The George Will Take On Migrant Kids: For Or Against?
Will, via The Blaze, talking to Fox News' Chris Wallace:
"We ought to say to these children, 'Welcome to America, you're going to go to school and get a job and become Americans,'" Will said on the Sunday morning show. "We have 3,141 counties in this country. That would be 20 [children] per county. The idea that we can't assimilate these 8-year-old 'criminals' with their teddy bears is preposterous."Wallace stammered as he interjected that he predicted viewers would write in and criticize Will's position.
"We can handle this problem," Will said. "We've handled what Emma Lazarus famously called 'the wretched refuse of your teeming shores' a long time ago and [it was] a lot more people than this."
Milton Friedman said we can't have open immigration while we have The Welfare State.
Your take?
We do not have the resources to accept these children.
Many American families would accept these children into their homes. More than are needed to house them.
Both of these statements are true.
PS we don't have a welfare state of the sort Friedman was describing. Don't be a purveyor of derp.
Chirp at July 27, 2014 10:40 PM
> Milton Friedman said we can't have open immigration while we have The Welfare State.
And Paul Krugman has said the same thing.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/
"open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global."
The problem I have with opening the borders to these kids is the positive feedback loop it sets up.
The kids who really are refugees from crime, health issues, etc., should be let in. The kids who are just wishful immigrants should find their place in line.
If folks want to reform the immigration process, fine. But not do end runs around it.
jerry at July 27, 2014 11:07 PM
This ain't immigration. Will knows full well that NO ONE is asking these people to "assimilate."
No one supporting this wave of reckless border-crossings —not columnist George Will, not industrialist Bill Gates, not financier Warren Buffet— is the sort of person whose livelihood or family development will be personally affected by these people, or the wealth and stability they're about to remove from our society, whether by remittance or by sheer illiteracy. They just don't give a fuck.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 28, 2014 12:00 AM
The idea that each additional person entering this country is a loss for people already here doesn't indicate a nuanced view of the economic impact of immigration. If "the country" can't afford to assimilate this children, then it follows that it couldn't afford to assimilate children people are having here or bringing in legally. How about a 1-child policy?
But that is nonsense. How about a government solution that involves government doing less, not more. How about ending the drug war that drives people north? How about letting the parents come too? How about not creating a war zone out of wide swaths of Latin America and then forcing the refugees from that violence to stay there?
geogavino at July 28, 2014 1:55 AM
> The idea that each additional person entering
> this country is a loss for people already here
…Such a suggestion is nowhere in evidence…
> doesn't indicate a nuanced view of the
> economic impact of immigration.
…But whether present or not, it's likely that nobody's too concerned with reassuring you that their owns views are handsomely subtle.
So there's that.
> If "the country" can't afford to assimilate
> this children
What's with the quotation marks? Who are you you quoting? What distance, irony, or shade of meaning are you hoping to convey through weird punctuation?
(That's a serious question, but the way. I'm not being rhetorical. I wanna know what you have on your mind when you do that… Because I "bet" you do it more "often" than you should.)
> then it follows that it couldn't afford to
> assimilate children people are having here
> or bringing in legally.
First: There's no reason to think that any such thing "follows." You made it up. It makes perfect sense that the integration of immigrants is a process deserving administrative and procedural tidiness. The United States is the undisputed world leader at this, and not just historically: Across my generation, we've welcomed more immigrants than the rest of the world's nations put together. In political work, I personally have greeted thousands at time following swearing-in ceremonies at the L.A. Convention Center.
That's not what's happening this year.
The Obama Administration and bipartisan government zombies, nourished by similarly detached business heavyweights, are simply disassembling our borders... Attracting precisely the caliber of laborers who can't find work even as natives. These monstrous elites are that desperate for votes, and for (essentially) slave labor.
I don't think the drug war is your concern at all.
Nor do I believe, even for a moment, that you've ever sent aid from your own wallet —which is the only charity that counts— to needy strangers of foreign lands, either in situ or upon their arrival at our shores.
