Tom Cotton

Tom Cotton's Immigration Restrictions Are Delusional and Counterproductive

Cotton's idea that a flood of immigrant labor is to blame for depressed low-skill wages is just flaky

|

Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The junior senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, appeared on Fox News Sunday on New Year's Day and was asked about The New York Times op-ed piece about immigration that had appeared under his byline a few days earlier. The Fox News anchor Shannon Bream asked Cotton "whether you're saying, we also need to slow legal immigration?" Cotton's answer was unequivocal: "Yes, absolutely. … our immigration system for too long has brought in too many unskilled and low skilled workers which has undercut wages for working Americans."

Cotton spelled out his reasoning in his New York Times op-ed: "As immigrant labor has flooded the country, working-class wages have collapsed… No doubt automation and globalization have also affected wages, but mass immigration accelerates these trends with surplus labor, which of course decreases wages."

Cotton wrote: "companies in labor-intensive industries want to sustain or even increase current immigration flows. It's not hard to understand why. Cheap labor helps the bottom line. It is hard to understand why so many politicians would go along. The short-term interest of businesses isn't the same as the long-term national interest."

He concluded with a call for "a large reduction in legal immigration."

I've been a fan of Cotton's criticism of President Obama's foreign policy, but on this one, he is so thoroughly wrong that it's hard even to know where to start.

Begin with the bizarre scenario of a politician openly advocating lower corporate profits— i.e., a stock market decline, and along with it plunging values of retirement funds for the very ordinary Americans Cotton claims to represent.

It's not even clear that the higher wages Cotton advocates would achieve his sought-after result of reducing corporate profits. It's also possible that firms would respond to increased labor costs by holding profits steady and instead passing along price increases to customers, or by moving even more aggressively toward offshore or robot labor.

Cotton's idea that a flood of immigrant labor is to blame for depressed low-skill wages is just flaky. A whole series of other factors have had much greater effects on both the size of the labor force and on wages. The labor force swelled because of both the post-World War II Baby Boom and the increase in women's participation that was a result of the feminist revolution. What's next, a call by Cotton to shrink the American labor supply by promoting small families and stay-at-home motherhood?

To call the current population of immigrants a "flood" is a misnomer. It is more like a trickle. From 1905 to 1907 America absorbed more than 1 million immigrants a year into a nation with a population of about 85 million. We're now accepting about 1 million immigrants a year into a country with a population of about 320 million. Keeping proportionally even with historic growth levels would require quadrupling current levels of legal immigration, not reducing them.

Many of our nation's greatest gateway cities have still not recovered from the ravages of the restrictive immigration policy wrought by the nativism of the early 20th century. My home of Boston, for example, is about 200,000 souls emptier than it was before the immigration door slammed shut. Baltimore has lost 200,000 residents since its peak, too. The city of Detroit has lost more than 1 million residents. Chicago has lost half a million. Buffalo, N.Y. has lost 300,000. Cleveland lost 400,000. Some of these losses are the result of other things—suburbanization, the population shift South and West to the Sunbelt, and government welfare, transportation, and slum clearance policies that damaged cities. But restoring the full vibrancy of these places will require either an influx of immigrants or more children than Americans are used to having.

The long view of history can help us understand how relatively small is the current influx of immigrants. It can show us how empty our cities currently are. And it can demonstrate how nonexistent is the evidence for Cotton's claim that restricting immigration would translate into wage increases for American workers.

Look at the years in which legal immigration plunged. From 1914 to 1915 it went to about 327,000 from 1.2 million. From 1924 to 1925 it went to about 300,000 from about 700,000. From 1930 to 1931 it went to about 97,000 from about 242,000. From 1991 to 1992 it went to about 1 million from about 1.8 million. Does anyone remember 1992, or 1931, as a boom year? Historic U.S. wage data is sketchy, especially for early in the 20th century, but Cotton's promised wage increases from immigration restriction have failed to materialize in any meaningful way when such policies were tried in the past.

As a political matter, would-be immigrants may be a tempting target. The foreigners applying to come here, after all, don't vote in our elections. But as economics, the idea that the best way to help American workers is to keep out immigrants is just delusional. Had earlier generations of politicians implemented such a counterproductive policy, Rupert Murdoch might still be stuck in Australia, and there wouldn't even be a Fox News Sunday program to provide Sen. Cotton a platform.

NEXT: Rob Schneider's Paella and the Mortal Sin of Cultural Appropriation

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. this is not a links!

    1. Thanks, JarJar Binks.

        1. meesa horny. Jar-Jar love you long time.

          1. Jar-Jar is a slut! Fucking Jar-Jar is just EXACTLY like fucking a mayo jar! Don’t go there!

          2. puts ‘messa your humble servant’ – in a whole new light

    2. Today is what happens when the only staff in the office are The Jacket and The Hair.

    3. Of course it’s not links.

      If it was links you wouldn’t be 1st.*

      *looks at Fist and nods knowingly

      1. Fist’s secret has been exposed. His first status is in jeopardy. I worry he may snap.

        1. As long as somebody is first. That’s my only fear, that no one will be first.

  2. There are a few issues with this article. The first one that comes to mind is Mr. Stoll statement that restrictive immigration policies is responsible for the decline of Rust Belt cities such as Detroit.

    I suppose high crime rates and the flight of manufacturing jobs had nothing to do with it.

    1. ‘ARE responsible’

      My kingdom for an edit button!

    2. Indeed, but pro-immigration types often blame immigration restriction for absurd things. I’ve seen the restrictions of the 1920s blamed for the Great Depression. You remember, when we suffered so much due to a lack of available labor….

    3. Detroit is a mess because of the people who have held a monopoly on that city’s government and governance. It shares a lot of similarities with a slew of other cities where one party has held power exclusively for over half a century. Bad decisions were made during the good times that over time became landmine. Look at Venezuela for the way these things always end up playing out.

    4. I suppose that excessive regulation and taxes had nothing to do with the flight of manufacturing jobs that had nothing to do with the high crime rate.

  3. I think THE Ohio State University should play in the championship. They won the popular vote, after all.

    1. Watching them get blown out once was enough.

      1. Nah, I could watch them get blown out all day long.

    2. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a college football player get as thoroughly exposed as a complete fraud to the extent that J.T. Barrett was.

      1. JT Barrett? More like Shitty Hair It!

  4. I was hoping Ira Stoll would sing “Oh, I wish I wasn’t in the land of Cotton!”

    (Now I’ve got “Dixie” running through my head. Does that make me alt-right?)

  5. After getting both shins shot by off job stealing immigrants, can’t we cut Cotton a little slack?

    1. +1 killed fitty men

  6. Many of our nation’s greatest gateway cities have still not recovered from the ravages of the restrictive immigration policy wrought by the nativism of the early 20th century. My home of Boston, for example, is about 200,000 souls emptier than it was before the immigration door slammed shut. Baltimore has lost 200,000 residents since its peak, too. The city of Detroit has lost more than 1 million residents.

    Why do we assume this is so because we “slammed the door on immigration shut”? Is it possible these places have fewer souls because they suck?

    1. That’s the next paragraph.

      But yeah, that entire argument is a non-sequitur.

      1. Ehh, kind of:

        But restoring the full vibrancy of these places will require either an influx of immigrants or more children than Americans are used to having.

        Why would we want to subject immigrants to places that suck? Immigrants (as has been shown) are usually more educated than average. This isn’t the America of the late 19th century where you stepped off a boat and hoped to find work in the factories just off the docks.

        Immigrants can land in absolutely suburban places… where all them white folks ran to when Detroit started sucking– of course making those ‘white suburbs’ considerably less white.

        Recent immigrants actually stand a better chance starting out in the ‘burbs than they do in the urban centers– while they’re acclimating to our culture and language. The worst thing an immigrant with limited skills can do would be to park himself in an urban neighborhood where it costs $2,200 a month for a 400 sq foot studio apartment with no parking or laundry facilities. this is probably why in my area, the urban center is young hip white people, and the suburbs are full of foreigners.

        1. I was talking about that bit:

          Some of these losses are the result of other things suburbanization, the population shift South and West to the Sunbelt, and government welfare, transportation, and slum clearance policies that damaged cities.

          Very much hand-waving on that front, as those causes are likely dominant, vs decreased immigration flows.

          This isn’t the America of the late 19th century where you stepped off a boat and hoped to find work in the factories just off the docks.

          It isn’t, but that’s partly because restrictions make it much harder for non-educated migrants to come and work. Alt-history US where we didn’t curb immigration as much would have kept attracting low-skill workers for a long time (and whether the other factors that decreased factory work would have kicked in as much is not clear). Work visas became a thing after demand for green cards far outstripped demand.

        2. The worst thing an immigrant with limited skills can do would be to park himself in an urban neighborhood where it costs $2,200 a month for a 400 sq foot studio apartment with no parking or laundry facilities.

          This is absolutely true. But don’t tell the professors and developers (and their government cronies) who are pushing everywhere for ‘smart growth’ — holding up Manhattan as the perfect place to live, and then trying to convert suburban downtowns into little mini-Manhattans, featuring automobile-free plazas of huge apartment buildings near train stations.

          Because, you see, people would give up the dream of having their own house and yard — their own property — in the suburbs, if we would just put apartment buildings there instead!

          The arrogance of the urban elite in how they think everyone else should live is just stunning.

    2. But restoring the full vibrancy of these places will require either an influx of immigrants or more children than Americans are used to having.

      Well, he seems to think shrinking cities can be cured by dropping a lot of low-skilled uncapitalized labor from a helicoptor, so blaming the root cause on insufficient vibrancy probably made sense in his head.

    3. It is astounding how so-called progressives want everything to go back to the way it was in some long-gone decade of the 20th century.

      For the entire history of civilization, cities around the world have expanded and contracted as economic factors changed. There is literally no economic justification for large numbers of people to live in New Orleans or Detroit at this point. The labor needs that once existed in those places are gone due to foreign competition and automation.

      You would have thought that after Katrina, the nation would re-think whether we should continue subsidizing levies and dikes so that an enormous population density can live with high unemployment, below sea level in a hurricane zone. But of course, no politician wants to be remembered as the one who turned his back on the city of gumbo and Mardi Gras, even if it can’t pay to feed itself anymore, so we offered INCENTIVES to move back to a place where it makes no sense for hardly anyone to live.

