I'll Take Ron Paul On Immigration
No, I'm not a fan of his on other levels, and no, I don't think he'll be a serious candidate. And maybe the latter point is why you can't say he's not exactly pandering to the Latino vote. Here's a piece Paul has on LewRockwell.com about immigration. I particularly like the bit about ending birthright citizenship -- an outdated practice:
We're often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we're coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans -- including immigrants -- want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.
We're often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume -- especially medical care.
We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.
Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
What if, not just Mexican illegal immigrants come over and have babies, but, say, Islamist mommies? It's a changed world we're living in, and this isn't just an economic issue but a security issue.
As far as amnesty to illegals I'm actually torn. On one hand we are rewarding illegal behavior yes. It's not fair to ALL those poor suffering mistreated people patiently waiting in line (note dripping sarcasm). On the other hand if they become legal then they get to pay taxes and have the benefits of naturalized citizens. If the illegals have the benefits of citizen workers then they have to be collecting minimum wage and other benefits. This would even the playing field for citizens since the cost of employment becomes equal.
As far as those poor unfortunates waiting in line for immigration? Horse shit, these people are in this country legally by the thinest definition of the word. They are here on student visas or guest/visitor visa. Most got the visas under false pretenses. They got the visas with the intent to immigrate which is technically illegal. There are a few exceptions: "Extraordinary Ability Visas" is the most common version. A US company brings someone here (so they pay US taxes), pays all legal expenses and employs them full time. These are extremely rare.
Also you wouldn't believe what counts as legal immigration under political asylum. If you are from mainland china and you have a child and your now pregnant with a second child you qualify for asylum. You are cleared for political asylum in the US by breaking the laws of your own country.
On one hand you have the idea that the law is the law. On the other hand you have to wonder what kind and how many pharmaceuticals someone was on for certain laws to sound like a good idea.
vlad at January 7, 2008 8:25 AM
Illegal immigration is a sticky subject, and one that's not easily solved. However, I have a huge issue with the thought that illegals "do the jobs legal residents aren't willing to". Honestly, the thought makes me furious.
First of all, it's completely untrue that legal residents are unwilling to do these jobs. I've seen people of all races working in both the best and the worst jobs. Secondly, this is basically advocating a second form of slavery. Sure, they're *willing* to work here for obscenely low pay, but that means for them it's basically a choice between a horrible situation and a slightly less horrible situation. Third, this really doesn't save consumers money. Usually it's just inflating a company's profit, or making another middle man. For example, in the construction industry a reputable contractor hires a shady subcontractor who has absolutely no problem in hiring illegals. All that sub-minimum wage illegal labor does is fatten the pockets of the people who exploit them.
The minimum wage is there for a reason, to keep the working class from being exploited. Hiring illegal immigrants bypasses that. Honestly, there are two things that should be done to crack down on this - Severely penalize companies that hire illegal immigrants, and push Mexico to raise its standard of living.
Bad Kitty at January 7, 2008 10:18 AM
We should be using immigration policy to steal Russian scientists. Russia hasn't completely recovered from losing the Cold War yet so the window of opportunity remains. Immigration policy is a tool and where I come from you use tools to fix things. The United States is suffering from religious fanaticism & what it needs is a healthy dose of godless Russian scientists to put it back on course.
William at January 7, 2008 11:29 AM
Uh, William, perhaps news hasn't yet traveled to the Scientology bunker about a crazy little thing called capitalism. We don't need to "steal Russian scientists." We just need to be willing to pay them enough to come here, then fill out the paperwork for a tech exemption.
You've already revealed yourself to be a Scientology nutter who stumps for David Miscavige to be president. Don't think you can sputter a bit about godlessness and we'll all forget about the loopy stuff you've posted elsewhere on the site.
Amy Alkon at January 7, 2008 11:36 AM
Ron Paul doesn't creep me out.
Ron Paul supporters creep me out.
Seriously, every encounter I have with them involves bizarro-conspiracy rants defaced onto public property.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at January 7, 2008 11:40 AM
er, yeah... until you can control a thing, you can't really regulate it. For me that makes the question about regulating immigration a moot point. We don't worry about Canadians sneaking in to take away our jobs, because they have no incentive to do so. That makes that border a security question, but other than that, self-regulating. The souther border on the other hand... Anyone sneaking in that way has a tremendous incentive to get here, and only the conditions of crossing to worry over. We don't throw them in jail for years if we catch them, we just send them back.
So. Until we control the southern border in a serious way, or it becomes DIS-advantageous to be here, they will still come. It would be by far cheaper to bite the bullet, build a decent border wall, with an actual patrol to monitor, AND THEN fix the immigration questions. Or, we should just implement a Marshall plan, or annex Mexico, to make it more advantageous to stay home. Since Mexico is a sovereign nation, I don't see either of those things being an option. It is, however, advantageous for Mexico to do nothing about the outflow, because it's a saftey valve for them. They would have some real problems at home if their dissaffected couldn't come here...
As we saw with the amnesty in the 80's... if you just give people amnesty, and then change nothing else? In 20 years there are 12 million more illegal immigrants to worry about.
Until we control the border? No decision we make will work. IMHO, natch.
SwissArmyD at January 7, 2008 12:02 PM
Just like Huck and his "fair tax", there's one thing in the way - the Constitution. Specifically, the fourteenth amendment.
If you want to eliminate "anchor babies" then you need to modify the 14th amendment.
And who thinks that legalizing those 12 million won't lead to having 12 million unemployed Mexicans and another 12 million illegals. They're here because the people paying them don't want to pay for "legal" labor.
I'm going to agree with the poster above - no control of the border, no immigration reform.
brian at January 7, 2008 12:25 PM
I got pretty peeved at Californians my last tour out there. The farmers in the central valley sit on the most profitable farmland in the country and pay migrant workers less than minumum wage. We ignore the issue because we all want cheap lettuce. I lived in a moderate house in a rich neighborhood - when I left for work I could see all the nannies and gardeners coming to work - all Latino - think they were being paid above board? My neighbor picked up guys on the corner to paint his house, then was upset when they did a crummy job - he was too cheap to pay market price to a real housepainter. Illegal immigration is about border control, enforcing our own laws, and the Americans who put comfort and luxury above what is right. I am a conservative, but seeing how migrant labor is abused just about turned me into a labor activist. I am also a southerner and am discomfitted about a society that imports poor and underpaid workers to perform low skill jobs - rings a bit too familiar to centuries past.
Mike S at January 7, 2008 12:25 PM
I'm with Bad Kitty on this one. I worked at a homeless shelter in Arizona, and you could tell when Immigration was doing a sweep of the local hotel industry, because our white clients would get hired/ leave the shelter, and our latino clients would come back. When the sweep was over, the latino clients would get rehired and leave the shelter, and the white clients would lose their jobs and come back.
The illegal immigrants risked their lives trekking across the desert to work in the U.S. Pragmatically and morally, a successful attempt to stop illegal immigration will focus on removing corporate incentives for hiring illegal immigrants.
Michelle at January 7, 2008 12:38 PM
BK has it exactly right. When I was a teenager in Michigan, I picked fruit, washed cars, and did a lot of those jobs Americans supposedly won't do. Teenagers need these jobs to develope a work ethic.
When I was in Tucson for Christmas, I went to get my car washed and was shocked to see young black and white teenagers boys and girs, working the wash and drying the cars. I saw no mexicans! I was stunned. I haven't seen that in twenty years. They were hard working and polite. I tipped them well. Arizona recently passed a law that can take away you're business license for using illegal labor. Those kids were living in that town before that law was passed. Do you think they just didn't want to work and earn extra money or maybe the mexicans were working for so little and were not easy to work with?
I saw Ron Paul in the debate the other night and I have to agree with Amy. While I think the guy is a nutbag, he hit the nail on the head about illegal immigration. As he sat there in his finest tie and straight jacket he said in so many words, How can we have such a welfare state handing money out to everybody and not expect people to walk across the border to take it if they can? He pointed out that companies exploit these people resulting in lost jobs and lower wages for Americans. Paul is right about this. I live not too from a welfare office here in San Diego and there are so many Mexicans out front, the only thing missing is a striped donkey. There are probably close to two million illegals living in and around LA and they all aren�t picking lettuce. They found one women who was collecting welfare checks on seven different identities. He was actually more lucid and in tune to how deep the problem was and what causes it and how to fix it than just about everybody but Fred. Fred is pretty sharp on immigration.