To pretend something is so important that (only) everyone else should work to make it happen is indecent. You're composing your beliefs to flatter yourself. You're trying to get to Heaven on someone else's dime.
That's not how it works.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 28, 2014 2:31 AM
PS we don't have a welfare state of the sort Friedman was describing. Don't be a purveyor of derp.
Feel free to tell me how I got this wrong. California, for example, is paying billions in benefits for illegal immigrants.
http://www.fairus.org/news/illegal-immigration-costs-california-taxpayers-more-than-25-billion-a-year-finds-fair
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2014 5:38 AM
So fine, George Will thinks the eight year olds with Teddy bears can be assimilated.
How about the 18 year old drug cartel member?
Is George taking a few of those under his roof?
Isab at July 28, 2014 5:56 AM
Today it's 20 children per county.
Next year it will be 200.
What happens when it is 2,000?
And the Usual Suspects demand they be educated in their native tongue, and taught their native traditions?
So, no, do the humane thing and send them back to their families. Actual orphans? we can discuss that, but I'm sure it's less than 2 children per county.
Elian Gonzales, anyone?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2014 6:05 AM
60,000 this month, that were caught. We couldn't handle the 10,00 it used to be before Obama invited them, it has rapidly grown in the past year, with no sign of slowing.
This is in addition to the millions already here.
To me the solution is to have George put their money where their mouth is. Put all 60,000 plus any others you catch at his place or the White House, and don't let them leave.
Joe J at July 28, 2014 6:30 AM
" Bring us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses...yada,yada."
Used to be true. We don't have the money, resources, or space to care for them now. Especially true if the borders really open up and, as IRA Darth says, 20 becomes 200 becomes 2000.
Nick at July 28, 2014 8:08 AM
Arriving this autumn on the shelves of your local bookstore, Amazon.com, and as an audiobook from Audible, "George Will and the Too-Tight Bowtie."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 28, 2014 8:41 AM
How in the hell can you protest allowing immigrants before amending the law while supporting the use of drugs before amending the law?
Consistency - n - a property of logic totally foreign to the human mind, naturally biased towards rewarding itself for infinite cunning for being first of the lemmings to reach the cliff.
Radwaste at July 28, 2014 9:41 AM
How in the hell can you protest allowing immigrants before amending the law while supporting the use of drugs before amending the law?
Consistency - n - a property of logic totally foreign to the human mind, naturally biased towards rewarding itself for infinite cunning for being first of the lemmings to reach the cliff.
Becuase immigration laws were set up to prevent the wrong kind of people from comming in and being a drain on society.
Drug laws were enacted because white voters were told rampaging niggers were gonna rape their daughters and their daughters would fucking love it
lujlp at July 28, 2014 10:23 AM
Let in as many as can get adopted by willing parents. There'll be more 8-year-olds with teddies than 17-year-old drug cartels.
If the number is 0, it's 0. But I'm willing to bet that plenty of pre-pubescent healthy kids without major disabilities will get adopted.
NicoleK at July 28, 2014 10:27 AM
If the number is 0, it's 0. But I'm willing to bet that plenty of pre-pubescent healthy kids without major disabilities will get adopted.
Posted by: NicoleK at July 28, 2014 10:27 AM
Nicole, I think you are dreaming. Having a minor child costs a family who are a two earner couple about a thousand dollars a month. There are literally thousands of kids born in America which are much more adoptable than these Central American children, and the great majority stay in Foster care until they are 18, at public expense.q
American families wanting to adopt, are almost all looking for infants. These are the babies that get adopted. White American or foreign babies.
Almost all of these kids will end up in Foster families, on AFDC, at a cost of billions to the American tax payer.
And if one of those drug cartel gang bangers, happens to run over you or your kids, fleeing the police, I wish you well, in rationalizing it away, as an unavoidable tragedy.
Isab at July 28, 2014 10:43 AM
Rad, the consistency is in advocating for what is ethical, regardless of whether it is legal.
Luj - way to get to the point!
Michelle at July 28, 2014 11:04 AM
Will is thinking only of the static aspect of the problem, not the dynamic aspect. (And I'll wager someone proximate to him has an immigrant au pair).