      1. Gumbo and drunken parades just arent the same at elevation.

    4. Is it possible these places have fewer souls because they suck?

      You mean employment was the only reason people were there in the first place?! But, but, harbors, man!

  7. Forget immigration, the weather is the real problem. Since the new year started, we’ve gotten nearly 2 1/2 inches of rain, which by my calculation puts us on pace to get over 450 inches of rain this year – 9 times our annual average. Thanks Trump!!!

    Not to mention which, so far this year we’ve had 100% fewer Saturdays than we had at this same time last year. The bastard’s stealing our weekends!

  8. From 1905 to 1907 America absorbed more than 1 million immigrants a year into a nation with a population of about 85 million.

    And it could still work that way. The incoming Scandinavians will work logging and sawmill jobs, eventually settling down as farmers in the Midwest. The Germans will farm and open breweries. The Poles and Hungarians will work in the mines and steel mills while Slovenes and Moravians work for Armour and Swift in Chicago. Italians will raise vegetables, open restaurants and import olive oil.

    Hey, it worked before

    1. Trump already affecting the scientific community.

    2. It doesn’t matter. Global warming is real. It is known. Stop spreading your fake news.

    3. Fools. The science is settled!

  9. Of course he’s right.

    We allow people in based on their country of origin’s proximity to our borders. This leads to us letting in large swaths of people who have no education and are reliant on welfare. Their children remain on welfare and do not much improve in the education department.

    The U.S. is in a unique position where we can accept only the most value adding people from countries all across the world. Instead, we let in a shitload of people from Mexico and Central America because they’re nearby and want to come in.

    Other countries use point based systems to good effect. We should too.

    1. Most of the people from Mexico and Central America who immigrate do so illegally. We actually let in very few legal immigrants from those regions, and we haven’t had a country of origin-based immigration policy since the mid ’60s.

      1. Flat out wrong.

        In 2014, Mexico was number 3 in LEGAL immigration

        Behind #2 China by only 1,800 people. And in front of #4 Canada by about 90,000.

        1. Note: The Census Bureau defines recent immigrants here as foreign-born individuals who resided abroad one year prior, including lawful permanent residents, temporary nonimmigrants, and unauthorized immigrants.

          Of those who enter with legal status, family reunification accounts for a substantial portion of the green cards awarded to immigrants from the region. Without a family sponsor it’s difficult to get into the United States unless you have an education and employment prospects, and if you have those things you’re less likely to want to leave in the first place.

          1. Uh huh.

            Our immigrant population is made up of people who come from nearby countries. It’s not a point up for debate.

            “The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”

  10. Why the heck are there so many people like Stoll, who you think would understand capitalism, who refuse to see that supply and demand applies to labor, too? Of course, an increased availability of low-end labor will cause wages to drop. Duh.

    1. They understand markets when it confirms their ideologies to do so.

      1. The more Progressive Reason becomes, the more Rationalization becomes the stock in trade.

        I used to rah rah open borders. But Trump’s run brought some actual discussion of the topic. And whaddya know, there are winners and loser to open borders, and the losers are working class Americans. Should government of, by, and for the people tell the people they govern to go fuck themselves? I don’t think so.

        You can make a clericolibertarian “moral” argument about the evils of borders, and say it’s just too bad for the Americans who lose. There is at least some intellectual consistency in that. It puts your cards on the table.

        But instead we get these ridiculous, transparent lies that the laws of supply and demand just don’t hold for cheap labor.

        All the illegal immigrants hanging out at Home Depot will so drive up demand for goods and services generally that the American day laborer they compete with will be getting a better job as a software designer at Google. Or a brain surgeon. Or a super model.

        Whether it’s brain dead rationalization, the “Racist!” shriek, or simply sneering, the intellectual standards at Reason have plummeted, and continue to plummet. (The only exception to this has been the addition of Ed.)

        1. “Should government of, by, and for the people tell the people they govern to go fuck themselves? I don’t think so.”

          Really? What if those Americans were demanding, say, single-payer health care? Would you want your government to go tell them to go fuck themselves? Yeah I think you would.

    2. Thanks for the common sense as I was wondering how the author was writing that drivel with a straight face.

    3. This is only true if the size of the economic pie is FIXED. More immigrants = greater demands for goods and services. This is really pretty basic stuff.

      1. If it’s so basic why have you gotten it so wrong? Macro effects aren’t necessary true at the micro level. If the vast majority of immigrants end up in, say, the gardening industry, wages in the gardening industry would most likely be lowered even if the overall demand for goods rises. These immigrants will not be increasing the demand for gardening services.

        1. Because no goods or services are consumed more as the price drops.

          1. I’m not sure how that relates, but your assertion isn’t necessarily true. Such goods have existed, although they are rare. They’re called giffen goods.

      2. And these days, more immigrants = greater demands for taxpayer-provided goods and services. Which the mass immigration types never want to include in the equation.

      3. Fairbanks is on the right track. MWG is taking a fact and making it stretch a little too far. While it is true that increasing the amount of labor input in a country tends to increase GDP, it is the productivity of labor that is important. Several things are being overlooked. While demand for goods and services would certainly increase, this also puts pressure on resource prices. This can and usually does change relative prices.
        Production is not the same as productivity. Focusing solely on production is generally a wash. More labor equals more good and services, but this increase is generally consumed by the greater population.
        This is why Fairbanks example below is so important. It matters where the immigrants are employed. The capital to labor ratio is important. The productivity of capital is likely unchanged by immigration and the cost of capital would likely be bid up slightly with more workers.
        So the most likely scenario rests on the truism of the original poster. More labor will tend to decrease the cost of labor. Sure employers may add more workers up to a point. But this is a race to the bottom.
        Ultimately, the most important result is how employers respond to cheaper labor. They can lower prices and pass the savings(or exploitation) onto consumers or pocket the increase in profits.

        1. Beware collective measures like “GDP” where the collectives change.

          Yes, add foreign labor to the market, and *count* them as part of “our” GDP, and yeah, the GDP goes up.

          The same would be true if *they stayed home* and we counted them as part of “our” GDP. Actually, that case probably has *higher* GDP.

      4. So, wages go down, and the costs of goods and services go up due to increased demand. It’s a double-win for the native working class.

  11. 50 new laws in Ohio

    http://nbc4i.com/2017/01/02/fr…..t-in-ohio/

    1. What was wrong with the used laws?

      1. You can’t get a warranty with used laws.

    2. Hmmm…I know a lot of my gun buddies were all for this law that says your employer can’t keep you from having a gun locked in your car, even if your car is parked on company property.

      Awkward sentence, I hope the meaning is clear.

      Anyway, that seems very non-libertarian. If you don’t wanna follow my rules, don’t take the job.

      /disclosure, I encourage my employees to bring guns, dogs and booze into the office.

      1. OMG, I am totally stealing this example next time I do battle with an IP communist.

    3. A few new criminal laws are new for 2017 as well. For instance, a driver’s license suspension due to a vehicular homicide is 15 years. That suspension begins the day after a driver serves the court sentence for the crime ? not simultaneously with any jail sentence.

      That is completely idiotic. Way to work to re-integrate offenders into society so they can be productive (or at least not harmful).

    4. This law also gives active military members permission to carry a concealed gun without a permit in Ohio.

      Uhm, have they *seen* those guys?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX8UE6kbiFs

      1. Everybody should have that right, not just whose who work for the state violence services.

  12. This is a bit weak on the negative effects of cutting back. Correlating immigration flows with bad years will tell you that fewer people immigrate when the economy is doing poorly. Doesn’t tell you what the causation is. In fact, the fact that immigration responds to economic conditions (no immigration laws changed between the compared years), is just migration responding to labour demand, which is a very good thing to have.

    There are studies that show the impact of legal immigration (much easier) on overall wages, it’s not hard to link them and it’s a much stronger argument than making up correlation arguments on the fly when writing the article.

  13. From 1930 to 1931 it went to about 97,000 from about 242,000. From 1991 to 1992 it went to about 1 million from about 1.8 million. Does anyone remember 1992, or 1931, as a boom year?

    This is a real shot in the dark, but maybe immigration restriction becomes more popular in bust years when a lot of people have lost their jobs and start feeling less economically secure, rather than immigration causing the bust. Making policy by post-hoc fallacy is pretty stupid whether the furriners are serving as your saviour or scapegoat.

    1. And 1992 had almost 4% GDP growth. It was the start of the 90s boom

  14. Older story but don’t remember seeing it before

    Navy intelligence specialist recently refused to stand for the national anthem during morning colors

    1. The Washington Post reported that a petition was started to keep black service members out of jail for refusing to stand for the national anthem.

      I’m sorry, but if you’re that dissatisfied with the US – why are you in its military? I mean, I’m all cool with not standing for the NA and shit like that – off-duty, out of uniform – but that crap is part of the job. I mean, FFS, I participated (or at least stood quietly in formation) during freaking *prayers* and I’m a stone-cold, baby-eating, anti-religious nutter.

      1. I dunno. I can see a solid argument for this.

        To the left, just think how many regimes could have been halted by the enlisted ranks doing all the real work of oppression saying, “Nah man, this seems like bullshit, and I don’t think I’m being paid well enough to lose my soul for three hots, a cot, a lower-class stipend and spotty health care performed by corpsmen.”

  15. Hmm..23 comments in and the thread still isn’t a shitshow yet. Maybe I should stick arou…

    NOPE

    1. Oh come on. You can easily save the thread with a few thicc twerking videos.

      1. What we really need is a sanctimonious cosmo to start hectoring everyone with mocking all-caps posts. That always spurs reasoned discussion.

        1. That’s *Doctor* Cuck to you.

      2. Better than fucking GIFs substituting for video.

    2. Is that an immigrant-proof suit?

  16. From 1905 to 1907 America absorbed more than 1 million immigrants a year into a nation with a population of about 85 million. We’re now accepting about 1 million immigrants a year into a country with a population of about 320 million.