The biggest threat from illegal immigration to me is the loss of law and order. We are becoming a society that routinely tosses out the rules to do whatever we want. Iââ?¬â?¢m not just talking about college kids who donââ?¬â?¢t think cheating on exams or stealing music online is a big deal anymore. Iââ?¬â?¢m saying that if we donââ?¬â?¢t get a handle on ID theft alone, it could collapse our banking industry. If we continue to go down that road of open and total apathetic acceptance of corruption and sense of entitlement, ââ?¬Å?So they broke the law, big dealââ?¬Â, weââ?¬â?¢re going to become just like mexico. Have you been there lately? Do you know whatââ?¬â?¢s happening there lately? Itââ?¬â?¢s a god damn drug war free for all. The cops are crooks and they murder each other. Mexicans grow up in a culture that only enforces the law if youââ?¬â?¢re not rich enough to bribe. You can kill someone in the street and get away with it depending on your status. Status is everything, you steal what you can get. Then they come El Norte and we expect that they are just going to pick lettuce.
To those of you who are going to condemn these remarks as racists bloviating, save your breath. I�ve been going down to mexico for over thirty years and I�ve never seen it like this. I have many mexican freinds including some illegals. I used to go there on a regular basis and ride down the coast to Ensenada or Cabo. I have faced down armed federales and managed to get out only because of political connections down there. I have also lost several friends down there. I�ve seen neighborhoods here in San Diego turn into barrios in a few short years. So unless you think you know what you�re talking about better than I do and can show me where I�m wrong, don�t give me that racists garbage.
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 12:47 PM
Amy,
The message I was trying to send your blog is that immigration policy is a tool that should be used to make the United States stronger. Short term thinking is what they were using when they decided to fill Arkansas with cheap labor (short term fix, long term problem). Filling Arkansas with Russian scientists is a more difficult to implement but it would've made for a better long term fix.
A couple of generations down the road all of that cheap labor they filled Arkansas with is going to be angry about low wages, poor working conditions. The long term fix would sneak science into an area where it is badly needed, need I say more?
The short term fix leads to an angry oppressed future, the long term fix leads to Sweden.
As for your Scientology biases, please direct them towards your neighbors. I am living in a small town in the Midwest where there aren't any Scientologists, Brights, nor atheists. These groups are your neighbors... lucky you! Would you like to trade your Scientology neighbors for for my anti-abortion focused religious activist neighbors?
I would have suggested Paul or Migna for President but they don't seem electable (too nice, too calm). Their Scientology counterpart seems electable to me. I filter out all of the rumors started by Christians trying to discredit the newest contender & decide instead to listen only to what they really say, I ignore what someone outside of them wants me to believe.
I am only one guy living in an area where there isn't another like me. If there were several others like me where I live you would probably start hearing rumors of Devil worshipers performing ritual sacrifices of babies in Kansas. Would you believe the rumors Amy?
William at January 7, 2008 1:06 PM
Uh, William ,
Just out of curiosity, you are aware that Scientology believes in aliens?
Were you, perchance, sbducted by one of them?
angie at January 7, 2008 1:54 PM
Sorry, that should read "adbucted".
Either way, I'll look for you on Oprah's couch.
angie at January 7, 2008 1:56 PM
And I agree with Michelle. Too bad Canada doesn't think more like her.
angie at January 7, 2008 1:58 PM
Would you like to trade your Scientology neighbors for for my anti-abortion focused religious activist neighbors? First both Bible thumpers and Scientologists are religious activists. One group is dangerous to Planned Parenthood the other to mental hospitals. I see very little distinction between the two, fantasy is fantasy.
Also I really hope you were joking about the Russian scientist thing. First if you show promise then you get and Extraordinary Ability Visa (O-1). So if they are worth shit we do take them, or they are paid well by private industry back home and have no need to come here. If I could be upper middle back home I'd be on the next turnip truck to mother Russia. Shit I'd even hand over my US passport for a bottle of Stoli on the way out.
"The biggest threat from illegal immigration to me is the loss of law and order." Um, most of the real nasties got here legally. Shit remember when one of the 911 hijackers got his student visa post 911. This is why ISN got split up into two organizations. If you think about it the illegals have more reason to keep everything on the up and up so Jonny Law doesn't come snooping around.
vlad at January 7, 2008 2:51 PM
We ignore the issue because we all want cheap lettuce...Illegal immigration is about border control, enforcing our own laws, and the Americans who put comfort and luxury above what is right.
Mike S. brings up a very good point: we can look no farther than ourselves for one of the solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. If Americans didn't insist on $0.99 heads of iceberg lettuce, or that $3.00 cotton t-shirt made in a L.A. sweatshop, perhaps there would be no incentive for some employers to hire illegal immigrants. Conscious consumerism can go a long way toward solving the problem.
Rebecca at January 7, 2008 6:02 PM
I'm old enough to remember a time before the masses of illegal, undocumented, untraceable drug runners --- er, farm workers --- had infiltrated our country to do the jobs Americans won't do.
It was awful. Our lawns were eight feet tall. Food rotted in the fields with no one to pick it. Houses were festering mounds of filth with no one to clean them. People starved in the streets because no one could cook in a restaurant.
Next time you see a gang of Mexican men standing on a street corner, you should pull over and thank them for saving America!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 7, 2008 8:33 PM
We only have ourselves to blame. Hmmm. Ever notice how credit is selective and blame is collective? I had this conversation with a with a friend at work. When the Immigration Amnesty bill of 1986 was being debated, more than half the country said, “this is a bad idea, this is ringing the dinner bell for many more to come, in twenty years we’ll have ten times this many illegals and what will we do then? They will soak up social services, education dollars and healthcare and it will be much more expensive than cheap lettuce.†However, a few people in power said fuck you, we’re going to do it anyway. I don’t remember one election being held asking, which do want, cheap lettuce with millions of illegals invading the country and costing the average American an arm and a leg or not giving the illegals a damn thing to encourage them to keep coming here? If I had a vote in that election, I’m pretty sure I would have said, make them go home, if they don’t their government will never fix the mess there. But they said, ‘You can’t deport two million people, that’s not possible.†(by the way, John McCain said just the other night that he would deport the two million illegals here who have commited crimes. Isn’t it funny how things can be done when it fits your agenda?) I seem to remember many people saying in 1986 that this amnesty was a stupid idea, so I don’t think you can include them in the, “WE†that is to blame for our current predicament. To go one further, being faced with exactly the same question again only in a much larger context being as the opponents of the first idiocy were correct, how can we even think about doing the same thing again?!? And further yet, use the same stupid arguments to promote the same failed idea as last time? This is beyond idiocy, this is, “IDIOCY, THE SEQUEL!â€
Twenty years from now, the president of the United States will be at a press conference, and a reporter, not a girlfriend, will ask, “Mr President, given that there have been over one hundred million illegals from all over the world come to the United States over the last 20 years, do you think the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2008 actually worked out very well?â€
The president will look at them with a big smile and say, “Siâ€
Please don’t include me in the next, ‘we only have ourselves to blame.
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 9:59 PM
What a bunch of racist bile you all are peddling.
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 12:12 AM
Thank you, Ayn_, for spouting a stock line.
Your hatred is more righteous. Can I join your Church?
doombuggy at January 8, 2008 12:33 AM
> All that sub-minimum wage
> illegal labor does is fatten
> the pockets of the people who
> exploit them.
Well, it's not like it's just two or three people who take all that value and stuff it under their mattress... They're no less likely to spend and invest it than anyone else. In California, a lot of people use illegal labor. The whole state is built on artificially cheap water, labor and space. Cheap labor is a big part of the miracle.
You're right, we should work to reduce the market for illegal labor more than we should reinforce borders. But we'll always wonder why Mexico is so corrupt.
> What a bunch of racist
> bile...
Back in the days of commentary on BBS systems, people new to political talk used to use the word "bile" a lot. Also, "vitriol" was very popular accusation.
Crid at January 8, 2008 2:03 AM
Coming from a poor white background, I have to echo Bad Kitty also. I've known plenty of people who's families have been Americans for generations of many colors who will break their back to make a living.
Newsflash, if you aren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth in America, it's still a struggle to get ahead and only a small minority do. I struggled into lower middle class (or upper lower, I'm not really sure which you'd call it) status because I took shorthand and typing and secretarial practice classes that my high school (fortunately, not all did and employers were impressed with where I went to school because of it's rep for training us gals to be good little secretaries) and yes I do better than my parents but I'm a long way off from privileged. (I'd cue in CCR's "Fortunate Son" here but I'm not that techno savvy; in fact, I don't even know if it's possible though I'd guess from You Tube clips on blogs it is.) I was fortunate enough to be smart enough to do that and to wait to have sex and not wind up a teen mother. I'm also not handicapped or learning disabled in any way so I had the basic means of raising myself up. But I graduated in 1976.
