Control what can be said (hate/phobic speech) and you control period.

Also write regulations w/"should" and lists and you can easily make them "shall" and "can not do".

Require "registration" and you can then require licenses and/or confiscation.

(fyi, Supreme Court stated in a '68? decision that criminals can not be required to "register" a weapon that is illegal for them to have because it violates the "self-incrimination" part of the Constitution.)

Trust me. I'm here from the government.

What Kaus says makes perfect sense. Immigration works in an expanding economy, where there are jobs to be had. It doesn't work in a stagnant or shrinking economy, which is the situation in nearly every Western nation right now. If you increase the supply of something, the price will go down. That's Economics 101. And the reason it hits the working underclass the hardest is because people in poor economic circumstances are the most likely to seek to emigrate, hence most of the prospective immigrants are of that class.

Compounding the problem today is the fact that most of the immigrants come from cultures that have no traditions of Western civilization and generally are hostile to Western values. In the past, immigration worked in the U.S. because we assimilated. That doesn't mean that the culture of the immigrants was wiped out, but it does mean that it was required to find a place in the larger American framework. Nowadays our ruling class is opposed to the American tradition. They know that most of the current crop of immigrants are antagonistic to American values, so they both encourage mass immigration and take measures to prevent assimilation. High unemployment and low wages among the unskilled is, to them, a plus; it means that there is a built-in audience for paternal government. Similar is occurring in other Western nations, further aggravated by the fact that most of them do not share the American tradition of assimilation.

Cousin Dave, stop that hateful speech right now!

Sorry. I'll go eat some indigenous, non-culturally-appropriated grass.

If you increase the supply of something, the price will go down. That's Economics 101.
______________________________________

Leaving aside the problem of immigrants' hostility, there IS something else. Namely, conservatives wail over and over about the shortage of babies born to American middle-class citizens - either they think that employers won't be able to get enough employees, or conservatives don't want to have to focus on the problems of homeless or near-homeless American parents. Or, maybe, they don't like the idea of a smaller employee population being able to demand higher wages (see above quotation). Well, a higher immigrant population just might solve the "problem."

When you get into it, there are basically two motives for supporting mass immigration - as opposed to supervised immigration.

1. To suppress wage inflation - this is why corporations love it.

2. Demographic replacement - this is why Progressives love it.

This is why these parties are so quick to label criticism of open immigration as 'hate speech'. Because they can't defend these policies on factual or empirical grounds. The policies don't benefit the public, and undermine the welfare of the immigrants themselves. The people they do benefit are those with commercial and political motives to promote these policies.

re lenona's "Well, a higher immigrant population just might solve the "problem."

Once "immigrants" obtain large enough numbers their problems/desires/needs become economical necessities. (Unfunded mandates for the local government to meet regardless of tax base - esp. if immigrants are not working.)

Perhaps the logic behind "conservatives wail over and over about the shortage of babies born to American middle-class citizens" is that the middle-class pays for a lot of basic community needs via property tax, sales tax, local charity/volunteer work and so on.

(Not an economist so pile on as appropriate.)

"there IS something else. Namely, conservatives wail over and over about the shortage of babies born to American middle-class citizens - either they think that employers won't be able to get enough employees, or conservatives don't want to have to focus on the problems of homeless or near-homeless American parents. "

This makes no sense. Are you ripping conservatives for being in favor of immigration, or are you ripping conservatives for being opposed to immigration? Seems like no matter what path they take, you are going to assume their motives are evil.

And what does homelessness have to do with immigration? I fail to see any connection.

2. Demographic replacement - this is why Progressives love it.

Ummm, no.

Progs love it because legalization will mean than they'll get an infusion of 11 to 20 or so million new Democrat voters. This should guarantee them voting majorities for the foreseeable future.

And "fundamentally transform" the nation. Into a nice, 3rd world hell hole, but hey, it'll be rife with corruption. So the haves will still be able to get what they want. Just got to grease the skids.