    What’s the logic here. The first ten bites of cheesecake didn’t make my sister-in-law fat, either, but the pint of ice cream every night will just about do it.

    Keeping proportionally even with historic growth levels would require quadrupling current levels of legal immigration, not reducing them.

    That we’ve had no economic growth to speak of, and a historically disproportionate labor participation rate, sits at the heart of the anti-immigration Der Jerbs stance.

    Okay, look, I’m sure you’re a lovely man. I’m just saying here, maybe telling people that we took in more immigrants back when there was more open land, fewer competitors, fewer regulatory bodies and a government footprint that was orders of magnitude smaller, and that we should therefore increase that ratio by population, independent of the economic means to support said population… That’s a lot of hand-waving “assume it must be so”. I say, dirty cricket, old boy.

    There must have been a better argument than this.

    1. Sister-in-law…wouldn’t?

      1. I already got the pick of the litter, man, but you do you. No judgment. She likes tequila and $5 roses sold in bars.

  17. “As a political matter, would-be immigrants may be a tempting target. The foreigners applying to come here, after all, don’t vote in our elections.”

    To coin a phrase, getting admitted to this country means getting started on a pathway to citizenship, for yourself or at least for your kids and grandkids. And you and your descendants get to vote once you’re citizens.

    So when considering whom to admit to this country, one factor to bear in mind is that we’re talking potential citizens.

    It’s not as if we’re letting in *braceros* to go pick crops and then go back to their home countries. These are future voters, future officeholders, future benefit-recipients.

  18. Because somehow the law of supply and demand applies to everything but labor? Sure

    1. A supply of low cost labor doesn’t keep wages down for unskilled workers, but people are bailing out of Buffalo and Detroit ’cause of the dearth of immigrants?

      SUPLI KURV is a river that only flows one way?

      I think they write articles in major newspapers at an 8th grade reading level, but that doesn’t really fly with the commenters here at Reason. We’re like at a 9.5/10the grade reading level at least.

  19. “Cotton’s idea that a flood of immigrant labor is to blame for depressed low-skill wages is just flaky. A whole series of other factors have had much greater effects on both the size of the labor force and on wages”.

    Cotton accounted for some of those in his article. The fact is that OTBE, a flood of low wage labor does bring down wages for low skilled jobs.

    You’re much better off arguing that low cost labor is good for the economy, which, you know, it is. If low cost labor were bad for economic growth, then China would have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 15 years. That hasn’t happened because low cost labor is great for economic growth and China has an abundance of the stuff.

    P.S. Lost cost oil isn’t bad for economic growth either.

    “My home of Boston, for example, is about 200,000 souls emptier than it was before the immigration door slammed shut. Baltimore has lost 200,000 residents since its peak, too. The city of Detroit has lost more than 1 million residents. Chicago has lost half a million. Buffalo, N.Y. has lost 300,000. Cleveland lost 400,000. Some of these losses are the result of other things”

    Yeah, if we opened the border tomorrow, chances are that very few immigrants would come streaming into Boston, Buffalo, or downtown Detroit.

    1. Spot on, although I quibble with your contention that low cost labor is good for the economy. It depends on how you define “the economy.” As with any economic policy there are winners and losers. Perhaps, and it’s arguable, there is a utilitarian benefit to low cost labor. But there are still losers. And the fact that China’s economy is growing rapidly probably is due mainly to de-regulation and privatization.

  20. I think Sen. Cotton is just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. [Given the guy’s warboner it is hard to believe he has enough blood in his brain to sustain any thought.]

    1. “We don’t Cotton to your kind around here.”

      1. Now just one cotton-picking minute…

      2. Why do all those poor folk in Arkansas keep picking Cotton?

  21. I found this exchange funny

    its Glenn Greenwald vs some MSNBC douchebag host

    the funny part is from 2:20 forward, where said host goes, ‘some like you say there’s no evidence, but….’

    and proceeds to list a number of assumptions and claims *as though those things were themselves proven fact*…

    …and glenn just looks at him and states flatly, “What proof do you have for any of that?”

    The reaction where the guy realizes he has none … is around 3:30. The look on their respective faces is just priceless, where MSNBC guy goes on a rambling-non-sequitur ass covering, and Glenn just squints his eyes like, “are you fucking kidding?”

    A second funny exchange is when the host offers GG the chance to respond to “idiotic things Howard Dean says” … such as that The Intercept is a “propaganda mill for the Russians”

    1. and proceeds to list a number of assumptions and claims *as though those things were themselves proven fact*…

      It sounds like he’d be a good fact checker.

    2. he is great. the “wtf are you on” look was great.

    3. Hahaha, that was great. You go, Glenn Greenwald.

    4. I don’t think the host even grasped his point that there’s a difference between a claim and evidence.

  22. Hello, I am a new immigrant to this thread. May I participate?

    1. Depends. Are you a mail-order bride? Are you willing to be a prop for middle-aged divorced men to use to complain ostensibly about American women in general, but really about their ex-wives?

    2. Sure. H&R is a sanctuary blog.

    3. No. There are only so many eyeballs for comments, and being here first, it’d be unfair to allow you to take them from all the native commenters.

    4. Hi __Warren__,

      Are you by any chance the “__Warren__Peace” that we have heard so much about?

      “Who’s your Daddy”? Leo Tolstoy by any chance? If so… I think you are WAY too long, and too full of too many “Peters”!!!

    5. No. As Reason commenters, we make very little as it is. You’ll saturate the market and depress our wages even further. Now get the hell out.

  23. Any decent country would *want* to have the problem of lots of people wanting to come.

    If nobody was wanting to immigrate here, we’d probably have to work harder to make this country more attractive to new migrants.

    But if lots of people want to come, that indicates we don’t have to just take anyone, we can be more selective than if tumbleweeds were just floating through U.S. consulates.

    So why do we skew the people we admit towards sketchy people from these turmoil-laden countries, or poor immigrants from next door, when we have a pool of people throughout the world from whom to select?

    And like I say, it goes beyond economics, though economics is important, and goes to who we want as future citizens, and what kind of policies will future citizens be pushing once they get the vote?

    1. Everyone knows the fucking Papist hordes will vote the Pope in Rome into the White House if we let them in this country.

      1. That’s a smear! A Pope smear!

        1. Those are the worst kind of smears!

          1. I can’t wait to see Jude Law smear some nuns on that new HBO show.

          2. Papist smears? Yeah. My wife hates going for those.

      2. “Everyone knows the fucking Papist hordes will vote the Pope in Rome into the White House if we let them in this country.”

        Let me guess…every single Catholic should STFU about immigration unless they’re an unconditional open-borders advocate?

        1. You Catholics need to recailbrate your sarcasm detectors.

          1. I thought Warty was using the standard trope of “huh, huh, you want something less than 100% open borders, you’re just like the people who wanted to exclude catholics, huh, huh.”

            1. I was just pointing out that you believe something stupid that was also stupid 100 years ago when it was directed against your stupid religion. But you knew that.

              1. I never thought I’d say this, but I’m starting to prefer your namesake (from SugarFree’s stories) to you.

                1. He really has turned into a whiny little bitch, hasn’t he? He has graduated from college and is now sooooo much smarter than everyone else! You stupid stupids don’t have the piece of paper I have, and it only cost $100,000! Look how smart I am! Truly pitiful.

      3. I’ve been told that, although this formulation turned out to have been hilariously wrong about Italians et al last time, it is totally right this time. Because “Muslims” are totally different and more serious about their religious authorities than “Papists,” or they’re more Other, or… something.

        1. “Huh huh, there were never problems with immigration in the past, there will never be any problems in the future, you stoopid, huh huh.”

          1. It’s either open borders or shipping Jewish refugees back to the nazis, there’s no in-between, no nuance of any kind. It’s just the poor beleaguered defenders of the immigrant versus the Ku Klux hordes.

            1. Now, if (as some say) enforcing the immigration laws means abrogating the Bill of Rights and putting citizens in a work database, then fuck it, let anyone come in, but if they commit crimes or go on the dole, put their ass in prison. And not a federal tennis prison, either…

            2. That’s your strawman, alright. Not the position I actually hold.

              FTR, I am generally for a primarily skills based system which also has humanity-respecting wrinkles to :

              – enable citizens to marry and/or adopt foreign nationals
              – allow some degree of family reunification for existing naturalized citizens
              – not-require a police state at the border or in the workplace, but otherwise disincentivize illiegal immigration
              – allow some amount of refugees who don’t “deserve” it to come, recognizing our national history as a sanctuary for other nation’s unwanted or struggling people

              I know it’s totally crazy libertine open borders nonsense, but maybe we can figure out how to discuss my actual views instead of your strawman of them?

              1. “maybe we can figure out how to discuss my actual views instead of your strawman of them?”

                I tried that with my views, but you weren’t interested.

                Now it turns out our views are, though not identical, fairly close, but you don’t get to babble about straw men after claiming I’d have excluded all the Irish and Italians.

                1. For the like, sixth time, I never fucking claimed that YOU PERSONALLY WERE SAYING THAT…

                  … I REFERRED TO ONE THAT ONE OF THE TWO POSSIBLE COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO MY STATEMENTS. IF YOU DISAGREED WITH THAT ONE, PRESUMABLY YOU COULD HAVE JUST SAID THAT YOU AGREED WITH THE OTHER ONE? YOU KNOW, LIKE A NORMAL PERSON HAVING A CONVERSATION?

                  BUT INSTEAD, YOU APPEARED TO TRY TO DISAGREE WITH MY STATEMENT WITHOUT HOLDING EITHER CONTRARY POSITION, WHICH IS JUST NONSENSE.

                  1. Note to self : in future, conspicuously use words like “one” or “those holding this view” to genericize potential counter-arguments, so that people who are hyper-sensitive to having ideas “attributed” to “them” by conjecture don’t spaz out?

                    Let’s give it a try :

                    It is certainly possible that you people holding contradictory views weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish.

                    Can you finally engage with the argument now?

                    1. I don’t even see the relevance of excluding all Irish and Italians, if as you say you’re not responding to any argument I actually made.

                    2. I tell you what – find someone who says we’d be better off if we hadn’t admitted any Irish or Italians, and I’ll write a rebuttal. Would that work?