My point? It's a changed world -- probably in part because of this problem. It's harder to raise yourself out of poverty if born into it now. I feel I was lucky to be born at the right time. After color or gender stopped you but before Walmart and illegals and, yes, technology brought the competitive wage (and, yes, I include minimum wage in this assessment, it is far too low and this is the reason why) down so low that one can't make a decent living at unskilled labor if one wasn't lucky enough to be able to acquire skills for whatever reason (and I mean shit happens not laziness). Walmart's needs to stop getting away with what they do -- let's act on the hundreds of court cases against them already -- and the illegals and Mexico needs to stop getting away with what they do. Yes, I do mean Mexico. I'm fed up with that nation shoving its problems off on the US of A.
It's part of the general trend today of rewarding the criminal. Rehab those guys in prision. Send the teen who didn't say no to college to support those kids. Junkie? We need to give them a hand up. Meanwhile, there's literally no reward, no help for those who do as they should to begin with. In fact, it feels very much like being punished because it's not an even playing field. Even is when you try and trying makes the difference. Instead those who don't try get placed in front of you because boo hoo the poor babies are such a mess.
We need to nix amnesty and send the illegals back to where they came from -- be it Mexico or Russia -- and step up efforts to catch them. But it's not racist to admit that the bulk of our problem comes from Mexico. It's the flat out truth. I'm not sure I agree with the birth thing but we should deport illegal pregnant women and mothers when we catch them, no whining about having to choose between being separated from them or taking them back to Mexico even though they're a US citizen when you pulled dirty pool like that. You want them to be a US citizen? Start out by respecting US laws.
I think too though that jobs taken by technology is also a problem that needs to be addressed if there's to be an ability in the future to earn a living wage. I think this because 30 years ago I knew I had no chance of college so I took the classes I mentioned above in my highschool. Typing has become keyboarding and is still marketable. My shorthand is obosolete and dates me. Fortunately, I've years and years of experience and computer skills I've acquired on the job so I'm okay. But I see one secretary covering what would have been five positions when I started my career due to the advent of word, excel, and voice mail. I think technology is great and we shouldn't hold back progress for the sake of jobs but we do need to address that humans too need jobs.
Whew, Amy, great post that got everyone thinking. I pretty much think Paul a nutbag who's said a couple of right on things but overall would do more harm than good, especially to Atheists and women. I pretty much concur with Snoop on this one. His supporters sound very cult-like in his defense even when given sound arguments against him. It's creepy.
Donna at January 8, 2008 6:18 AM
Ahh, Donna, I see, those "huddled masses" referenced on the Statue of Liberty are now "Mexico's problems they're foisting on us".
The president will look at them with a big smile and say, “Siâ€
OMG A PRESIDENT WHO SPEAKS SPANISH WHAT A TERRIBLE FATE...oh wait, who the fuck cares if the President is Hispanic? I don't. Only racists care.
We need to nix amnesty and send the illegals back to where they came from -- be it Mexico or Russia -- and step up efforts to catch them.
Why, yes, and let's herd them onto trains...and if we can't get "them" out fast enough, let's put them in special camps.
Je-sus.
If Americans didn't insist on $0.99 heads of iceberg lettuce, or that $3.00 cotton t-shirt made in a L.A. sweatshop, perhaps there would be no incentive for some employers to hire illegal immigrants.
Guess what? I like these things, so screw off for trying to tell me who I can and cannot hire to make my products cheaper.
I can't wait until the protectionists and racists on this board get their way and businesses flee America in the face of a 25.00 an hour "living wage".
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 6:25 AM
A_R: I am sure that there is racism involved, be it subconscious or blatant, which overrides reason in the minds of many people. This may be apparent in their inability to voice ideas on immigration using sound logic and facts.
The people who have posted on here do not appear to be racist.
Equating border patrol (and knowing who is coming in/out of the country) with racism is like saying I hate Hindus b/c I enjoy a juicy burger. In other words, the leap from A to Z doesn't make sense. There just isn't enough evidence to substantiate such name calling.
We are a part of a society that values things like citizenship and certain benefits that are involved with being a citizen. If you propose a society that doesn't not value borders, citizenship and taking certain procedures to obtain citizenship then, perhaps, The Evil West isn't for you...maybe?
I think the main problem people have "Los Latinos" as opposed to "Other Immigrants" is their lack of desire to assimilate. Again, being a part of a society that values unity (through things like sharing a common culture, language, similar values) requires certain actions on the part of the new comer. I have Latina friends who are "Americanized" but they have relatives living here who refuse to learn English. I don't think that's the right attitude - how can you expect to be welcomed to a new place when you are outright rejecting their local traditions.
Please don't say "there is no national language." I think we all get that. But, the Constitution is written in English so it's best to learn English in order to fully understand the very core values of the country in which you want to live. You can speak Spanish, embrace your heritage, etc. while also becoming a part of this society.
...that's just on "racism". The economic argument is separate.
Now, "society" as a construct, legitimacy of borders and having political boundaries is yet another separate conversation and, I fear, most people would reject radical ideas of abolishing borders. So, we're here, in the US, in 2008, so let's argue based on that and avoid social-political theory.
Gretchen at January 8, 2008 7:08 AM
What if, not just Mexican illegal immigrants come over and have babies, but, say, Islamist mommies?
oh noes...Islamobabydrones!
You really believe that someone would come all the way to America, get pregnant, raise their child to be a terrorist and the wonderful wealth and beauty of America wouldn't change them one iota? That the kid is a drone with no mind of his own?
Not only that but that's like, a 15 year plan for one Islamodrone. There's already 1.5 billion Muslisms: wouldn't it be faster if they just all combined like the Borg now and used their combined terrorist superpowers to blow away America?
snark snark snark...Amy, you have some weird ideas about Muslisms.
I want more Arabic MILFs, dammit!
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 7:08 AM
A_R - I give you Adam Gadahn as proof positive that access to "the wonderful wealth and beauty of America" doesn't mean dick to those inflicted with the mental illness of Islam.
And I'm not a racist. I support either rounding up all the illegals and sending them home, or clamping down on the people who hire them and letting them self-deport.
My problem with uncontrolled immigration is three-fold:
First and foremost, it's an issue of borders. If you aren't going to enforce your borders, you do not have a nation.
Second, it's a matter of basic fairness. We have thousands of people who are waiting to come to America who have valuable skills and talents - and we tell them to wait because protectionists want to save the high-end jobs for Americans. But then we allow all the low-end jobs to go to illegals, and come up with bullshit rationalizations for it. And all the people waiting in line see is "If I play by the rules, I'm fucked."
Third, it creates a de-facto exploitation relationship. Illegals are cheaper to hire precisely because they do not benefit from any of the civilizational advances that were fought for in the workplace that actually allowed for the commoditization of labor to occur. You and I may not like the UAW, but were it not for the unions, we would have never gotten beyond the exploitation of the laboring classes by the moneyed elite.
You may be comfortable with creating a new exploited underclass. But calling me a racist in that case is merely projection.
brian at January 8, 2008 7:25 AM
Gretchen, these arguments about Hispanics not assimilating are pure bunk, and they're warmed over 19th Century crap from the Know-Nothing Party and the Anti-Chinese Codes. The same stuff was said about the Irish (where'd the red hair come from, Amy?) and the Chinese: their weird religious beliefs mean they're "won't" or "can't" assimilate. As a matter of fact, the Know-Nothings thought that the Catholics were here at the behest of the pope to turn the US into a Papal State. Sound familiar?
Would it be so bad if the United States became de facto bi- or multi-lingual? Only if you're an English-only bigot. Switzerland has what, four national languages? and they seem to be doing alright.
Gretchen, I think that we pretty much agree, but if you're not seeing racism, you're not looking at BikerKen's and Amy's posts closely enough. They're positing that more mexicans = badness, and I don't know what else you'd call it.
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 7:29 AM
"doesn't not" --> ew I just found a double negative in my previous post!
I speak Spanish pretty well and I resent the fact I am not totally fluent. Life is just more interesting when you speak another language. It's fun. Kind of like how it's fun to go to a swanky French restaurant and eat something out of the ordinary (for me at least). I appreciate stuff like that.
There isn't a problem with Americans speaking multiple languages. There IS a problem with people who don't want to learn English which is a language with great history and power in this country. English isn't going anywhere. So let's just respect it.
"They're positing that more mexicans = badness, and I don't know what else you'd call it." - A_R
I think that's a generalization of what they've said! Bikerken didn't site specific, proven stats. He was also using generalizations, some of which may be more dramatic than necessary. I do, however, think it's a valid complaint if there is a surge in a demographic whose core values differ greatly from the current majority. Many of these things are not subjective. As a libertarian I don't need to tell you that stealing and violating private property is a problem. Again, I'm defending the theory behind this logic (a surge in a demographic w/ highly conflicting values is a valid issue). As far as PROVING the conflicting social norms and mores of the burgeoning Latino population is a feat I choose not to take on right now.