This makes no sense. Are you ripping conservatives for being in favor of immigration,
____________________________________

Obviously not - if they ARE in favor of it, we don't hear that very often.
____________________________________

or are you ripping conservatives for being opposed to immigration?
___________________________________

Yes. Assuming they're going to keep complaining about America's general population's not rising - as if we weren't pretty crowded already.
____________________________________

And what does homelessness have to do with immigration? I fail to see any connection.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at December 22, 2015 10:52 AM
____________________________________

I didn't say it did. It's just that conservatives tend to complain about the OVERALL birth rate not being high enough, and then they turn around and complain about how poor people are having too many babies - and that would include the poorest of the poor, of course. Plus they complain about "anchor babies."

Well, since middle- and upper-class Americans who KNOW they will never want more babies than they already have are not going to have more just for the sake of the economy, and since wanted babies are preferable to unwanted babies, how can conservatives NOT focus on the babies of the poor - and the general needs of immigrants - if they're serious about creating bigger future generations of healthy taxpayers?

And, I would add, even infertile couples who only want to adopt an infant don't necessarily want to adopt babies born to the homeless, since the homeless are often mentally ill or drug abusers. Plus, people who work in adoption agencies will tell you that it's the poorest women who often refuse to consider giving up their babies for adoption, since their babies are all they have. So those babies clearly need extra attention if they're not going to become a drain on society.

...or conservatives don't want to have to focus on the problems of homeless or near-homeless American parents. ~ Posted by: lenona at December 22, 2015 8:24 AM

You mean the conservatives who are advocating that more housing be built in order to drive down the price and make housing "affordable" - especially in crowded liberal-run cities - unlike the "progressive" solution which is to blame the landlord while forcing the rest of us to subsidize higher rents and mandating set-asides in new buildings for lower-income tenants, thereby driving up the rent for the rest of the apartments in the building and rents in general? Those conservatives?

Or, maybe, they don't like the idea of a smaller employee population being able to demand higher wages (see above quotation). Well, a higher immigrant population just might solve the "problem." ~ Posted by: lenona at December 22, 2015 8:24 AM

Generally conservatives are in favor of market-based wages, which explains their hostility to mandated minimum wage laws which artificially distort the labor market - just like a sudden heavy influx of immigrants would do.

Yes. Assuming [conservatives are] going to keep complaining about America's general population's not rising - as if we weren't pretty crowded already. ~ Posted by: lenona at December 22, 2015 3:04 PM

There's a big difference between a population increase due to native births combined with assimilated immigrants and one due mainly to unassimilated immigrants.

We used to force immigrants to assimilate. Today we're afraid of seeming racist by not embracing whatever Third World practice our unskilled immigrants bring with them.

Conservatives generally support immigration with assimilation and are opposed to immigration without assimilation.

So those babies clearly need extra attention if they're not going to become a drain on society. ~ Posted by: lenona at December 22, 2015 3:10 PM

We definitely need to do a better job of inculcating middle class values in our schools. We used to preach to children the value of hard work and striving.

Now we're afraid that such teachings would promulgate the idea that all choices are equal, so we act like any decision someone makes in their life is just another lifestyle choice, equally meritorious to any other choice, even if their choice is to sell crack and try to become a rapper instead of studying and trying to get into college or learning a trade.

I've noticed this in my own field. The trades are filled with "uninvited residents". Our own young people are crowded ouut of the job market at the low skilled/trainee level. I think picking those guys up off a street corner is anti-social behavior.

COnservative here: Not sure I've ever wailed over the lack of middle class babies. I DO think that babies born to mentally ill and homeless people need to be avoided at all reasonable cost: because avoiding a problem is better than trying to "help" it after it occurs. Mentally ill people typically can't handle themselves, much less another life. Homeless...same thing. I'm all for subsidizing permanent birth control for these populations, and drug addicts/those who have already lost parental rights to their kids through abuse/neglect/etc.

I'm married to a short, dark skinned Hispanic, and I am TOTALLY against illegal migration. "Illegal". If we don't have a right to our own borders and enforcing our own laws, we aren't a country. If they hate where they're from so badly, maybe they need to sacrifice and fight, to make it better, like our ancestors did in the American Revolution. That wasn't pretty, but in the end...we wound up with the most freedoms of any people in the history of the world. Freedoms we are sadly happily waving goodbye to, in the name of .....I'm not even sure what. Multiculturalism? Keeping other people from calling us racist? What???

lenona's comments shift the discussion from the obvious negative economic impact of allowing large numbers of unprepared young workers to enter an environment that is hostile to existing young workers (black unemployment in particular).