                    3. How about we just start this stupid mess over?

                      I am making the following statements :

                      1) Arguments against “Papist Hordes” circa 1920 are broadly similar to arguments against modern “Muslim Hordes”

                      2) These arguments were incorrect when applied to the “Papist Hordes” because it only took a few generations for Italians and Irish et al to become “Americans” despite the fact that they, for example, blew up many more bombs in public than American Muslim immigrants have

                      3) Therefore, when one makes the same arguments today, one is making the same claims in the face of the historical counter-evidence that showed those concerns were overblown

                      4) In order to respond to this critique, one using the same rhetoric against “Muslim Hordes” that was used against “Papist Hordes” must explain why “Muslim Hordes” will not integrate in the same way the “Papist Hordes” did,
                      OR
                      alternatively they could assert (as White Nationalists do) that, while the Papist Hordes were not as bad as Muslim Hordes, they were still worse than the status quo of no immigrating Horde

                      Which of the above statements do you agree or disagree with, and in what manner? 😀

                    4. 1) Which arguments? By whom? Donald Trump?

                      2) Who is “they” in “blew up many more bombs in public”? All the Irish and Italians, or just some? What did the government do with Irish and Italians who blew up stuff?

                      3) Who is “one”? What are the “same arguments”?

                      4) Who is responding? Who is it who “must explain” things? White nationalists?

                    5. (names of specific individuals or organizations would be nice. Tom Cotton? Donald Trump?)

                    6. 1) The arguments that Warty was referring to when I responded and started exploring this topic.

                      If you’re looking for someone in this forum to make those arguments, ask PapayaSF.

                      2) “Italians” as an overly-broad social class broadly similar to “Muslims” and likely having as much actual responsibility for the actions of their extremists?

                      3) The people from 1) who often make WORD FOR WORD the same arguments about Muslims that were formerly made about Italians

                      4) The same people from 1)

                      As you can see, I am trying to “discuss the likely validity of a set of arguments” as opposed to “having an argument with an individual about individual components of that set.”

                    7. You’re point is idiotic, Catholics came from mostly peaceful modern European countries. Muslims come from shitholes where even when they are not blowing each other up or beheading each other hold views of government, and choose to live in governments totally incompatible with American or western governments. Shariah is not optional, Catholicism has no mandated government or legal system. That makes them vastly different.

                      Then in terms of Muslims vs Catholics blowing stuff up you have to work quite hard to blow that much smoke up your own ass. When was the last Catholic terrorist attack in the US? We’ve had numerous mass attacks from Muslims making up 1% of the population, and none from Catholics who are 22%. The same is true for Europe.

                    8. There were Irish and Italian immigrants who blew stuff up, but they did not do so as Catholics, indeed, especially in the case of the Italians, the bomb people were fairly atheistic.

                      There were cases of public brawling and drunkenness, and factional rioting, and in 1863 the lynching of black people in the name of anti-draft riots, all on the “debit” side of the Irish ledger. But the Church tried to dampen these violent flames, not fan them.

                      I know that in the Cold War elections, the Church and the Mafia worked against the Commies (which would *you* prefer, mafia or commies?), but whether that happened in the US, I don’t know.

                      But there was a case to be made for a more careful screening of the *criminal elements* among Irish and Italian immigrants – that’s hardly the same as banning all Irish and Italians.

                      So, in short, I don’t know if I can do justice to a position I do not hold and defend that position with the zeal that is required, thus you may want to talk to someone who is closer to that position.

                    9. Basically, as the Church was able to catch up with the needs of the immigrants, it was able to at least make a dent in many of their problems.

                      Leading to a new set of concerns…that the Pope would organize immigrant voters to create a Catholic theocracy.

                      In fact, Catholic citizens have not only worked within the framework of the American First Amendment, but American Catholic influence helped move the worldwide Church in a friendlier direction to other faith communities.

                      Now, if the influence of Islam among Muslim immigrants is as salutary as the influence of Catholicism in the Catholic immigrants, then I’ll grant you that we have nothing to worry about.

                    10. There were Irish and Italian immigrants who blew stuff up, but they did not do so as Catholics, especially in the case of the Italians, the bomb people were fairly atheistic.

                      While this is a valid point, do you believe that the anti-“Papist Horde” arguments of the day made this distinction?

                      Modern critics of Muslim immigration do not seem to meaningfully distinguish between people from predominantly or legally Muslim countries and “Muslims” even though they are, in reality, different. I find it very difficult to believe the critics of 1920 were more distinguishing in their critique.

                      My sense is that 1920s anti-Italian sentiment was a combination of fear of their :

                      – perceived criminality/low social class
                      – insular cultural Otherness
                      – religious split loyalty/”extremism” due to being Catholic
                      – radical political ideology

                      These fears seem to broadly map to the fears anti-immigration people express about the horde we are currently fearing.

                    11. I don’t know if I can do justice to a position I do not hold and defend that position with the zeal that is required

                      Actually, by presenting the more nuanced version, which makes some distinctions which calls to blanket prohibit immigration from “Muslim countries” do not, you’re illustrating the thing I’m trying to discuss just fine.

                      IMO, the same people who would, in 1920, summarize the Galleanists as “Italians” or “Papists” would, in 2016, summarize ISIS as “Arabs” or “Muslims.”

                    12. You’re point is idiotic, Catholics came from mostly peaceful modern European countries.

                      HAHAHAHA … thank you so much for that.

                      Learn your Italian American History and you might begin to understand how ahistorically irrelevant that statement is.

                      When was the last Catholic terrorist attack in the US?

                      If you read what I actually said, I was referring to Catholics of 1920, who did in fact blow up far more things than modern Muslim immigrants to America have.

          2. More like :

            “If one made a claim in the past and was proven wrong, when one makes new instances of that claim, one must recognize and explain why.”

            It is certainly possible that you weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish. I imagine someone can make a case that their integration was ultimately a greater cost than it was a benefit. For some mysterious reason, I don’t see modern cost based arguments against assimilation of today’s Other carried to this logical conclusion.

            Perhaps “we” now think of Italians and Irish people as “American” and don’t want to own up to wishing that “they” had never come to “our” country?

            1. “It is certainly possible that you weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish.”

              And that’s totally like what I said, because…?

              1. Hello? Aren’t you going to quote the part where I said we should have done the modern equivalent of excluding all the Irish and Italians?

                I’m sure you’ll find that quote really soon…

              2. In response to my asserting that there was not problems in the past, you said :

                “Huh huh, there were never problems with immigration in the past, there will never be any problems in the future, you stoopid, huh huh.”

                I took this to mean that you were questioning both the premise that there were never problems in the past, and that there would never be any problems in the future.

                As we were discussing a specific problem and argument-against-immigrants, I thought you might be disagreeing with me, and holding that it was not a problem in the past. Apparently not?

                Instead of me trying to infer, why don’t you tell me why the modern Muslim hordes are different than the earlty 20th century Papist hordes, who were the subjects of many of the same arguments against their immigration?

                1. “why don’t you tell me why the modern Muslim hordes”

                  Why don’t you tell me what you think I said about “Muslim hordes.”

                  I’m sure it will be much more interesting that what I actually said on the boring old plane of reality.

                  1. Here’s the thing…when you represent me as saying something quite different from what I actually did say, not once but twice (that I’d have excluded all Italians and Irish and that I was saying something about “Muslim hordes”) then I kind of lose any inclination I’d previously had to enter into a lengthy discussion.

                    Simply repeating “I didn’t say that, stop being silly” just isn’t as interesting as discussing actual issues.

                  2. Jesus Christ, are you really this dense? Learn how to read and have a conversation in comments on the internet, maybe?

                    1) This conversation started with Warty referring to the “Papist Hordes” argument which was made against Italians and Irish by 20th century xenophobes

                    2) I then made reference to the IMO-not-compelling counter arguments I’ve heard, that while it wasn’t bad in the past, THIS TIME (with Muslims) IT’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE REASONS

                    3) You made some incoherent snarky response apparently questioning my premise

                    4) I said “ok, if you question my premise, advance a counter claim and explain how this time it isn’t different, or how it was actually bad in the past”

                    5) You derped off the deep fucking end and started claiming I was strawmanning your position…

                    It seems the correct interpretation is that you’re actually saying nothing of relevance or substance?

                    1. Here’s what you said:

                      “It is certainly possible that you weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish.”

                      It’s a retarded straw man, because it suggests that somehow I think America would be better off “had we excluded all Italians and Irish.”

                      You also said:

                      “why don’t you tell me why the modern Muslim hordes are different than the earlty 20th century Papist hordes”

                      That’s a retarded straw man because I never said anything about “Muslim hordes.”

                    2. Wow, you really don’t know how to read or discuss things on the internet, do you.

                      1) I said “A” and “B”

                      2) You appeared to disagree, but were apparently just saying nothing (?!?!)

                      3) I made the mistake of thinking you were saying something, and said “ok, well, then justify not-A or not-B”

                      4) You said “I don’t hold views not-A or not-B”

                      If you’re not saying not-A or not-B, how about you come out with what you ARE saying?

                    3. If by “A” you mean

                      “It is certainly possible that you weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish.”

                      and if by “B” you mean

                      “why don’t you tell me why the modern Muslim hordes are different than the earlty 20th century Papist hordes”

                      then, yes, you did say A and B, but what I’m missing is any evidence whatsoever that I said anything like what you imputed to me.

                      Can you give me a link or a quotation?

                      Help me out here.

                    4. My god, are you dense. I will now explain this to you a third time, because you apparently don’t understand how human conversations work.