When there is a surge in traffic accidents where the party at fault is an unlicensed, uninsured driver driving an unregistered vehicle there is a problem there. That isn't big brother saying "YOU CAN'T DRIVE." It IS the result of society deciding "hey, driving is a big deal. We should make sure people know how to do it and we should make sure that if they fuck up the victim doesn't get screwed." When the person doesn't follow the rules: No harm/foul to the driver as the car is unreg therefore no way to track him/her down. If enough stats can show a disproportionate number of accidents among a certain demographic, isn't it fair to say it's a problem? I read these stories in the Boston Globe everyday (which is so liberal it disgusts me, so I tend to believe they aren't hyping up an issue that could fuel anti-immigrant fires).
Why don't they have licenses? Why don't they start over and do it all the right way? I think that their personal desires supercede their respect for the way we do things. And again, "the way we do things" isn't really up for debate b/c having established rules for immigration and regulating our borders is what most people here in the US want.
You could always go buy Sealand if you aren't down w/ that. http://www.sealandgov.org/
Gretchen at January 8, 2008 8:06 AM
A_R = how totally racist of you to assume that only the Irish have red hair. I'll have you know that red hair is also prevalent in those of Mediterranean descent.
For those of you in Rio Linda, that would include Greeks, Italians, and - shocka - Jews.
brian at January 8, 2008 8:30 AM
For those of you in Rio Linda, that would include Greeks, Italians, and - shocka - Jews.
Dude, it's funny when Rush does it, not you.
Secondly, fine, I talked about Irish folks having red hair; big whoop. All those ethnicities, you'll note, emigrated here. I am sure your ancestors did too...and I bet it was *gasp* unmeasured, uncontrolled immigration! NOOOO!
Gretchen,
I'm sort of stating a reverse theory: the amount of respect that we as Americans have for our values will directly show how many immigrants will adopt our values. That is, we can assimilate millions, and we already have!
As far as PROVING the conflicting social norms and mores of the burgeoning Latino population is a feat I choose not to take on right now.
That's the rub, isn't it?
Well, not for me, I think it's kind of fundamental that if you're here peacefully, to work and to provide and take advantage of the wonderful opportunities America provides, I'm willing to welcome you here. I'm shocked that there are others who think they can tell me what to do with my business, my home! I'll hire who I want, for a price we agree on, and the haters can take a goddamn leap.
All Bikerken does is have nightmarish fits that the President is going to be Hispanic.
Sickening, really.
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 9:59 AM
You could always go buy Sealand if you aren't down w/ that.
Love it or leave it, eh, Gretchen? You really should know better.
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 10:01 AM
Now, why am I a "hater" for pointing out that those who loathe illegal immigrants should perhaps not buy the produce they pick or the products they create? By all means, A_R, whip out your wallet if you don't believe there's a distinction between illegal and legal immigration. I'm addressing those who do.
Rebecca at January 8, 2008 10:40 AM
You really believe that someone would come all the way to America, get pregnant, raise their child to be a terrorist and the wonderful wealth and beauty of America wouldn't change them one iota? That the kid is a drone with no mind of his own?
Visit Dearborn. Read the Muslim hate rags my horrified dad sometimes sends me.
If you want to see this happening in a much smaller nation, just look at Britain.
Amy Alkon at January 8, 2008 10:54 AM
PS On deadline, but I'm with Brian on his comments directly above.
Amy Alkon at January 8, 2008 10:55 AM
oh Amy, so what's your solution? Just close the border to all who harbor a certain faith because some who claim to ascribe to said faith blow stuff up?
That's the ticket! That's the America I know, "America: Open to all faiths except one!"
You'll note, too, that a significant minority of the United States Military is Hispanic.
I want you all to answer these questions:
1. Prior to 9-11, what was the largest terrorist attack on United States soil, and what was the ethnicity of said perpetrator?
2. Did the 9-11 hijackers get here legally or illegally?
Amy, what does Dearborn have to do with anything? What, a group published some hateful stuff? Big deal.
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 11:34 AM
Aynnie, I mean, did you ever give an hour of pleasant company to someone? What was it like?
Letterman once had a series of skits about a troubled teen who'd visit the studio for an emotional confrontation just after the monologue. This was about 1988. His appearances would typically end with: "Yeah, right. I hate you... I hate all of you!" Eventually he moved down to Jacksonville to live in the room over his older cousin's garage, and work in a motorcycle shop.
I don't think he ever went to college, or kissed a girl.
Crid at January 8, 2008 11:45 AM
"I'm willing to welcome you here." w/o standing in line and taking a ticket? So you propose open borders and getting rid of citizenship all together? "Welcome you here" sounds nice. How does that actually WORK?
Calling to reform immigration laws - or to actually enforce those which already exist (!!!!!!!!) - isn't racist. No more racist than to arrest me for killing someone, after all that would be enforcing laws against murder.
"I'm shocked that there are others who think they can tell me what to do with my business, my home!" No one is saying you can't hire non-citizens who are working here illegally. You can hire them. But, since they're breaking the law by being here, you might be punished. It sounds like you have a beef w/ minimum wage more than enforcement of laws that exist.
"you're here peacefully" I think the point of contention is that we have crimes committed by our own citizens. Then, we have over 2+million ppl living here off the books that are known criminals. That's not okay with Americans. Again, criminality isn't subjective. And I'm not even talking about the fact they broke the law by cutting in line...I'm talking about things like driving w/o a license, robbery, murder, etc. We have enough problems w/ our own homegrown criminals w/o having 2 mill extras running around that we can't find or identify and who change their names once a week.
Gretchen at January 8, 2008 11:52 AM
Crid, be a sweetie and get us something to drink. The adults are talking.
No one is saying you can't hire non-citizens who are working here illegally. You can hire them. But, since they're breaking the law by being here, you might be punished.
Gretchen, come on...I CAN do anything I want to do, but there are laws constraining me. You've basically just said "you can break the law if you want"...well, yeah. I'm arguing that "the law" is unjustly telling me who I can and cannot hire and where people can and cannot live.
We have enough problems w/ our own homegrown criminals w/o having 2 mill extras running around that we can't find or identify and who change their names once a week.
Isn't the solution here, then, to make laws that encourage immigrants to step forward so we do know where they are? Right now the threat of deportation is what prevents illegals from living "above board" as it is.
No more racist than to arrest me for killing someone, after all that would be enforcing laws against murder.
Murder harms someone. Someone moving across a border does not necessarily harm you or even put your life, property or self in imminent harm.
How does it work? How did Ellis Island work? "No diseases...alright, welcome to America!" I'd like to see criminal background checks done as well, but what my relatively open borders idea looks like used to be the norm in America.
Ayn_Randian at January 8, 2008 12:21 PM
$10 says you were born during Clinton's first term... $25 says no earlier than the second half of the GHWB presidency
Crid at January 8, 2008 12:25 PM
A.R. There is a little four way intersection on an 805 freeway offramp that seems to have an awful lot of collisions and people running off afterwards. It looks to be an all-way stop but there is a little white sign underneath the stop sign that says, “Cross traffic does not stop.†If you don’t read English, you are going to pull out in front of a speeding car coming right off the freeway that has the right of way. And what’s right on the other side of that intersection? A large nursery where they tend to get a lot of Mexicans working. How do I know that, because I see the Baja plates on cars that pull into near misses at that intersection all the time. It’s right next to my office. You have to learn English to live in this country. I lived in Japan for four years. I learned how to read signs, ride the buses and trains, and Oh yeah, Speak enough of their language to avoid being a rude ignorant foreigner. I got about fair with Japanese speaking and reading but they appreciated the effort. I was a guest in their country and behaved like it.
You seem to think that some of us hate Mexicans, I don’t hate Mexicans at all. I don’t think any of the posters on this site do. This is not a personal thing. It’s not even a race thing. It’s about crime and the rule of law and it just happens to be one group that is extremely large in this country that is causing a lot of it. Pointing that out isn’t discrimination, it is necessary to identify a problem in order to fix it. I despise crime and corruption. There is a hell of a lot of that in Mexico and it is being exported to the US. Check the most recent story here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22527971/
Smart Americans don’t even go down there anymore. There is a feeling among some Mexican politicians that they own the southwest US anyway. Look up the Aztlan website or MeCHa. These people hate Americans and openly advocate re-conqusita of the southwest US through squatting. This is why they choose not to assimilate. Now, if you want to live in a Mexican style culture, I suggest that you move your ass down south of the border and knock yourself out. Have a great time. But I don’t want America to turn into a mess like that.
As for Dearbornistan. I’m from Detroit and I have talked to friends and family who still live there. Side note: My mother was volunteering in a local school here in San Diego a couple of years ago. She was working with first graders and she had a little Iraqi kid in the class. She asked him, where did they move here from and he said Detroit. She told him that she was from Detroit too. How did he like it there? He said he didn’t like it at all, “it was too much like Iraq.†Out of the mouths of babes.
