A. Who should fear legal people?

    The issue, as always, are illegal aliens who enter the U.S.A. illegally and who subvert laws, spawning anchor babies, who need socialist income taxation and redistribution in the form of welfare.

    Until you get straight on what is the issue, all of your false beliefs shall continue to keep you in Plato’s Cave.

    Enjoy staring at your shadows.

  39. Look at how easily many fall for the sweet nectar from a politician, this time Jeb Bush.

    Immigrants are legal entrants into the U.S.A. Who should fear legal people?

    The issue, as always, are illegal aliens who enter the U.S.A. illegally and who subvert laws, spawning anchor babies, who need socialist income taxation and redistribution in the form of welfare.

    Until you get straight on what is the issue, all of your false beliefs shall continue to keep you in Plato’s Cave.

    Enjoy staring at your shadows.

    1. subvert laws, spawning anchor babies, who need socialist income taxation and redistribution in the form of welfare.

      Subverting laws that do not need to be there.

      Anchor babies are a myth.

      Immigrants use less welfare than citizens.

      It sounds like you are not straight on what the issue is. Unintentionally ironic, unbenknowst to you, no doubt, is that you invoked Plato, the Father of Totalitarianism.

  40. Terrific and timely op-ed from Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam debunking the myth that there’s something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants.

    And be sure to read the reader’s comments too – many of which did a pretty good job of debunking Bush and Putnam.

  41. The government outlawing immigration by some people has the same types of negative effects that the government outlawing any other victimless crime does — little reduction in targeted activity, economic inefficiencies, a black market to support it, and the attendant dangers, corruption, and lawlessness of any black market. If person A wants to work for person B, or rent an apartment from person C, criminalizing those peaceful and voluntary transactions creates bureaucratic waste and suboptimal economic outcomes. It always amazes me when libertarians can’t see that.

    Then again, the Irish and Italians weren’t planning any reconquistas that I’m aware of….

  42. I’d really like someone to backup the claim the illegals benefit from social welfare programs. As a recent immigrant, I can say that you’re not legally eligible for ANYTHING without a green card.

    Sure, some people might be scamming the system with fake ids, but you don’t hjave to be an illegal alien to abuse the welfare system.

    It’s just a factual LIE that illegal aliens can walk in the door of a welfare office and get money from the government. Not without sliding a fake green card past a government official they can’t.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.