                      1) Warty started out by referencing papist hordes, we can call this A-prime
                      2) I said that I had heard bad arguments explaining why modern muslim hordes are not 20th century papist hordes, we can call this A. At the same time, I made a claim that the 20th century papist hordes turned out to be worth the trouble of asserting them (“B”).
                      3) You appeared to disagree with either A or B, but were apparently saying nothing (?!?)
                      4) I said “ok, well, here’s my response to not-A and not-B, which you appear to be advancing”
                      5) You said “I’m not the one who originally stated A and B, and I’m also not advancing not-A or not-B or A-prime for that matter”
                      6) I said “well then why don’t you tell me what the hell you ARE saying?”
                      7) You continued to derp on and on about how you never said A or B, which is PRETTY FREAKING OBVIOUS TO ME BECAUSE I AM THE ONE WHO SAID A AND B AND I AM NOT YOU

                    5. Sorry, I still don’t see the quotation where I said that we should have kept out the Italians and the Irish. Nor have I seen the quotation where I referred to Muslim hordes.

                      Your alphabet soup of A primes and B primes and Alpha Centauris doesn’t really help your case, but repeat it once more if you think that will work.

                    6. I still don’t see the quotation where I said that we should have kept out the Italians and the Irish. Nor have I seen the quotation where I referred to Muslim hordes.

                      Are you literally retarded? No, really, have you considered seeing an expert in child development and having yourself checked?

                      I have now said five times that these are COUNTER arguments that you APPEARED to be advancing. You have yourself admitted that you were being “sarcastic” or “joking,” which suggests that you were in fact advancing SOME counter argument to my statements about Papist and Muslim hordes.

                      But I guess we’ll never know WHAT argument, because you don’t want to actually clarify what the hell you were saying. Apparently you were somehow disagreeing with what I said without advancing either of the logical counter arguments, which seems like a neat trick!

                      No big loss, I figure whatever you were trying to say is likely to be about as worthless as your endless above incomprehension of human conversation.

                    7. Your definition of “human conversation” seems to include a lot of “A primes” and “not-A and not-B”s. I bet that’s a riot a parties.

                      Let me try:

                      (a) Let A prime be the set of fucks I give.

                      (b) A prime is an empty set.

                      (c) If B stands for the statement “CZmacure sure knows how to carry on a conversation without straw-manning,” then not-B is true.

                      (d) If X is your lips and Y is my ass, then X should kiss Y.

                    8. Strange, you’re the only one who seems to have a problem comprehending my manner of discourse. Probably my issue and not yours, right?

                      Thanks so much for saving me the trouble of ever talking to you again, tho! Happy New Year!

                    9. I repeatedly asked you to justify these statements of yours:

                      “”It is certainly possible that you weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish.”

                      and

                      “why don’t you tell me why the modern Muslim hordes are different than the earlty 20th century Papist hordes”

                      I asked for quotes or links to show where I said we should have excluded the Italians and Irish, and where I said anything about Muslim hordes.

                      You respond with a bunch of pseudo-mathematical silliness about A primes and not-A and not-B.

                      Yet you never provide evidence that I said the things you impute to me.

                    10. you did say A and B, but what I’m missing is any evidence whatsoever that I said anything like what you imputed to me.

                      You appeared to disagree with A or B, so you are attempting to justify the re-use of a shown-to-be-wrong argument because either :

                      1) “you weren’t proven wrong” – this requires that Papist immigration, while not catastrophic, was actually net bad. If Papists of the past should have been excluded, that would mean that using the same argument against Muslims today would be justifiable.

                      OR

                      2) “the Muslim hordes are different from the Papist hordes” – this requires that the Papist and Muslim hordes are substantively different, so the same argument that was wrong against Papists might be right about Muslims.

                      I don’t get why it’s so hard for you to comprehend that your disagreeing with my A and B requires you to state either not-A (1) or not-B (2). *

                      *Yes, theoretically you might be making the null argument (that A and B aren’t wrong but “invalid”) but the form of your disagreement did not suggest that.

                    11. I want to understand you, I really do, and like I said, I took a course in symbolic logic, but perhaps I didn’t take a high enough level course to figure out what you meant when you said

                      “It is certainly possible that you weren’t proven wrong, and that America’s 20th century might have been even more successful had we excluded all Italians and Irish.”

                      and

                      “why don’t you tell me why the modern Muslim hordes are different than the earlty 20th century Papist hordes”

                      You seem to admit that you’re not responding to anything I actually said, so why do you expect me to answer?

                      It sounds like “have you stopped beating your wife.”

                      As you seem to acknowledge, I didn’t say we’d be better off if we’d excluded the Irish and Italians, and I never said anything about Muslim hordes, so why do you keep asking me this stuff?

                    12. “You appeared to disagree, but were apparently just saying nothing (?!?!)”

                      The technical term is “joke,” actually. Or “sarcasm.”

                    13. But to be blunt, I have a difficult time following your attempt at symbolic logic, even though I did pass a course in the subject. So it’s possible that either (a) I should have taken the advanced course, or (b) you’re full of crap.

                    14. Let A be the class {silly people}

                      Let B be the class {CZmacure}

                      It appears that B is a subset of A.

                      QED.

                    15. Let A be Eddie being an aggressive ass at the slightest provocation, or none at all.

                      Let B be Eddie deciding no one can comment on religion without his omniscient corrections.

                      Let C be Eddie’s martyr complex and conviction that people’s reactions to him are fueled by their religious hatred and oppression. Those fucking assholes.

                      Let D be the assumption that Eddie isn’t talking to us anyway, he’s talking to God, and we merely serve as blank proxies for the far more important conversations he’s having with his deit(ies). At no point in time is there an option for not pissing Eddie off, should Eddie decide we have offended his religious rights in failing to order the universe to his particular preferred flavor of normal. That’s when he shows the fruits of the Spirit by telling everyone what asses they are, and also stupid progs who probably read ThinkProgress. As the commentariat is wont to do, you know.

                      Bah.

      4. Well, they did vote for Kennedy – and look how that turned out.

        1. Yeah, the constant interruptions are totally annoying.

  24. A southwestern Michigan man is in jail after he allegedly shot and killed his girlfriend’s pet donkey during a domestic dispute Sunday night in LaPorte County.

    Olvydas Abromavieius, 50, is charged with a felony county of domestic violence animal cruelty and a misdemeanor count of domestic battery.

    Oh, Michigan Man — Don’t ever change!

    1. Bang that ass!

      1. [Insert Democrat Party meme here]

    2. What kind of name is that?

      1. Furren.

      2. Lithuanian, apparently

    1. its a local paper in arkansas with a circulation of less than 2000. i think a 19yr old could probably handle that. Its a slight step up from a paper route, but it aint rocket science.

      1. He also seems to have figured out that the bottom line is more important than have a righteous editorial board.

        Go figure that smart business practices are more important to running a successful paper than any journalistic practices.

  25. OT: The earlier Robby Soave piece, “The New York Times Gets Everything Wrong in This Article That Falsely Claims Economists Don’t Like School Choice” is almost a word for word copy and paste of a 12/30/16 article in Marginal Revolution. I think Robby added a single snarky sentence at the end.

    Lazyass “journalism”.

    1. Wouldn’t that be plagiarism? Or does Robby write for Marginal Revolution?

    2. Do you have a link to the story @ MR? I read the blog and i didn’t see anything about school choice in the last few days.

      1. to my point =

        here’s all the MR stories on “Education

        Don’t see any of them mentioning the 12/30 story @ the NYT

        1. Well, Tyler linked to the same Slate Star Codex piece, so prolefeed may be confusing the two.

          If that is the case: Robby indeed does quote the bulk of that (short) piece, although it is clearly delineated and attributed; there is a lot of his own commentary and “…Robby added a single snarky sentence at the end” is totally untrue.

          1. i think a more-accurate way of characterizing what’s there is that Scott Alexander is who first pointed out the NYTs attempt to mislead people about the source material they were referencing.

            the complaint isn’t plagiarism so much, but rather that SSC probably deserves the hat tip and credit for being the source of that specific point.

            Robby adds his own $.02 by adding critical remarks about the author’s claims about student loans, something SSC didn’t touch on at all.

          2. sorry – to be clear i wasn’t disagreeing with you, just adding to your point

      2. It was this linked article in their Sunday links:

        http://slatestarcodex.com/2016…..education/

        1. It seemed at the time like Robby was quoting without attribution, but I’m too lazy to go back and see if my perception was off. If I did slam Robby unfairly, my bad.

  26. From 1905 to 1907 America absorbed blah blah blah blah

    First of all, there was no fucking welfare back then. It was work, starve, or a life of crime and risk going to jail.

    Second of all, we were building a brand new nation virtually from the ground up, as we were just starting to make the transition from a predominantly agrarian society to a predominantly industrial society.

    Now we’re transitioning away from industrial into an entirely new kind of society. Reason often goes out of their way to point out that old time manufacturing jobs are not coming back in droves, and yet they still advocate for letting in millions of third world era, most of whom don’t have the intellect or skills to do the new 21st work. Doesn’t make any sense.

    1. > 1905 to 1907
      > a brand new nation

    2. So, let’s get rid of welfare, not immigration.

      1. Why not both? And if not, why not start with immigration? It did just get a mandate.

        Deportations activate!

      2. How are you supposed to get rid of welfare when you’re busy importing Big Government supporters?

        Actual Facts on Hispanics in the US, immigrants and otherwise:

        PEW Research on Hispanic Americans

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

  27. Ok, I’m about as pro-immigration (legal or otherwise) as you can be but . . .

    Cotton’s idea that a flood of immigrant labor is to blame for depressed low-skill wages is just flaky, writes Ira Stoll. A whole series of other factors have had much greater effects on both the size of the labor force and on wages. The labor force swelled because of both the post-World War II Baby Boom and the increase in women’s participation that was a result of the feminist revolution.

    Even taking your assertion that other factors are larger, that doesn’t mean that immigration is not a significant factor and that limiting it can’t have a noticeable effect on the supply of labor. Wages for low-skilled workers are depressed (for a set of assumptions about what ‘depressed’ means) because there’s a *glut* of labor. Lot’s of labor, so each unit of labor is cheap. Immigration may be a small part of that glut, but its still a part of it.

    1. The point that should be made (and no one seems to want to) is that if you’re *serious* about ‘fixing’ this, you need to identify root causes and be willing to fix *that*. That means instead of talking about limiting immigration to ‘raise wages’ (IOW, make everything more expensive for everyone) you need to start offering policies designed to cut out the heart of that glut – limits to women and minority participation in the workforce, for example. Certificates of Need regulation for automation. Work visas for everyone to allow the Central Committee to set the appropriate level of and price of labor. Limits to the numbers of hours you can work. Overtime pay. Stuff like that *in addition to* no more foreigners.