Why do that? It's a typical pattern if you have nothing to offer in defense of a losing argument.

Legal vs. illegal immigration. Assimilation is the key success factor here.

Here is an interesting article on comparing immigrant experiences in Canada vs. Belgium:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/some-countries-see-migrants-as-an-economic-boon-not-a-burden-1450881706?mod=e2fb

An important point to note in the article's description of the Canadian immigration experience is this:

And because the national and regional governments know ahead of time how many immigrants to expect, they are better prepared to offer them assistance when they arrive, she says.

The affected governments know ahead of time how many immigrants to expect and prepare assimilation programs for them. Illegal immigration takes that advance knowledge away and burdens an unprepared system.

Another important point is that Canada mostly imports skilled immigrants. A similar program in Europe to attract skilled immigrants has mostly failed.

To be sure, Canada’s geography gives it control over immigration that Europe doesn’t have: Hopeful immigrants from poorer countries can’t simply walk across a border. “We’re isolated from that, which enables us to select,” says Jeffrey Reitz, who directs ethnic, immigration and pluralism studies at the University of Toronto.

There's a big difference between a population increase due to native births combined with assimilated immigrants and one due mainly to unassimilated immigrants.
_____________________________________

Obviously, yes, but again, it's a waste of time to complain about a shortage of babies born to American citizens when there are all sorts of good reasons to refuse to breed - one, very often, is a lack of funds or good employment opportunities. (Yes, many poor people DO really refuse to have children before they can afford them.)
______________________________________

We used to force immigrants to assimilate. Today we're afraid of seeming racist by not embracing whatever Third World practice our unskilled immigrants bring with them.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at December 22, 2015 7:31 PM
_____________________________________

Even Bill Maher has complained about the refusal of immigrants to "melt a little." I'm not saying it isn't a problem.

"I didn't say it did. It's just that conservatives tend to complain about the OVERALL birth rate not being high enough."

And yet those conservatives consistently have more children than their more left-wing neighbors do. Sounds to me like they are already putting their money where their mouth is.

And I think you lack a good working definition of "conservative". The stereotypical "conservative" you keep portraying is basically a social reactionary. There's a lot more to it than that. Social reactionaries are just one faction of conservatism, and at this time, they are not a very powerful one.

No kidding, a surplus of workers leads to a decrease in demand for them? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!!!

To CD: Having children is not a civilized reason to talk/act as though people who DON'T have children aren't thoughtful, intelligent adults making the right decisions. It's condescending and it doesn't bode well for future children who were only lightly wanted.

Back in the 1990s, I think, there was a veterinarian who wrote to Newsweek (a My Turn column) to say that it's ridiculous to keep nagging the public to take homeless animals as pets, because in this have-it-all society, anyone who didn't ALREADY have a pet shouldn't have one. (Not to mention all the people who DO have pets but shouldn't.)

Also, Dr. Spock wrote that when it comes to adopting children, there were compelling reasons to adopt ONLY because of all-consuming love, not "practical" things like having a caretaker in one's old age. (As if you can count on your child's not dying in an auto accident at age 20!) So why should other parents have less strict rules put upon them?

And, in the same vein, while adopting foster kids doesn't do anything for the birthrate, one could argue that it's more important to do that than to breed - not just for the kids' sakes, but to lower the chances of their becoming criminals later on and increase their chances of becoming productive. (Not to mention the need for their violent/neglectful birth parents NOT to become parents to begin with.) But how many people, liberal or conservative, adopt when they could easily breed instead? It's been pointed out that nowadays, even healthy babies are not in as much demand as they once were, because of fertility clinics.

So, foster kids are likely even more worse off than they used to be - but it could be just as bad for them if they were adopted by people who didn't really like/want kids much and were just adopting out of guilt.

BTW, when I say "conservative" in this case, I'm simply referring to those who honestly seem to believe that nothing is more important than the economy, even the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Like Ross Douthat, maybe.) For many more people than before, life isn't life if you're weighed down with kids - especially when you can't afford them to begin with. How happy or productive are kids in First World societies likely to be once they find that they were only bred to become taxpayers and unpaid caretakers? Just because technology (birth control) has a way of changing things pretty fast doesn't mean we can't figure out other ways of keeping civilization on its feet.