Art Deco at July 28, 2014 11:25 AM
I agree with Milt. We are ALL immigrants here (except for the Indians). Our parents and grandparents came here looking for a better life. They didn't get support from the state, but depended on their own initiative, friends and community.
The welfare state is wrong. It's wrong for the refugees and it's wrong for the millions of able bodied Americans who would rather that YOU supported them involuntarily.
Close the welfare system and open the borders.
EarlW at July 28, 2014 12:05 PM
I dunno, Isab, before I got pregnant I was feeling hopeless and started looking at adoption websites. Kids who weren't severely handicapped were few and far between. Maybe I was looking at the wrong websites. I would've taken a healthy Mexican kid if I'd found one. I know it sounds cold but I wasn't ready to deal with the level of disability the kids on the sites I saw had.
NicoleK at July 28, 2014 12:12 PM
I dunno, Isab, before I got pregnant I was feeling hopeless and started looking at adoption websites. Kids who weren't severely handicapped were few and far between. Maybe I was looking at the wrong websites. I would've taken a healthy Mexican kid if I'd found one. I know it sounds cold but I wasn't ready to deal with the level of disability the kids on the sites I saw had.
Posted by: NicoleK at July 28, 2014 12:12 PM
This is known as anecdotal evidence. The truth about adoption in the US is screamingly evident if you look at the numbers.
Older children adopted out of the Foster care program come with large government subsidies to offset the costs of caring for them.
Still there are at least 100 thousand kids in the Foster care system eligible for adoption.
I suppose you think it is just fine if the government diverts all the subsidies available for these American citizens over to finance the adoption of the illegals from Central America?
Many of the little girls and boys have been raped on the way here. Do you really think they are in better shape than the US kids with emotional problems you claim are not adoptable?
First time they try giving one of these Latino kids to an older Jewish couple, watch what happens. The grievance industry will insist that only Catholic Hispanics should be eligible to adopt these kids.
They have, and will be given to adult illegals who claim to be family members, no questions asked.
Perhaps we should just print more money?
Isab at July 28, 2014 12:57 PM
> We are ALL immigrants here (except
> for the Indians)
And blowing snot is totes fun, right?
There's this weird thing where people want to pretend that America isn't about principles and character... They want to pretend it's a comicbook superpower, a magical machine like Doc Brown's Delorean or something... A brushed aluminum trickbox which can take any kind of savage at the front end of the funnel and get squirt a happy family of four in a Prius at the other end, with braces on the kid's teeth.
You think it doesn't matter whether the person entering the system gives a rat's ass about anything... You don't care if they're yearning to be free or if they're yearning for anything at all. You think our heritage is a parlor trick.
It isn't. American excellence is a continuing, conscious challenge, not a sorcerer's one-shot benediction.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 28, 2014 12:59 PM
Funny how earlier in the thread, "yearning to be free" was translated into "yada yada yada."
You don't even want to think about it. You certainly don't want to say the words... They might be unpleasant!
(Emphasis: Uncle Cridmo)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 28, 2014 1:06 PM
"Those scraggly Latino kids on the corner you might think are thugs could be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg if given half a chance.'
Because robots, you despicable racist bastids.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 28, 2014 1:21 PM
Luj and Michelle: wrong. That is not why drug laws were and are enacted.
By the way – you should walk around any small town and see who the dealers are. I'm sure you won't like the result, given your assertion anymore than you like being called for being inconsistent.
Meanwhile, if you change the law, then you do not have to deal with the direct and correct accusation that you support breaking the law.
Radwaste at July 28, 2014 1:34 PM
"PS we don't have a welfare state of the sort Friedman was describing. Don't be a purveyor of derp."
Hey Chirp. Care to explain? I know, and agree with, Friedman's descriptions. What is yours? This is kind of a mute question since you appear to be one of those seagull posters.
Dave B at July 28, 2014 2:21 PM
"We are ALL immigrants here (except for the Indians)."
Actually, we don't know that. Did God, or Nature, create Indians right here?