      And, of course, the policies that will be needed to actually curtail immigration – which I’ve outlined before.

      Point out to these people that until they are willing to get serious and embrace the sorts of policies that will have an actual effect then they are just pandering. And show them where their logic inevitably leads.

  28. Ira lost all credibility in this piece when he took Cotton’s unwillingness to throw cheap labor under the bus in favor of corporate profits and turned it into an independent desire by Cotton to reduce corporate profits.

      1. “It’s not even clear that the higher wages Cotton advocates would achieve his sought-after result of reducing corporate profits.” Cotton is not seeking reduced corporate profits. He’s simply willing to let that happen if it’s the result of reducing immigration.

        1. What specific corporations do you believe have ‘excess’ profits due to illegal (or ‘unfair’ legal) immigration?

          1. Are you trolling? Where do I say or imply that I think some corporations have excess profits due to immigration, or any other reason?

            1. i get that your point is that Ira is misconstruing cotton’s comments.

              however, i assumed you fixated on it because you think cotton’s point (pre-ira misconstruing it) is actually true.

              My point (below) is that i’ve never seen any evidence that this rhetoric about “corporate profits” has any basis in reality.

              If its all just rhetoric (trying to blame ‘corporations’ for our current immigration policy)…. then who cares if its a misconstrued point? Its meaningless in either case.

              1. I only “fixated” on it because I find that kind of conflation especially egregious. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the lack of evidence that corporations use immigration policy to boost profits. I also worked my entire career ? I’m retired ? at big corporations. The rhetoric is absolutely false. Perhaps some small companies get some benefit, but they are not the type of companies that have any clout.

                1. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the lack of evidence that corporations use immigration policy to boost profits. … Perhaps some small companies get some benefit, but they are not the type of companies that have any clout.

                  Agreed. Sorry then – i assumed you were at least partly upset about Stoll’s sleight-of-hand because you believed cotton’s original point had merit.

                  I also agree it was a slimy rhetorical move on Ira’s part. (even if Cotton is a douche)

    1. re: this very common mention of “Corporate Profits” having something to do with immigration…

      I’ve worked at a number of publicly traded corporations, and covered many more as analyst, and to my surprise = i never actually came across any illegal Mexican immigrants among my fellow co-workers.

      This may come as a shock to some.

      The impression you get listening to people online is that companies ranging from Google to Archer Daniels Midland to Dow Chemical all rely 100% on wetpacks… from the operations level, all the way up to senior executives.

      yet strangely, when sitting in meetings with various firms, i never once found myself sitting across the table from some short, swarthy mexican man fresh from his swim across the Rio Grande

      It often asserted that the reason the Govt looks the other way re: illegal immigration, is because corporations pressure them to do so… because they are making money hand-over-fist utilizing this undocumented labor.

      It is stated as though this is an obvious fact.

      Nowhere do they ever bother to point to a single firm that is actually guilty of this practice., or note how their stock price fluctuates so wildly when increased border-enforcement is mentioned.

      1. Wetpacks?

        1. Yeah, how cool was it to just drop all that PC crap and go full illiterate bigot, eh?

        2. my spellcheck has been replaced by an illegal immigrant

        3. Hey Warren, do you know what Mexico’s answer to the wall is going to be?

          Wetbacks with jetpacks.

          1. I’m more worried about gays with trebuchets.

            1. baristas with ballistas?

      2. I’ve worked at a number of publicly traded corporations, and covered many more as analyst, and to my surprise = i never actually came across any illegal Mexican immigrants among my fellow co-workers.
        Not as surprised as to what that has to do with reducing legal immigrants from the worldover.

        The impression you get listening to people online is that companies ranging from Google to Archer Daniels Midland to Dow Chemical all rely 100% on wetpacks… from the operations level, all the way up to senior executives.Wetbacks. Not wetpacks. But yes, visiting Stormfront and Breitbart might give one that impression.

        1. Hey, fuckface! Nice move on the link up-thread.
          WARNING! DO *NOT* CLICK ON ANY LINK PROVIDED BY THIS PIECE OF SHIT. THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY PRETEND TO BE!

        2. Sometimes when a person writes a statement intended to diminish those holding the opinions expressed therein, he attributes to them vernacular intended to capture the idiosyncratic nature of their beliefs. Thus, when Gilmore uses wetback, which I imagine he knows to be wetback because what fucking sense would the term “wetpack” make, he uses the word to suggest that those holding the opinions he’s critiquing are motivated by racial animus. This is why you find the word used in a sentence deliberately attributed to someone else. You have to look for signifiers to discern the voice to which he’s imputing the attitude. Sometimes they are difficult to distinguish, but in this case it’s fairly simple: he outright says “[t]he impression you get listening to people online,” before using the term which has gotten your panties so disheveled.

  29. Alexa Davalos is a beautiful creature, and I am sure that she is intelligent and witty as well.

    *swoon*

    1. NO SPOILERS

      1. I don’t think that counts as a spoiler.

        It’s pretty well established at this point (for a decade or so, at least)

    2. Upon reflection, your Stockholm Syndrome joke was pretty good.

    1. I blame…Trump?

    2. Can you look up the score for me?

        1. I think he gave in too easily. How did they (he) handle simple things like groceries or any number of things that usually require talking?

    3. Marcus isn’t smiling…

  30. “It’s not even clear that the higher wages Cotton advocates would achieve his sought-after result of reducing corporate profits.” Cotton is not seeking reduced corporate profits. He’s simply willing to let that happen if it’s the result of reducing immigration.

    1. Meant to be a reply elsewhere….

    2. So he is truly xenophobic and not a willful socialist.

  31. (touches thumb and forefinger to bowed forehead)
    I predict increased unemployment and inflation followed by fudged figures to make it look good:

    “Finland just launched an experiment giving 2,000 people free money until 2019”
    […]
    “Finland has an ambitious New Year’s resolution in mind: learn how offering free money for two years helps the unemployed get back to work.
    Starting January 1, 2017 and lasting until 2019, the federal social security institution Kela will distribute roughly $590 each month to 2,000 jobless Finns.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..830982.php

  32. our immigration system for too long has brought in too many unskilled and low skilled workers which has undercut wages for working Americans
    Melania is doing the job no American would do, and cheap, so why complain?

    1. Can’t even get the joke right?

      1. MarconiDarwin is lucky to get his name right.

    2. I always get confused on this. Which one is the Don’s wife, Melania or Ivanka?

      1. Iridium.

        1. Radon, man *high five*

        2. Is that a joke about satellite phones? I don’t get it.

    3. MarconiDarwin|1.2.17 @ 9:04PM|#
      “our immigration system for too long has brought in too many unskilled and low skilled workers which has undercut wages for working Americans”

      Hey, fuckface! Nice move on the link up-thread.
      WARNING! DO *NOT* CLICK ON ANY LINK PROVIDED BY THIS PIECE OF SHIT. THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY PRETEND TO BE!

  33. If Penn loses, the OC deserves the ‘award’; what a lame series of downs.

  34. Annnnd, total implosion.

    1. One 1st down on the prior series and there would have been no need to throw the long one into coverage. The OC owns that loss.

      1. 45 yards(?) in penalties against PSU on USC’s game tying drive with 2 minutes to go didn’t help either.

        1. Choke-a-lotta, it seems.

    2. I don’t have the internet right now. Can Francisco look up the score for me?

      1. He probably could.
        BUT HE WON’T!

      2. I didn’t know there was a game. Let me look.

      3. Cal got a bowl game? at 5-7?

        1. Yes. Good jobs when they graduate.

  35. “The paper’s editors wouldn’t recognize economic thinking if they were bludgeoned to death by a supply and demand curve.”

  36. Hello.

    I’m all fucked up today. Thanks Reason.

    1. What have those scamps been up to this time?

  37. That was a good game.

    Now it’s time for “Punch that bitch in the face” Bowl.

    1. It was a better game than expected, except for the choke-job.

  38. Surprising finding in investigation of police investigations of police shootings.

    Only five of 40 cases involving police shootings of unarmed individuals since 2010 have resulted in disciplinary action against officers after police chiefs found that they violated policy, a new Chronicle analysis shows. None of the officers were criminally charged, and none of the disciplinary actions were announced to the public. Because the department’s internal affairs probes are cloaked in confidentiality, the analysis required cross-matching data from the city, HPD and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

    All five officers were disciplined for policy violations that occurred when they shot people while off-duty.

    One failed to train with the weapon he used to shoot an innocent man. Another exhibited a lack of “sound judgment” by shooting a fleeing man in the back while working an unapproved security job out-of-uniform. A third had been repeatedly disciplined for working an unauthorized apartment security job when he confronted and killed a wrecker driver. The fourth was found to have been intoxicated at the time he shot two people, among other policy violations. Still, as in all other intentional shootings, these were determined to have been “justified.”

  39. “The touch, the feel of immigration, the fabric of our lives.”

  40. Begin with the bizarre scenario of a politician openly advocating lower corporate profits? i.e., a stock market decline, and along with it plunging values of retirement funds for the very ordinary Americans Cotton claims to represent.

    Citation needed for the claim that Cotton wants the stock market to go down, or your 401K to take a hit. In his editorial he mentions small businesses, and a Growers Union rep being the advocates for more immigration.

    The whole paragraph on urban shitholes needing more people, and if we would just triple our immigration Detroit would be some utopia is one of the more bizarre arguments I have heard. How many of the million immigrants arriving in the US now choose to move to one of these up and coming hot spots? People go where the jobs are. And they aint there.

    1. I told an anecdote from where I live on one of my first posts to the comments here. The farmers in my area pay x for labor. The people here will not work for x, so the farmers claim. The farmers say they need temp foreign workers. Ok, good and fine no problem. A progressive immigrants rights group says farm workers can not live on x so they apply for, and get a government grant to build housing. Now that group receives yearly federal funds to manage the housing, and the farmer gets his labor costs subsidized by the very generous American taxpayer. The same applies to H1B workers. The employer is exempt from paying FICA on a temp worker, making it cheaper to hire H1B workers than your kid that just graduated university.