In Hamtramack, a suburb of Detroit, the sound of muslim call to prayer is broadcasts over loudspeakers three times a day. In the same country where people have sued over the sound of church bells as being proselytizing, we are allowing the most intolerant cult in the world to play that obscene sound over the city three times a day. This place is not Hamtramack anymore, it is more like a muslim colony. A child could most certainly grow up in that environment never becoming Americanized and hating the hell out of this country if he goes to an American madrassa. Does that matter to you A.R.? I suppose you would have no problem with that. Or maybe, you would have no problem living under Sharia law?
Cultures change, move, migrate, merge and clash. At some point, you have to determine, as a group, whether yours is worth saving or not. Otherwise, you will lose the freedom of self determination and do what you are told. The beauty of America, is that we do have an American culture that is made up of many others. But that does not mean that we can survive as a nation if we allow our American culture to die while new people insist on colonizing and not assimilating. That is and always has been the setup for spilling blood.
Go ahead, call me racist. I DON'T CARE! I'm fine with myself the way I am.
Bikerken at January 8, 2008 12:37 PM
>>> I'm arguing that "the law" is unjustly telling me who I can and cannot hire and where people can and cannot live.
A.R. Do you really believe that it is unjust for American to determine who can and can't come here and live?
Gretchen, you need to add a zero to your 2mil. That's really where we are at now. 20mil.
Bikerken at January 8, 2008 12:43 PM
"where people can and cannot live."
You are an anarchist. You want political borders dissolved and you don't want rules...b/c rules are inherently constrictive and infringe upon your "right" to dowhateverthefuckyouwant? In a completely theoretical sense I think political borders are silly and born from this idea of "I want to rule the world." It's totally juvenile and reeks of little wee wee syndrome. However, humanity isn't at a point where we can walk away from political borders. What does the future hold? Who knows. I think we're a calmer species than we once were but have a long way to go before we can break away from rules and borders. So, I choose to entertain such crazy ideas but I wouldn't go out and start a revolution. People just ain't down wit it. I'm also too lazy and dependent on the finer things and production of such things would get broken down during a revolution. Now, that's just too messy for me and my perfume habit.
Interesting concept nevertheless. But, let's stick to what humanity can handle: political borders.
"make laws that encourage immigrants to step forward so we do know where they are?"
So, amnesty, then? They have it good. There is no incentive to come forward that I can think of...aside from saying "oh yeah, here's a US passport. Come and get it." Then do we let the "I Am Legend"-like contraption go hog wild and bag 'em in a potato sack? Sorry, that was a funny mental place.
Handing out citizenship is the same as dissolving borders. Kinda. Smaller pockets of government are more efficient and cheaper. We're not ready for a world gov (see above). So, for now, I support borders and having a government.
Gretchen at January 8, 2008 12:56 PM
Ken - I think her 2 million was just criminals. But I'd like to come back to a word you used, that isn't used nearly enough.
Fully ten per cent of the population of Mexico (CIA World Factbook - 109 million and change) is presently living inside the borders of the United States without our permission. The Mexican government doesn't have a comprehensive list (although they have some knowledge), nor do we. 11 Million people, living completely below the radar. That's 11 Million unemployed American citizens. 11 Million people in low-income housing while there's millions of homeless American citizens.
Consider also that the Mexican government DOES have programs in place to assist their citizens with slipping across the border undetected. I consider that a government sanction.
And there's only one word to properly describe the situation when one tenth of a country's population is migrating to another country: colonization.
You might be OK with that on the basis of some form of moral equivalence. I'm not.
brian at January 8, 2008 1:02 PM
I think a greater theoretical issue is: why does Mexico suck ass? What can the Mexican government do to create a better place where people want to be? Maybe THEY should get a little proletariat uprising going on their side of the fence or something...? Instead of just coming to the US they should have some pride for the country they hold so near and dear and try to do something.
Their infrastructure sucks. Their education system sucks. Their police suck. Their government sucks. I think it starts with ditching the Catholicism and getting some birth control. Ouch. That's harsh. But don't have kids if you live in squalor and can't feed yaself
What can THEY do?
Gretchen at January 8, 2008 1:17 PM
> I think a greater theoretical
> issue is: why does Mexico suck
> ass?
You are so right about this.
Listen, I'm disinclined to conspiracy theories by nature. But when you see how badly things go for people down there generation after generation, you have to wonder if Mexico is so shitty because someone in North America wants it to be shitty.
Crid at January 8, 2008 1:31 PM
Gretchen, good question about Mexico. I have asked lots of Mexicans that same thing. One thing you didn't mention was that they have unblievablely good natural resources down there. Oil, beaches on two sides, minerals, gold, they are nowhere near a country without the means to be rich. Mexicans tell me that there are two reasons for their problems. The first is the five families. There are five rich powerful families that pretty much get all of the wealth from the country. They own the politica system and you don't win if you fight them. The second reason is guns. You can get thirty years in mexico for having a firearm in your possesion. Criminals who are connected usually can get off with little or nothing but anyone who want's to start a revolution and fight back against the corrupt govt is pretty much screwed. The Mexican army sometimes goes into small towns that are getting out of line and just shoot people, ie Chiapas. The people are not armed and cannot fight back.
Brian, I'm not sure who in America would have that much influence in a place like Mexico, that would be like trying to influence the mafia. But I have no doubt that if you wanted to find out, it wouldn't be that hard by starting with those who are profiteering from it. I'm positive that there are people who are making bank on the US Mex mess.
Bikerken at January 8, 2008 1:53 PM
"Instead of just coming to the US they should have some pride for the country they hold so near and dear and try to do something."
I always hate this argument. Look I'm an educated woman and I couldnt do shit for Mexico. Nobody that I knew could. Guess what? My family moved elsewhere, Europe, U.S., my brother Canada. The U.S. has a system that works in spite of the goverment. The idea that poor people should stay and try to make their country better is ridiculous. The U.S. should take care of it's border in order to force the Mexican goverment to deal with the problem. The illegal immigrants are not to blame. I dont blame them, so dont ruin your argument by asking things of them that human nature prevents them from doing.
And regarding birth rates...
It's far easier the get things like the morning after pill in Mexico and the birth rate is pretty reasonable among young women who are about my age. The U.S. birth rate is 2.09 children born/woman, and Mexico's is 2.39 children born/woman. Just think about this...
Back in the day my Mexican grandma had 13 children. She wasnt even Catholic.
PurplePen at January 8, 2008 2:04 PM
Don't forget the race angle in Mexico either.
Have you noticed anything, I don't know, different between the way Vicente Fox looks, and say, Juan who was last seen installing a roof down the street? Isn't Juan a bit shorter and darker.
The unspoken truth is there is a race war in Mexico. Indios versus Meztisos (sp?). The Meztisos run everything. They don't like looking at the rabble. So they export them.
A good number of them don't want to live here, they want to work here, and send the money home, so they can retire in style and rub it in the faces of the Meztisos. (I don't remember exactly where I heard that, but they can live pretty well there on the wages they get here).
If they actually wanted to live here and become Americans, I wouldn't have a problem with it - change the immigration policy to something sane, bring them in at a pace where they can acculturated. It's not like we don't have the room for it. But what we have now is, at best, chaos.
brian at January 8, 2008 3:26 PM
> asking things of them
> that human nature prevents
> them from doing.
No. There's nothing at work in their nature that hasn't been defeated in every other national economy that respects integrity and aspiration. The problem is not their Mexican nature; the problem is their Mexican culture, and it needs to get fixed.
Crid at January 8, 2008 3:29 PM
Theres a recent book Amy is promoting "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
Human nature prevents these immigrants from seeing anything wrong in their actions. Have you heard their arguments? "I'm just here to make a buck there is nothing wrong with that". The last time I was in Poland my friend half joked "Once I graduate university I'm going to go to England to wash dishes". This isnt a singularly American/Mexican problem. Germans have Poles and Turks, Mexicans have Brazilians, Argentines, Central Americans, Argentines have Peruvians, Chileans, Hong Kong has Vietnamese, unwanted Chinese from the mainland, Japan has Philipinos and Brazilians....I could go on and on.....
PurplePen at January 8, 2008 3:44 PM
I forgot to say, the only diffrence is that the U.S. goverment does nothing about it.
PurplePen at January 8, 2008 3:45 PM
Why is it a government problem? I don't see what your point is. The ones who grow out of cultures that reward our lesser nature do well. Those who don't, don't. Is there anything else to say?
Crid at January 8, 2008 3:55 PM
I see it as a government problem to the extent that I pay money to my government, which turns around and pays it out in the form of benefits to people who could but do not pay in. (Yes, plenty of US citizens fall into the latter category.)
Aside from that, I'm not sure that it is a government problem, especially in light of/to the extent that the global economy and multinational corporations trump my local, state and federal government when it comes to impacting my economic well-being.