Dave B at July 28, 2014 2:26 PM
"We are ALL immigrants here (except for the Indians)."
The only Indians in the USA are from India, many on our screw-the-American-workforce H1B visa program.
If you mean 'Native Americans', they came here 15,000 years ago across the Siberia land bridge.
At least the USA has learned one thing: if you let the 'invaders' take your land, they'll keep it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 28, 2014 2:50 PM
To Gog: George Carlin had a few words about how sick he was of Americans' worship of the British:
http://www.georgecarlinrip.com/2012/06/families-worth-loathing.html
"And I’m really glad the black, tan, and brown people of the world, f----- over by the English for so long, are coming home to Mother England to claim their property. England is now being invaded by the very people she plundered. They’re flying, sailing, swimming, and rowing home to the seat of Empire, looking to the Crown: 'Hey, mon! What about de food stamps?' ”
I'm guessing he might (eventually, if he didn't) have said something similar about the Mexicans reclaiming Texas.
And I have to wonder: Why do certain American columnists complain about the low birthrate here and then complain about the migrants, when anyone should know by now that even rich American couples do not necessarily WANT kids? Maybe we have to take what we get and not whine about it? After all, the poor people in any country usually(?) reproduce more, so either way, the American taxpayer will end up supporting poor children.
lenona at July 28, 2014 3:08 PM
you should walk around any small town and see who the dealers are
Before prohibition it was the Sears catalog with an assist from the USPS, and the Coca Cola Corporation.
That is not why drug laws were and are enacted
Were? yes it was.
Are? now its about stopping people from harming themselves.
Either way its all about fear
lujlp at July 28, 2014 3:10 PM
So Native Americans aren't native to America. Isn't that interesting. So, where is it written that the one that arrives first owns it. Has this rule been followed through out history or is it just cover certain people?
"At least the USA has learned one thing: if you let the 'invaders' take your land, they'll keep it."
If you know anything about history, this isn't just an American thing. Actually, your statement is quite silly.
Dave B at July 28, 2014 3:11 PM
And I have to wonder: Why do certain American columnists complain about the low birthrate here and then complain about the migrants, when anyone should know by now that even rich American couples do not necessarily WANT kids? Maybe we have to take what we get and not whine about it? After all, the poor people in any country usually(?) reproduce more, so either way, the American taxpayer will end up supporting poor children.
Posted by: lenona at July 28, 2014 3:08 PM
Because there is a very strong correlation between richness, and the kind of technical know how that keeps civilization running. Unless we can build a bunch of fix it robots that will run forever, civilization will end when the average IQ and the work ethic of the population drops to a point, where it can no longer has the skills or the motivation to maintain or build the stuff that makes modern life possible.
After that the government survives on providing bread, and circuses until they run out of money to keep a lid on the violence.
Africa is not poor because of a lack of natural resources. It is poor because the people there cant maintain enough law and order or skilled people to allow wealth building.
The first recourse of a country that cannot produce is to become a kleptocracy.
When the US becomes a kleptocracy, because we have too many citizens voting for one, we are done as a civilized country.
It is those anti wealth producing values, that we cant afford to assimilate, not the people per se.
Isab at July 28, 2014 3:43 PM
"Actually, your statement is quite silly."
No sillier than saying the only people allowed to claim 'dibs' in the USA are the ones who arrived 15,000 years ago and lost their land to a culture with paper, iron, steel, gunpowder, horses, an alphabet, and a bizarre belief that everyone else sucked donkey balls.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 28, 2014 5:35 PM
"We can handle this problem," Will said. "We've handled what Emma Lazarus famously called 'the wretched refuse of your teeming shores' a long time ago and [it was] a lot more people than this."
The wretched refuse back then were willing to assimilate, work hard to provide for their families and their children's future, and were proud to become Americans.
The wretched refuse today often do NOT assimilate, work hard at trying to get free stuff, and are proud of NOT being Americans.
There IS a difference.
Charles at July 28, 2014 5:59 PM
A lot of these UnAcompanied Children would be better labeled UnAcompanied Minors. That is they are 12 or older and many are members of the MS-13 gang with the tattoos to prove it.