      Immigration policy and benefits to employers is cronyism through and through. But I guess some cronyism is more equal than others, and Mr Stoll’s 401K is more important.

      1. *in his mind. (damn the no edit button)

    2. It’s fairly reasonable to say that Americans competing with low-skill illegal immigrants for employment probably do not have robust stock portfolios.

      Don’t tell anyone. How the common unwashed live is a secret.

  41. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

    1. Doing the scams Americans won’t do?

    1. Not sure what you mean; looks like a complete and un-hedged statement that the Russian gov’t had no involvement at all.

      1. I agree. Just taking the piss out of Hannity. The guy drives me nuts. Assange has done the world more good than 95% of humanity.

        1. hannity is a shitheel.

          if fox had any brains, they’d have let bret baier do that interview. no one trusts fucking hannity.

          1. no one trusts fucking hannity

            Which is ironic given how he tries to pass himself off as a loyal partisan.

            1. i guess that comment is wrong – because he has a very large and loyal viewership.

              i think what i meant was that no one who *needs to be convinced* about the lack of a Wikileaks-Russia connection trusts hannity.

              1. The truth can bounce off echo chamber walls, too. I imagine there are people out there that will say, in the not too distant future, “Hannity was right about the Russian hacking so I’m gonna believe him on the horseshit he’s peddling now.”

        2. “Just taking the piss out of Hannity.”

          I’m lucky; never heard the guy.

        1. Got it.
          G’s link to the Greenwald interview ( http://www.salon.com/2016/12/3…..ing-story/) was good, too.

  42. Some history:
    Moonbeam was governor in the late ’70s, when CA went through its last major drought. Hair-shirt twit that he is, he suggested we all suffer together and did nothing to increase water storage. He has been in and out of gov’t since, never holding a job AFAIK, and always capable of influencing CA state policies; not one new water storage facility has been built since he was last governor.
    CA is again going through a drought, this time with the added vintage whine of ‘CLIMATE CHANGE!’, and moonbeam says ‘go to work stinky’. People are not happy.
    Now, you’d think the drought and the restive response to it would ring a bell with the greenies, but you’d be wrong; they have tin ears. They proposed to drain the reservoir (Hetch Hetchy) which provides drinking water to most of the Bay area and (renewable!) electric power to same.
    They lost on a ballot initiative, so they tried the courts:

    “Suit calling for draining Hetch Hetchy dismissed”
    […]
    “”The flooding of Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley was the only such destruction allowed in any of America’s national parks,” Rosekrans said. “San Francisco is a famously progressive and pro-environment city, and we believe it will eventually come around to embrace restoration.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..382484.php

    SF is certainly proggie enough to pull the knife, but I’m not sure the population is willing to lose the nose.

    1. Good grief, the people who want to ‘drain and restore’ Hetch Hetchy drive me crazy. That reservoir singlehandedly provides water to the entire city of San Francisco, how could you possibly replace that?

      “But there’s a beautiful mountain valley under that water!” these people say.

      I love mountains, valleys, cliffs, terrain, and views. Before my cancer seriously limited my ability to get around, hiking was my #1 pastime. So I understand the desire to restore natural beauty.

      But you know what? In California, we have an amazing overabundance of scenic natural beauty, and multiple national parks within our borders. What we don’t have an overabundance of is water.

      Sorry folks, sometimes you have to compromise for everyone else. Leave the damn reservoir alone, it takes care of over a million people. In exchange, you get to have all the rest of the incredible parks within the state, in which you can usually wander about almost completely alone with nature, they are so vast and underutilized.
      Be happy and stop whining!

      1. I agree, it is completely insane to assert that this particular area of those mountains was so uniquely beautiful that it must be “restored” as if “restoring” a valley that has been turned into a reservoir for 100 years is like, possible.

        I think these people do not realize that the SF Peninsula otherwise only has very limited freshwater.. a single lake and a few former creeks. Their beloved SF Public Parks, especially Golden Gate Park, would all be brown and/or sand dunes if they were not (quite wastefully… the substrate is… sand…) irrigated with Hetchy Hetchy water.

      2. “But you know what? In California, we have an amazing overabundance of scenic natural beauty, and multiple national parks within our borders. What we don’t have an overabundance of is water.”

        I have another problem here: The assumption that a pretty view is preferable to what humans need.
        What we have is a religious claim; that ‘my spiritual well-being’ trumps your ability to buy the water you need to live where you please.
        No, it doesn’t. Your ‘spiritual well-being’ is your value to buy on the market. It is not incumbent on me to provide it to you by going thirsty.

        1. I make a similar argument to Bay Area proggies when we talk about housing in SF.

          I propose decreasing the price of housing and increasing the amount of area available to housing by converting Golden Gate Park to housing. They respond, effectively, that it is more important to have the open park land than to lower the price of housing. They never realize how plainly this exposes their actual priorities, and just assert without support that we can have our cake and eat it too.

          I then point out to them that most parks in SF were formerly owned by rich residents whose conversion to parks had self-serving effects including no property tax, higher property value for their adjacent property and a guarantee that no one else would ever build there. “Got mine, up yours” but with an air of magnamity that merely fencing in the property would not produce…

          1. “I propose decreasing the price of housing and increasing the amount of area available to housing by converting Golden Gate Park to housing.”

            Wonderful! I get the same when I suggest the Presidio should be sold off to highest bidder; we’d get the most housing we could possibly get!
            And as a bonus, we could “mandate” BMR housing….
            Right over the Presidio wall from Pelosi’s domicile!

    2. not one new water storage facility has been built since he was last governor.

      This is mindblowing.

      1. And true.
        I think you have to understand that moonbeam was a Jesuit ‘candidate’ before he decided to suck the public teat; he and Nader are the major market for hair shirts in the US.
        ‘It is our DUTY to suffer before the Lord!’

  43. You know what would fix things for us here in California so that we wouldn’t have to care about what some nativist, backward asshole from a shithole in Arkansas thinks? If we just became our own country and left this dying, second-world tinpot banana republic to fight its idiotic wars with the idiots willing to fight them.

    1. american socialist|1.2.17 @ 10:16PM|#
      “You know what would fix things for us here in California”

      Yeah, asswipe, for you to die in a fire.
      Fuck off.

      1. That’s what they already have on the Mississippi Delta in this free market utopia. Most of the Welfare deadbeats there went for Trump and probably will tell us how great it is that they faught in Vietnam or Iraq to defend this great country. I say their suffering from a key delusion.

        1. ?\_(?)_/?

          Sounds like a welfare problem. The difference between Mississippi and California is nobody’s teeming to live in Mississippi. California would look like Venezuela with nicer beaches in short order because California has a lot of wealth to burn through, and there are plenty of dummies receptive to warmed-over Marxist kleptocracy.

        2. In the interest of making sure any third party reading this is dissuaded from a fantasy that asswipe has any point at all, let’s take this apart piece-by-piece:

          Asswipe posts at |1.2.17 @ 10:28PM|#
          “That’s what they already have on the Mississippi Delta in this free market utopia.”
          Notice there is a bald statement absent any evidence at all. IOWs, we are to accept the word of someone already suspect as a result of that claim.

          “Most of the Welfare deadbeats there went for Trump and probably will tell us how great it is that they faught in Vietnam or Iraq to defend this great country.”
          Slimy presumption of cultural and moral superiority from a pig who bailed on his mortgage.

          “I say their suffering from a key delusion.”
          Ha, ha.
          Fuck off, asswipe. You lost and it is well deserved.

    2. Wur smarter cuz we live near water.

    3. Please do. And then drain your reservoir so we don’t have to worry about getting you back.

  44. Random thought

    I was listening to Jeebus radio the other day, and learned something new. The preacher’s story began with a rebuffed attempt to sell girl scout cookies to people as they left church. The complaining church member cited the case of Jesus driving out the money changers from the temple.

    Then it got interesting. Why were there money changers at the temple? Well, according to this preacher, the Jewish high priests banned Roman coins from being brought in because they had Caesar’s face on them, thus making them blasphemous graven images. But people still needed to bring some kind of money into the temple so they good buy sacrificial animals. That’s where the money changers came in. You gave them your sinful Roman money and got kosher Jews-ney Land money.

    If you didn’t have any money or weren’t Jewish, you couldn’t enter the temple. So supposedly, what Jesus was angry about was not the presence of money or business, but the fact that all these crazy rules were preventing people from praying.

    1. The notes here indicate that the money was needed for the annual tax which Jewish men had to pay for the upkeep of the Temple. This would be in addition to the sheep, oxen and doves the Jews brought to Jerusalem for sacrifice.

      Also, the Temple has special significance in Christianity as well, since Christ is described as fulfilling the Temple’s sacrificial system. So it’s more than a regular building, but (during Christ’s ministry) the holiest place in the world.

      1. “The notes here indicate that the money was needed for the annual tax which Jewish men had to pay for the upkeep of the Temple.”

        That’s scripture; you may as well cite the Brothers Grimm.

        1. Jesus wasn’t anti business at all.

          He was pissed because they were doing business inside the church.

          He called it his Father’s House and was pretty pissed about people doing business in His Father’s house,

          Jesus wasn’t the pacifist he is made out to be. One of his disciples once pulled his sword and tried to decapitate a Roman soldier but only cut his ear off before Jesus told him to put his weapon up. I guess they didn’t go around unarmed.

          1. OneOut|1.3.17 @ 12:35AM|#
            “Jesus wasn’t anti business at all.”

            There has never been evidence there was a Jesus, so none of that matters.
            Again, a Brothers Grimm reference is as valid.

    2. Not only were they keeping people from praying, but they skimmed quite a bit off the top of the exchange from Roman to Temple coins. (Remember that usury was prohibited, so any interest charges were considered sinful.) It’s nearly impossible to compare the economics of late Antiquity to those of advanced industrial capitalism. It’s especially difficult to analyze the economics of religious participation, which was rather less optional than it is today. Participating in Temple rituals cemented a person into the community, which was required for any kind of business relationships, and which isn’t something we can really track today. Think of the moneylenders rather like licensing boards in the grip of particularly restrictive industries.