Michelle at January 8, 2008 4:32 PM
Michelle -
I've found that the multinational corporations that impact my life (I'm self-employed, so they REALLY impact it, since they are my vendors), and small corporations (my customers) are often more responsive than any government I deal with.
At least when I bitch to HP about something, they fix it instead of telling me "give me your money and shut up".
Microsoft? Not so much.
brian at January 8, 2008 4:40 PM
I think Mexican culture needs to be changed as well, but I dont blame the individual who crosses the border. It's like the neighbor teen who had a bad mommy and daddy and he comes over and steals my money that I left on top of my kitchen counter, with my front door wide open, in plain view. Who is the dumb shit in this situation? Yes I could go on and on how family (culture) needs to be changed but why the fuck was i such a dumb shit and leave my front door open knowing full well my neighbors werent the best of people? Because I too had a bad mommy and bad daddy and I overcame it? Most people overcome their problems because others overcame them right? (That's your point right, Americans overcame their problems so why cant Mexicans). Well maybe some people just dont, no matter how much you want them to and that's life. Maybe I should shut my door and lock it (goverment making sure nobody hires illegals).
And I was rebuking Gretchens point that Mexicans should stay in their homeland out of the goodness of their heart. I hear this argument all the time. "Why can't they better themselves?" Well they havent, and they arent so whats to be done?
PurplePen at January 8, 2008 4:42 PM
We should insist. There's only one way.
Listen, it's one of the highest horses I ever ride on this blog: Sometimes the best possible thing you can ever do for human being, intimate or distant, is ask them to be strong.
Crid at January 8, 2008 4:47 PM
Brian, there really are two different groups of peoples in Mexico, there are the American Indians, (Aztec remnants) and the Spanish. We seem to forgot the Spanish conquered that part of the world and stayed there. I was talking with Mexican friend of mine and he was telling me, "You stupid Europeans are going to lose every country you have because you let other people move in and just take over." I told him, "George, you are not really mexican, you are of Spanish descent, where the hell do think spain is?" He got a kick out of that.
The Spanish have most of the money and power in Mexico, most of the American Indians tend to be the poorer folks.
Purple, so you are saying that Americans are dumbshits for leaving the door open? There is so much to this story that you left out. First of all, the husband and wife had a big fight because the husband wanted to lock the door because he figured that damned kid would come over and steal something. But the wife felt sorry for the kid and she really didn't think he would do that so after fighting about it, the husband gave in and they left the house. Then after they came back and the money was stolen, the wife said, “Well, we only have ourselves to blame for leaving the door unlocked.†The next day when they went out again, the husband insisted on locking the door. The wife started arguing again saying that he surely wouldn’t come over and steal again. When the husband turned into the incredible hulk, the wife cried and yelled, you just hate teenagers. The husband left the house alone. Later that day, he comes back and finds his wife fucking the teenager.
Obviously you believe it we would be alot smarter to kick the thieving son of a bitch out the door, lock it and set the alarm after locking and loading. So the teenager growing up to be a thief is somehow more respectable than someone who left their door unlocked? What the hell is that, some kinda sick, twisted mexican version of the American dream?
And you are right, we don't the best of neighbors.
Bikerken at January 8, 2008 5:08 PM
Well, they aren't thieving sons of bitches, they're people who do backbreaking, risky work for a low price. As this gets settled, I think people gonna realize that a lot of our economy needs people like that. But slavery shouldn't be tolerated
Crid at January 8, 2008 5:13 PM
Brian:
After dealing with HP, I switched to Apple.
My biggest complaint about manufacturing companies is that they rarely, if ever pay the full price for what it costs to produce their products - like any brat, they get away with what they can (and the blame for that goes back to national governments/ real people). Other than that (to continue my gross oversimplification), they are self governing in that they do what works or die off.
I don't care about the legal status of immigrants. I live in a solid, lower-middle class neighborhood. My hoodlum neighbor, a legal citizen, went from being a juvenile delinquent to an adult criminal. His status as a citizen won't help anyone recover damages if he's driving uninsured when he hits your car (before or after robbing you...).
We've already built in consequences for bad behavior. I worked in a building that housed an abortion clinic, and met a woman who survived a clinic bombing. Knowing that if my work place was bombed, it would be bombed by an American (and probably a Christian) was no consolation. If you don't hurt people, frankly, I don't care.
As for the economics of local, cheap labor - We either pass legislation to create a living wage, or we don't. We either pass legislation to encourage labor organization, or we don't. Both vary per state and federal government, which we ostensibly influence. Once these are in place and enforced (if not before), illegal immigrants are not the influential factor.
I would like to stop funding the social benefits of people who do not pay into the system, will not be allowed to pay into the system, and are not related to people who have paid into the system (unlike the disabled adult children of people who have earned social security pensions, for example). The connection between the cost to me and the benefits to me is too attenuated.
I do believe that children born here should keep their citizenship. I also believe they should be raised by people who are here legally.
Michelle at January 8, 2008 5:15 PM
> We either pass legislation to
> create a living wage,
> or we don't.
And this will create value how?
> We either pass legislation to
> encourage labor organization,
> or we don't.
And this will create value how?
I don't disagree with you about much here, I just hate it when people think that any task you can name should be something you can make a living at. (Here in LA, TV commercial actors are the commically famous example of this. 'How am I supposed to feed my family by doing only doing two deodorants and a car rental company in one year?' Well, y'know buddy, you aren't supposed to feed your family that way... After all, that 'work' was only three afternoons of standing around by teh bagel table. You're supposed to do something that means enough to others that feeding your family isn't a problem for you. That's why you're asking me if I want a warm up on this coffee or if I'm ready for my check.
Work is worth what someone will pay for you to do it. A policy based on the presumption that gold will appear in Fort Knox to clothe and feed us if we just decide to be nice to each other is not going to be helpful in a world of competitive performance.
Crid at January 8, 2008 6:24 PM
Your right about this Crid. I have a friend Big Jeff whos about three hundred and eighty pounds and is a union member at the local Vons grocery store. He's been working there for fifteen years and makes about 18 dollars an hour. What does he do? Produce. He stacks bananas for 18 bucks an hour. When they grocery stores and the unions bogged down in contract negotiations a couple years ago, I told him, Jeff, reality is that stacking bananas is not an 18 dollar and hour job. He took great offense at that. I told him he has to realize that labor is worth what people will work for and the unions are not going to be able to stop that in an evironment where labor is getting cheaper by the day. The union lost. Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons, the other stores in the contract dispute, are systematically getting rid of their old union workers and replacing them with new contract workers who work for much less. I gotta admit, If I ran Vons, and I look at a 380 lb guy that I'm paying 18 bucks an hour and healthcare for, which you gotta know is going to be expensive down the road, I would probably be finding any way in hell to get rid of him too.
Bikerken at January 8, 2008 6:45 PM
Well, if he gets $18 then he gets $18. I just don't want people thinking that all the world's money is already out there, so we jest need to go and take it and then give it to whoever we want.
Wealth has to be created.
In the best case, money goes to people who do stuff we really want to have done.
Crid at January 8, 2008 6:54 PM
>>>In the best case, money goes to people who do stuff we really want to have done.
So true, this is why garbage men do so well.
Bikerken at January 8, 2008 8:44 PM
An important job but a tough one to bungle
Crid at January 8, 2008 10:15 PM
Crid, I don't argue that this creates value - just that we already have methods for driving up wages for citizens, which we largely choose not to employ.
I point this out in response to the argument that hiring illegal immigrants to do back-breaking work contributes to lowering wages because it increases the supply of labor. Who we choose to recognize as employable is a construct, and societies always have the option of constructing "employable" differently (i.e., child labor) in a way that increases the supply of labor. In the end, companies pay as little as they can get away with paying, and that comes down to a combination of factors, including portability of production and what will be tolerated by the respective governments from among which companies choose to operate in.
Restricting who can be employed, and therefore shrinking the labor pool, is arguably as "artificial" a method of inflating wages as is mandating a living wage. Both expenses will be tolerated by companies/ passed along to consumers until it's more profitable for the companies to move production elsewhere.
Now exacerbate that situation by allowing a company in the US to pay a worker less than it would the US citizen working right next to them, in part by not paying into the Social Security, medicare and other social services on behalf of that illegal employee, and then allow that illegal citizen to tap into those resources that citizens have paid into - and that's where I say this becomes a problem that is appropriately addressed by our government.
That said, I seem to be the eternal student, so far be it from me to assert that someone else is not producing value.
Michelle at January 8, 2008 10:44 PM
Gretchen - I believe in borders: specifically, I think that an armed threat to our borders and country should be dealt with ruthlessly and quickly.
I want somebody to tell me why we think it's OK for a group of people to move from Ohio to say, California to find work, but it's NOT OK for a group of Mexicans to move to the United States to find work.
Ra-cism is the only answer.