Then many have TB, scabies, and various other disorders. The ICE agents and border patrol have taken to staying away from home so they don't infect their family. They're also taking a change of clothes and washing their uniforms in laundromats before going home.
What we should be doing with them is to get them healed up and cleaned up. Then put them n a plane back to their country of origin. When the plane lands put the kids in the terminal under control of the local law enforcement and leave.
Let them figure out where they belong. And do the same with adults.
Jim P. at July 28, 2014 6:00 PM
Previous commenter:
"What's with the quotation marks? Who are you you quoting? What distance, irony, or shade of meaning are you hoping to convey through weird punctuation?"
Quotation marks are not only used for direct quotation. Nor are they weird or indicative of some shade of meaning. I don't use them particularly often, as you've intuited out of nothing. If you really want me to explain why I think arguments involving what "the country" does are ambiguous, I will. It should suffice to say that nobody has the knowledge to determine what "the country" or "we" can afford. Only free markets can.
"...The United States is the undisputed world leader at this, and not just historically: Across my generation, we've welcomed more immigrants than the rest of the world's nations put together. In political work, I personally have greeted thousands at time following swearing-in ceremonies at the L.A. Convention Center."
Are you really saying that the quantity of immigrants to the US in your lifetime exceeds the quantity of immigrants everywhere else combined? Do you have numbers to show this? It's a pretty picture, but I'm skeptical. That said, I agree that the US has historically allowed more immigration and that is a great thing. Many welcomed them. Many did not. Many others reviled them. Some even fought them. Get ready to decipher another set of quotation marks. Your use of the term "we" is ambiguous, especially given the billions spent on restricting migration rather than addressing the billions spent encouraging it through failed policies like proxy wars south of the border and a welfare state north of it. If you're welcoming people, then good for you.
"The Obama Administration and bipartisan government zombies, nourished by similarly detached business heavyweights, are simply disassembling our borders... Attracting precisely the caliber of laborers who can't find work even as natives. These monstrous elites are that desperate for votes, and for (essentially) slave labor."
Exactly how are borders being dissembled. They have never been more assembled. At what point in US history were the borders more policed? At what point was there a bigger wall? More money spent? More privacy compromised and invaded? Laborers emigrate specifically to places where they can find work. In my experience, they compare favorably with native workers. That is why they find work. Perhaps I'm failing to decipher your shade of meaning, but if you're suggesting that some seek handouts, then I agree. Again, on that mark, they compare favorably with native workers. Confining labor markets and migration is not the answer. Removing root causes of distortions, as I alluded to before, is better.
"To pretend something is so important that (only) everyone else should work to make it happen is indecent. You're composing your beliefs to flatter yourself. You're trying to get to Heaven on someone else's dime."
Apparently, you've described my motivation and background in the way that suits you. That makes you feel that you work and I don't. But your description is manufactured from nothing. What I seek is a world where interactions between individuals are voluntary, not coerced. I have no claim to your dime, nor do you have a claim to mine.
geogavino at July 28, 2014 6:43 PM
Rad, I was referring to Amy's consistency.
(That sentence looks weird in print, but I'm sticking with it.)
Michelle at July 28, 2014 7:20 PM
Apparently, you've described my motivation and background in the way that suits you. That makes you feel that you work and I don't. But your description is manufactured from nothing. What I seek is a world where interactions between individuals are voluntary, not coerced. I have no claim to your dime, nor do you have a claim to mine.
Posted by: geogavino at July 28, 2014 6:43 PM
Dream on, because if you truly believe that kind of world is actually possible, you are a bigger fool than the socialists.