      1. “It’s nearly impossible to compare the economics of late Antiquity to those of advanced industrial capitalism. It’s especially difficult to analyze the economics of religious participation, which was rather less optional than it is today.
        […]
        Think of the moneylenders rather like licensing boards in the grip of particularly restrictive industries.”

        Seems you just did what you claimed you couldn’t do.
        BTW, the folks who wrote this: “Hellenistic Economies” ( amazon.com ) would disagree; goods and services (even prayer costs) traded at values determined determined by the seller and buyer.

        1. It’s really not that even that complicated by today’s standards. Anybody who’s ever gone to an arcade that uses tokens, or an amusement park that requires payment in some sort of fun bucks can recognize the scam. “Here, give us your useful money in exchange for some worthless scrip that is only useful her. No refunds.”

          The only real difference is that temple attendance was mandatory, while a trip to Chuck E. Chees isn’t.

          1. You should read “What Went Wrong” (Lewis)
            The Muslim ‘charitable organizations’ were all dodges to avoid the religious strictures on inheritances. No, those who pray to that sky-daddy are no more blind to gelt than those who buy the Pope’s hogwash.

  45. The Hairrival- a parody featuring Trump

  46. From the NYTimes: With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Hobble Independent Ethics Office

    “Mr. Goodlatte defended the action in a statement issued Monday evening, saying it would strengthen ethics oversight in the House while also giving lawmakers better protections against what some members have called overzealous efforts by the Office of Congressional Ethics.”

    Hah, tell that to Hillary Clinton who got hounded by these assholes because she failed to upgrade her Norton antivirus software. What a joke.

    Let the grifting begin.

      1. Waiting for Mr. Goodlatte

        /modern remake of old Diane Keaton movie

    1. american socialist|1.2.17 @ 10:46PM|#
      “Hah, tell that to Hillary Clinton who got hounded by these assholes because she failed to upgrade her Norton antivirus software.”

      Hah, tell that to lying lefty asswipes who are still trying to cure their butt-hurts.
      I guess you got THAT strawman, asswipe.
      Oh, and fuck off.

    1. *** wipes tears ***

      Sheesh, D — You’re killing me!

  47. Are there any commercial aircraft builders who don’t exist on taxpayer money?

    “Check out Delta’s new Canadian airliner that’s trying to challenge Boeing and Airbus (DAL, BBD.B)”
    […]
    ” The decision to enter the market with the C Series was a major financial gamble for Bombardier, with a program price tag of $5.5 billion. Since its inception more than a decade ago, the aircraft has been beset by a series of development delays and slow sales.
    In 2015, the airplane maker was forced to write down $4.4 billion and take a $1 billion bailout from the Quebec government.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..830837.php

    1. It’s also regulated to death, the reason planes cost so much to build is the FAA approves every single piece. The FAA may be singlehandedly responsible for removing Boeing’s hold on airline manufacturing. If the Wright brothers existed with the FAA they would have been shut down before thier first fligh.

      Our economy is 1/3 people killing the business with regulation, 1/3 people giving them subsidies to stay open, and the last 1/3 skimming thier profits,

  48. I have read Borjas’s “We Wanted Workers” book, and there is some loss in low skill job opportunity, but that is still a weak reason. The stronger reasons that convince me to support sharp reductions in legal immigration are the obvious conflicts with the ideas of universal suffrage and equality of opportunity and equality of medical care and the welfare state. If immigrants were strictly economic actors and you eliminated the other voting, and cultural aspects of immigration, I would support it. For example, I look at the radical demographic transformation of France from an ethnic nation state of mostly ethnic French to a multicultural ethnic neutral nation and it doesn’t look positive. I’m sure it’s provided benefits for immigrants but often at great cost to the previous ethnic French.

    Japan has successfully prevented non-Japanese or at least non-Korean/Chinese/Japanese ethnic immigration successfully. That seems like it served the interest of the current residents of Japan. I don’t think immigrating large numbers of rival ethnic groups would have had a positive net effect.

    1. That seems like it served the interest of the current residents of Japan.

      The key word here is “seems.”

      Japan needs young people, and it is (like most first world countries, but more so..) not producing enough young Japanese people. The aging status quo serves itself and screws over their domestic young people, many of whom respond rationally not bothering to try to marry or make anythings of themselves in a world that serves the old. Google the acronym “NEET” with the word “Japan” if you want to learn more.

      Eventually Japan will be forced to get young people wherever they can, and it will be too little and too late, especially because they will have no experience whatsoever integrating outsiders into their society.

      The idea that any first world nation (all of whom reproduce below replacement rate, with the US among the best due to our fertile first and second generation immigrants) can be closed to young immigrants or at very least young migrant workers does not seem economically sustainable through the 21st century. What cannot last will not.

      1. Just to add a bit to how the Japanese govt screws over the young, you can add the mandatory pension scheme which they’re monkeying with now to keep it somewhat solvent. Young people I talk to realize they won’t be getting much out of it when they retire. The national healthcare system which doesn’t require the elderly to pay for visits. I used to have to pay 10% for each visit but now, 15 years later, I have to pay 30%. They also regulate children’s daycare to such an extent that even with the low birthrate there’s a shortage of daycare facilities. It’s like they’re intentionally trying to get people to not start families.

      2. What cannot last is the welfare state that redistributes wealth from the young to the old.

  49. “Historic SF parental leave law kicks in”
    […]
    “The law, unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in April, seeks to encourage bonding between parents and their new children, and applies to mothers and fathers who have a baby together by birth, adopt or become foster parents. It also extends to same-sex couples.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..831209.php

    It also seeks to result in fewer jobs, but none of the BoS is gonna get fired, so they don’t care.

    1. Jesus Christ, I don’t know what I hate the most about that article…

      1) Their justifying parental leave as “essential bonding time” with their new child, but never explain on what theory this benefits whom and in what way

      2) The Weiner staffer who realized how unjust the current system was when he was personally affected, and is super proud then realized that the solution was for new law that would benefit him personally

      3) The fact that the law allows the “leave” to be spread across 12 months, so the semi-reasonable idea of a chunk of time to “bond” with your new child and adjust to your new routine becomes, in practice, “three day weekends for most of the year if you have a kid”

      4) The wholly unsupported idea that “corporations” will be forced to pay for this out of their profits, instead of just working non-parents harder and raising their prices, and trying to avoid hiring people who are or may become parents

      1. How about the self-preening in ignoring the jobs that will be lost as a result? That’s one of my favorites!
        Pretty sure none of the current BoS has ever held a job. Of course the opposite (‘he’s never sucked at the public teat!’) is considered at valid gripe about Trump.
        BTW, when Oakland raised the M/W, the Salvation Army warned the supes that it would cause the firing of staff currently providing child care to indigent single mothers who held a job as a result.
        The Oakland supes passed the law, the staff lost the jobs, the mothers quit their jobs, and the SEIU claimed victory and the local ‘news’ outfits said ‘It’s warmer than ever here!’
        Man, the left has made me a defender of that blowhard!

        1. Yeah, those BoS guys are assholes. Everytime some farmer picks up a laser rifle to pick off a molerat, the BoS intervenes to take away a farmer’s right to own a laser rifle.

  50. Okay, so now they want to keep out legal immigrants too.

    At what point can we call the Trumpists isolationists?

    1. It depends. When I am allowed to bitch that H1-B visas create a group of second class citizens that aren’t allowed to look for better paying jobs?

      I’ve got nothing against the immigrants, but I do have a problem with perverse government incentives that make it more desirable to import an immigrant than to hire a native.

    2. It depends. When I am allowed to bitch that H1-B visas create a group of second class citizens that aren’t allowed to look for better paying jobs?

      I’ve got nothing against the immigrants, but I do have a problem with perverse government incentives that make it more desirable to import an immigrant than to hire a native.

  51. America is one GIANT piece of land, and hardly anyone lives in Alaska, which is almost as big as Canada. When things go bad in some parts of the country, Americans can move somewhere real far away where tax and social policies might be a whole lot different.

    I live in a state with the most immigrants and given the rising poverty rate and housing cost (it’s unholy), it’s no wonder that some Latinos might want to move out, even to places like Detroit. That’s an argument for sane economic policy, not increased immigration. Most immigrants pack 4,5 states that have entrenched ethnic zones. If places like CA goes bust massive immigration will put a ton of burden on other states which do not have that state’s level of economy.

    I have no issues with legal immigration. They’re just not a solution as most libertarians think. The student activists and Asian stemmers are only the surface.

    1. I hear it’s fucking cold in Alaska.

      I don’t know that most libertarians think immigration universally solves the world’s problems or whatever (the way leftists, for example, believe it solves the problems of the groups of people that matter to them to the expense of groups of people they hate). It’s more of a principled view that some asshole or groups of assholes has no business telling other people where they can and can’t go or who they can or can’t hire.

  52. Tell Mexico to close its southern border and get rid of the drug cartels. When that is accomplished then open border with Mexico. Latinos have a work and family ethic that the average American would do well to emulate.

  53. ” . . . . the ravages of the restrictive immigration policy wrought by the nativism of the early 20th century?”

    Wow – isn’t that a bit over the top?

    There were many benefits to the middle class that derived from the Immigration Act of 1924. And I was one of the beneficiaries during the 1950s, 1950s and 1960s. Affordable rent, affordable houses, good jobs, low college tuition, . . .

    “The three decades . . . from the mid forties to the mid seventies, were the golden age of manual labor.”
    * * * Why were times so good for blue collar workers? To some extent they were helped by the state of the world economy. * * *
    They were also helped by a scarcity of labor created by the severe immigration restrictions imposed by the Immigration Act of 1924.” Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal, Chapter 3 (pages 48-49)

  54. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ================ http://www.homejobs7.com

  55. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ================ http://www.homejobs7.com

  56. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  57. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homejobs7.com

  58. my roomate’s step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  59. uptil I saw the paycheck for $7608 , I accept that…my… friend woz realey bringing home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunts neighbour has done this for under 18 months and at present paid the loans on there house and purchased a new Chrysler . Check This Out

    ==================== http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.