I don't really understand the whole "well the government gives handouts so we have to limit access to those handouts!"
To those who think that, answer this: If we get single-payer healthcare from the government, is it OK to turn around and limit what people eat, drink and smoke because of the increased burden on that system?
you're letting the government hold rights hostage because it gives out free goodies. Not good.
$10 says you were born during Clinton's first term... $25 says no earlier than the second half of the GHWB presidency
It drives you crazy that you don't know, doesn't it?
Here's a hint: you're out 25 bucks. meh, good thing we weren't betting.
Ayn_Randian at January 9, 2008 1:13 AM
>>> I want somebody to tell me why we think it's OK for a group of people to move from Ohio to say, California to find work, but it's NOT OK for a group of Mexicans to move to the United States to find work.
You do realize that Ohio and California are part of the SAME COUNTRY with laws that govern interstate travel and commerce of which mexico is NOT a part of? There are things called citizenship, borders, laws, and all of that stuff. You really are pure anarchist arent you. What color is the sky in your world?
A.R. The more you state your opinions, the more you prove your opponents points.
Bikerken at January 9, 2008 1:55 AM
> you're out 25 bucks.
No, you're a high school sophomore, or maybe home schooled. Tell the truth: Have you kissed a girl? Travelled internationally? Cashed a paycheck? We're curious about you, Aynie! We want to know more about your daily life and the people you meet!
> shrinking the labor pool, is
> arguably as "artificial" a method
> of inflating wages as is mandating
Arguably? I'd like to hear that argument. Why are people so eager to pretend that citizenship means nothing? Really, why must people do this?
> and what will be tolerated
> by the respective governments
Listen, not everything in life is about authoritarian response, and not everything that happens in an economy is sinister and profane. Just once I wish you'd acknowledge the part that consumers play in this, and how they can get their needs met as well.
"Driving up wages" is a bad thing to do unless more value is being created.
Crid at January 9, 2008 5:03 AM
I'll echo Bikerken:
>>>I want somebody to tell me why we think it's OK for a group of people to move from Ohio to say, California to find work, but it's NOT OK for a group of Mexicans to move to the United States to find work.
The difference here is between legal and illegal immigration. Ohio to California is usually legal. Honduras to Ohio should be legal, and we don't have a problem with that. It is ILLEGAL immigration that is the problem. You can argue that the legal barriers to immigration are too high, and I'd agree with you. Let's lobby for some changes. But we should not accept willy-nilly illegal immigration.
>>>If we get single-payer healthcare from the government, is it OK to turn around and limit what people eat, drink and smoke because of the increased burden on that system?
I'm inclined to say yes. But then, I guess we could encourage tobacco smoking, because the long term effect is a lower lifetime health cost, from the shortened life span.
>>>you're letting the government hold rights hostage because it gives out free goodies. Not good.
It is not holding rights hostage. There is no right to free goodies, such as universal health care. If you want to spend your life on a drug bing, go ahead. But you don't have a right to my money to support your lifestyle. I will lobby to have you excluded from the health care plan I pay into.
>>>It drives you crazy that you don't know, doesn't it?
"Drives you crazy" is too strong. I'm just curious. Libertarianism is predicated on the free flow of information. This bit of information is germane.
doombuggy at January 9, 2008 5:31 AM
"And I was rebuking Gretchens point that Mexicans should stay in their homeland out of the goodness of their heart."
I was being a little sarcastic. To explain I'll incorporate something Brian said which is what I was thinking when I wrote that:
"A good number of them don't want to live here, they want to work here, and send the money home, so they can retire in style and rub it in the faces of the Meztisos...If they actually wanted to live here and become Americans, I wouldn't have a problem with it..."
They just want to come make a buck and leave (a pretty valid self-preservation concept). We get lower prices b/c we (yeah, I'm conjuring up the collective "we" b/c everyone in the US benefits even if it's not direct) get artificially lower prices on things. A vast majority doesn't want to make the US a better place (of course there are many who WANT to be "AMERICAN"). Their allegiance is elsewhere. So, let's all just be really honest about the fact that *many* (not all) hold on to their roots for dear life, get what they want from the US and peace out, if you will. The US is good enough to make money to send home but not good enough to wait in line, get citizenship and take on the responsibilities of such? (I'm thinking about an issue that is at the back of my mind: a draft.).
Listen, I'm pro-immigration (people should be able to better their lives). I'm also pro "do it the right way." I'm also pro let's-be-brutally-fucking-honest. Don't call something what it's not. So to sum up the quote you were rebuking, Purple, if their allegiance to Mexico, et al, is so strong then perhaps they SHOULD consider doing something to change it. "They" is important, it's gotta be a group effort thing.
...I'm totally w/ Crid...there's a reason Mexico sucks and I'd like to know who is benefiting here. I have a feeling it's not just the U.S government and it's not just you and me and our $0.99 lettuce.
"(That's your point right, Americans overcame their problems so why cant Mexicans). Well maybe some people just dont, no matter how much you want them to and that's life...I hear this argument all the time. "Why can't they better themselves?" Well they havent, and they arent so whats to be done?"
There's validity in part of that. The rest is total bollocks. That's like saying "well, Little Suzie just can't quit the meth, so let's just set up a meth lab in the basement so she can make it and not have to deal with sketchy drug dealers and keep stealing our money."
...In other words: no. I feel REALLY badly that there is a huge group of people who are so down and out. I feel really badly that their government is more likely than not PURPOSELY IMPOTENT in solving the problem. This doesn't just happen, it's allowed. After a point I do hold the population of a shit-ass country responsible for their situation if they've not actively done something to change it. Like, after a few generations where's the rabble rousing, revolutionary-inducing spirit that says "Hey, corrupt government that's holding us back, time to change." It's just weird to me that there is this seeming indifference.
You can make excuses for individuals...but when it's generations of people, it's like, come on. Let's go.
Gretchen at January 9, 2008 5:51 AM
Crid - to your three questions: yes, yes and yes. Do you feel better now?
Libertarianism is predicated on the free flow of information. This bit of information is germane.
No, libertarianism is not predicated on that. It's predicated on rights. And no, the information is not germane.
Next!
You do realize that Ohio and California are part of the SAME COUNTRY with laws that govern interstate travel and commerce of which mexico is NOT a part of?
What does that have to do with the question?
Your answer is: "It's OK because it's legal, and it's legal because it's OK." FWIW, this was pretty much doombuggy's answer: he has a problem with illegal immigration 'cause it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's against the law. laughable!
I want to know why, in your mind, it is morally OK for a person to move from Ohio to California but not from Mexico to Ohio.
It is not holding rights hostage. There is no right to free goodies, such as universal health care.
I know that. I want to know, then, if the government makes us all pay for one another's lifestyle in the form of single-payer healthcare would you then be alright with laws that restrict people from living as they please because they might live in such a way that would require more healthcare resources?
It's a simple question: If fat folks suck up more healthcare dollars, and healthcare is nationalized, should we legislate against fatness?
I will lobby to have you excluded from the health care plan I pay into.
Do you not understand what national single-payer healthcare means? There's no opt-out, there's only telling other people how to live their lives.
You can make excuses for individuals...but when it's generations of people, it's like, come on. Let's go.
Gretch, do you mean like the 3 generations we've had to live with the new deal or the 2 generations we've had to deal with the "War on Poverty?"
how about the 2 generations we've had to deal with the War on Drugs?
So how accountable is each American for these things? We've had enough time to get our act together.
Ayn_Randian at January 9, 2008 6:07 AM
>>>So how accountable is each American for these things?
We all play our part, and it is important. Each individual does their part to stay off drugs, be productive, and we end up with a reasonable society. We can expect Mexicans to do the same and have a reasonable society.
>>>There's no opt-out, there's only telling other people how to live their lives.
There ends up being both. The opt-out comes in the form of restrictions and limits on coverage, and waiting for procedures. We still have limited resources.
>>>It's a simple question...
It's not a simple question, and you won't accept a simple answer. But I would answer "yes".
>>>...would you then be all right with laws that restrict people from living as they please because they might live in such a way that would require more healthcare resources?
Yes, I'm all right with those laws. We have them now: anti-drug laws, some traffic laws, and some financial laws are largely to protect people from themselves. You obviously don't like such "victimless" laws, and I'm not in total disagreement with you here. But we make laws to regulate society. If you have better laws, or want some repealed, run for office and convince others of your world view.
>>>...it is morally OK for a person to move from Ohio to California but not from Mexico to Ohio.
Neither move is inherently moral. I don't want convicted felons moving from Ohio to CA. I don't want felonious types moving from Columbia to CA. I would like to do a little screening.
>>>libertarianism is not predicated on that
It is one of the predicates. Use and enforcement of Rights require information.