Isab at July 28, 2014 7:43 PM
I am for open immigration, but that sign we have in the front of the Statue of Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." Can't we just say, "Hey, the door's open. We'll take whoever you got." Do we have to specify "The wretched refuse?" Why not just say, "Give us the unhappy, the sad, the slow, the ugly, the people that can't drive, people that have trouble merging, if they can't stay in their lane, if they don't signal, they can't parallel park, if they're sneezing, if they're stuffed up, if they have bad penmanship, if they don't return calls, if they have dandruff, food between their teeth, if they have bad credit, if they have no credit, missed a spot shaving.... In other words, any dysfunctional, defective slob that you can somehow cattle prod onto a wagon, send them over. We want them." ~ Jerry Seinfeld
==============================
Nope. We're all immigrants. The "native" Americans got here across a land bridge from Siberia (or on a Polynesian raft, depending upon which theory you subscribe to).
Conan the Grammarian at July 28, 2014 8:17 PM
> It should suffice to say that nobody
> has the knowledge to determine what
> "the country" or "we" can afford.
[1.] You write all ninnyish.
[2.] You did it again, twice.
[3.] Did you go to college?
[4.] Also, it's a silly thing to say: It's demented and irresponsible, not ethereal and humble. If nobody knows, let's fire Congress.
Let's fire congress anyway, but you see my point.
> Are you really saying that…
Never translate: I'm good at this, I said what I meant, and it's right there on this selfsame webpage.
> Do you have numbers to show this?
Yonder. Golly... Because your opinions are so tightly formed, I'm surprised you didn't have a cite of your own.
> Your use of the term "we" is ambiguous
So that's a no for the college thing, right? I've learned that GED people often come to this blog to play a game called Edjumucated!, where they pretend plain language is complex, and then they quibble all prissy 'n tweed-like.
> At what point in US history were the
> borders more policed?
Eh, Autumn 2013.
> What I seek is a world where
Do you get laid at parties? Suffice-ly? "In a world where nobody knows what Americans can afford, one man stands alone..."
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 28, 2014 10:01 PM
Who goes through their day thinking "we" is a term?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 28, 2014 10:10 PM
To Isab: So, you're saying you don't mind if the poor completely stop reproducing - and the upper classes only have 1.5 child per couple or so, even though this would likely create economic havoc in various ways within a generation or two?
Granted, I, for one, like the idea of seeing the global population drop back to 6 billion or fewer - but since most(?) people don't, for whatever reason, we can't just order people to have children they don't want when there are already millions of unwanted, abused children around the world - in all economic classes. Not to mention that couples who WANT children but can't afford them are only being responsible when they avoid having them. So maybe, in the not-so-distant future, we'll have to focus a lot more on the problems of the poor, especially regarding education and job opportunities, if we want to remain a strong nation.
lenona at July 29, 2014 6:59 AM
I get George's point, but we no longer have the means to execute that plan. Back in the days when we had a system of orphanages, we might have been able to do it.
Cousin Dave at July 29, 2014 7:08 AM
"To Isab: So, you're saying you don't mind if the poor completely stop reproducing - and the upper classes only have 1.5 child per couple or so, even though this would likely create economic havoc in various ways within a generation or two?"
No, whether I mind or not is completely beside the point. I would like skilled industrious people to have more children, but that would probably only delay the inevitable.
I think the world in general will return to a state of barbarism in less than two hundred years, and then the gene pool will start selecting for intelligence again, in a post technical society.
It takes smarts and industry keep yourself and your kids alive without the trappings of civilization,
This will drive the average intelligence back up slowly.
Isab at July 29, 2014 1:19 PM
To Isab: So, you're saying you don't mind if the poor completely stop reproducing - and the upper classes only have 1.5 child per couple or so, even though this would likely create economic havoc in various ways within a generation or two?
Personally dont give a fuck to the economic havoc that will be wrought when the reproduction ponzi scheme come to an end.
The LONGER that takes to end the more people that will die of starvation and war.
I'm sure most people would rather deal with poverty and the loss of a big screen tv and dying in their 60 for lack of billions of taxpayer subsidized medical care than deal with 90% of their families dying of starvation before 20 if the reproductive bubble bursts at the same moment we run out of easily extract`able oil
lujlp at July 29, 2014 1:49 PM
Crid.
Hey Crid, it is "...yearning to breathe free."
Nick at July 29, 2014 4:48 PM
Busted
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 2, 2014 3:47 PM
Leave a comment