>>>And no, the information is not germane.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
doombuggy at January 9, 2008 6:57 AM
"Gretch"
Please, please, please, DO NOT "GRETCH" me. I like discussions and disagreements and will not be able to continue if I read "Gretch" b/c it causes great emotional distress. Only two people in my life have used "Gretch" and I dislike them both. Immensely. Therefore, Gretch leaves a bad taste in my brain. You can call me GMoney, I don't have a lot of money but I do wear a lot of jewelry (almost-gaudy cubics. I get compliments.).
"do you mean like the 3 generations we've had to live with the new deal or the 2 generations we've had to deal with the "War on Poverty?"
how about the 2 generations we've had to deal with the War on Drugs?"
There may be a *slight* (sarcasm) difference b/w feeling like it's my right to smoke pot and not be punished vs. living in squalor with the rest of my fellow countrypeople and having jack shit for job opportunities and knowing the government is useless.
Do I think drug laws should be changed? Yup. Do we change it by overthrowing the government? I don't personally think so. Also, let's not forget that drugs don't appeal to most people (drinking booze is legal and I don't know almost ANYONE who drinks on a daily basis. Therefore, I doubt many people care about whether or not drugs are legal b/c they're indifferent and it's not a "right" that really matters to them. I'd like to light up every now and then and not worry about the 4-0, so that's why I'll push for legislation change).
Let's stick to comparisons that makes sense, por favor!!
It is a funny image though...my mom, Mrs. Never Done Anything Wrong, waging an AR 14 in the air in order to get drugs legalized. Hah!
There's a stigma attached to drugs that's relatively new (up until the early 1900's you could get heroin and syringes via the Sears&Roebuck catalog). However, I am confident that if the stigma was gone ppl still wouldn't be all BOOYA DRUGS! I'm not THAT concerned about getting caught and can easily get cheapish pot but I choose not to b/c it's not that appealing. I'd rather have a glass of wine. I feel like many people are w/ me on that.
Anyway, back on track: drug legalization doesn't come close to generations of incredibly poor people with no hope and a corrupt government which LIKES it that way.
Gretchen at January 9, 2008 7:01 AM
A_R -
You're evading.
First off, in order to make a moral judgment, there needs to be an appeal to a higher power. I'm going to assume you don't believe in one, and therefore a moral judgment is out of place. Besides, it's stupid to conflate legal with moral.
Barring that, here's the reason why unchecked immigration is unacceptable.
There is an unwritten social compact between the members of any society. An adherence to this social compact is a requirement for that society to function smoothly. Where we see the breakdown of the compact, we see the breakdown of society.
The idea behind immigration (and coming through Ellis Island, no matter how trivial the screening, enforced this) is to get new arrivals to shed the baggage of their old country and adopt the social compact of their new home. Even though the Italians brought a great many traditions with them, they still learned English, and lived within the bounds of our social and legal standards. It was to their benefit to do so.
It's not just unchecked immigration, either. In one instance, we have Washington DC. A large population of people who either can not or will not abide the social and ethical conventions of the majority of the population has led to a completely unlivable city.
However, illegal immigrants have no incentive to acculturate, since they aren't planning on staying anyhow. They have no incentive to play by our rules, because they aren't likely to see the inside of our prisons if they do anything short of commit murder. And because of the moral relativism cast upon this country by the political correctness and multiculturalist movements, we won't send them home or demand that they assimilate, because that wouldn't be nice of us. After all, who the hell are we to judge them?
And to throw your shit right back in your face - when is the last time you got an anti-new-deal or anti-drug-war politician in office? Voting for Ron Paul doesn't count. How many times have you attempted to engage your representative to explain your positions?
Or do you just bitch about it on message boards?
brian at January 9, 2008 7:09 AM
...my friend was just telling me about protests in Mexico against the government. They're usually considered radicals, fringe people. Lots of people died. That makes me sad and I wish the news would cover issues like that. I think that the situation in Mexico and why it is the way it is plays a huge role in understanding this issue.
So, some radical Mexicans are trying to speak out and are being killed. Where does that leave us? I have no fucking idea. Maybe they need more radicals
Gretchen at January 9, 2008 7:15 AM
Well, said, Brian!
AR, I never said I object to a Hispanic president. I said I object to illegal immigrants and that the biggest problem we have with illegals are those from Mexico. Seriously, is that even in dispute? By anyone? You read far too much into that.
Gretchen, said it well. Frankly, if I retire to Mexico, I don't expect them to learn English. And deny it are not, we are an English-speaking nation. I used to think we didn't need to take the antagonistic step of making it legal but I am beginning to wonder if it might not be necessary...
Give me an option, Rebecca, give me a choice to buy stuff guaranteed not to have used illegals and, financially challenged as I am, I'll gladly do it. Currently, to avoid it, I'd have to starve and being Atheist, I don't much believe in martyrdom for a cause. I don't shop at Wal-marts and I don't hire an illegal to clean my house (meaning I clean it myself since I can't afford legitimate help). If I won the lotto tomorrow, pretty as they are, I wouldn't buy a diamond because there's not really any such thing as a slavery free one. So don't assume you know everything about people who don't approve of illegal aliens. How bigoted of you.
Donna at January 9, 2008 11:12 AM
> shrinking the labor pool, is
> arguably as "artificial" a method
> of inflating wages as is mandating
>>Arguably? I'd like to hear that argument. Why >>are people so eager to pretend that citizenship >>means nothing? Really, why must people do this?
Crid, I don't know why people do that. I was not asserting that citizenship means nothing. I will assert that citizenship in a capitalist/ free market economy does not give anyone the right to have a job. It may give or deny you the right to work, but whether or not you have a job will in the end depend at least in some part on the market - on a company's decision about where to locate its operations and who to hire there, based in part on the price that consumers are willing to pay and the costs that consumers and others are willing to bear.
> and what will be tolerated
> by the respective governments
>>Listen, not everything in life is about >>authoritarian response, and not everything that >>happens in an economy is sinister and profane.
Granted. I did not state or insinuate otherwise.
>>Just once I wish you'd acknowledge the part that >>consumers play in this, and how they can get >>their needs met as well.
I think I did the first part, at least, in my response above. As consumers in a relatively free market who are also citizens of/ have voting rights in a democratic republic, we have both tools at our disposal.
I'm still not sure that as a consumer I have the information I need to accurately measure the value of a product to me, as determined by comparing the benefit of the product not just to the immediate purchase price, but the other cost-consequences of the product - even if we were to measure cost only in US dollars. I'm no longer sure that when I buy a product that meets one need, I'm not creating or exacerbating a different need, or driving up the cost of getting that need met. Is the money I thought I saved by shopping at Walmart, offset by the expense to me of the environmental impact of industrial production in China (for example, special-education expenses and potential social security disability payments to US kids with permanent lead poisoning obtained by sucking on the lead-laden baby bibs produced in China and sold in Walmart). You can count on the US consumer/ market to "correct" this, via market demand - but I'm wary of saying that a cheaper purchase meets my needs and only adds value, without exacerbating other needs, or driving up the cost of meeting those needs.
"Driving up wages" is a bad thing to do unless more value is being created.
Right. I did not assert otherwise. I did point out that we already have government/ citizen created tools at our disposal that we could, but often choose not to use, to drive up wages. I mentioned this to highlight the speciousness of the argument that the desire to kick out illegal immigrants is based on a desire to drive up wages, or that driving out illegal immigrants would result in US wages being raised. I believe at some point I also mentioned the mobility of multinational companies (through which I also intended to allude to the power of the consumer) - I suspect that although some wages would have to be raised, such as in the hospitality industry, the jobs that could leave, would leave faster.
Michelle at January 9, 2008 3:53 PM
There is an unwritten social compact between the members of any society.
How convenient it's unwritten. I bet that it just conveniently conforms to your biases. my, my, good thing brian's around to tell me what my obligations are to the "unwritten social contract".
Ayn_Randian at January 9, 2008 11:25 PM
A large population of people who either can not or will not abide the social and ethical conventions of the majority of the population has led to a completely unlivable city.
Now, what in the world could that mean, brian? What population would that be that you're asserting basically lives outside of civilization?
Careful, tiny stuff, Dr. Paul just got into hot water for the same things.
Ayn_Randian at January 9, 2008 11:31 PM
> depend at least in some part
> on the market - on a company's
> decision
Listen, All I mean is... The economy, your education, your romantic life and all the rest of it will always have terrible forces of darkness and oppression poised against you. But that's not where the action is, and pretending that it's all about policies and governments will not help you...
A well-run capitalist economy is built on the presumption that you can do something for a client that other people can't do, or can't do as well for the same price. There's no government that can make that go away.
If this were a religious blog, and Lord knows it ain't, I'd suggest that this is The Almighty's best evidence that we're here for each other: Survival depends on knowing what other people want, and precisely how badly they want it.
Crid at January 10, 2008 1:05 AM
Leave a comment