In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Elsewhere | Main | Borjas is Blogging »

May 22, 2007

Immigration Linkage

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Some wise words from traditionalist conservative Jim Kalb, prompted by our current immigration disaster-in-the-making:

The reasons for the difference of outlook [between the people and their rulers on immigration] are evident ... The people value the ties that make them a people and believe the country should be run for their benefit. Ruling elites in contrast are concerned with the power and efficiency of governing institutions, the status and security of those who run them, and maintenance of the liberal principles that support and justify their rule. It is in their interest to expand the human resources available to them, even at the expense of those who are already citizens, and weaken the ties that make it possible for the people to resist rational management and act somewhat independently. Also, they prefer cooperating with members of the ruling class in other countries to representing the interests of their constituents.

* The leftist publication Mother Jones calls the Kennedy-Bush immigration bill "a turkey." (Link thanks to Kirsten Mortensen.)

* Paleocon Steve Sailer quotes some more wise words, these from Harvard immigration specialist George Borjas.

* It takes progressive leftie Dean Baker all of two sentences to destroy the claim that we need high levels of immigration in order to fill low-skill jobs. Dean: "If we have a labor shortage, then we should see rising wages. In fact, in most of the jobs where the country supposedly has labor shortages, wages are stagnant or falling."

* Rightie Thomas Sowell offers some perspective. Unfortunately, what perspective alerts us to is anything but good news.

OK, can we please now be done with thinking of our immigration question as a left-right issue?



UPDATE: Rod Dreher says a lot in the following passage:

It is clear to me that neither the Democratic nor the Republican party has the will or the intention to enforce the immigration laws as they exist. It does seem that the system is stacked against homeowners, who are effectively powerless. And for whom can they vote to change matters? Nobody. Nobody now, anyway. All you can do is pick up and move, severing bonds of community and friendship, all because business interests and ethnic activists and the government don't give a rat's rear end.

This is not going to end pretty, I fear. You cannot tell people that they have to be prepared to abandon their homes because the government is unwilling or unable to enforce the law against illegal immigration, and expect them to sit back and take it forever.

posted by Michael at May 22, 2007


I quote from Dow Blog:

The economics [of the immigration "compromise"] are relatively simple. Low skilled immigrants are admitted in huge numbers driving down the wages of blue collar workers. Certain groups of professionals (doctors, engineers and computer programmers for example) will also see their wages decrease. Meanwhile, the social costs associated with education, health care, and welfare expenditures will explode and be largely socialized.
The primary beneficiaries will be social, economic, and political elites who manage to reap the benefits of mass immigration while insulating themselves and their families from the consequences. They don't have their livelihoods, not to mention their children's education, threatened by mass immigration, but they will acquire the cheapest pool cleaners, housekeepers, and roofers in the Western World.
The moral of the story is that we no longer live in a country governed by its people. What the elites want, they will get. Open borders, "free trade," never ending war and interventionism, the melding of America into globalist political institutions and a "global economy" and he destruction of our laws, culture, and people.

Posted by: ricpic on May 22, 2007 6:54 AM


Dean Baker may believe he's destroyed the argument that immigrants perform an important economic function in all of two seconds, but there's more at issue than just "a labor shortage." Baker suggests either there is or isn't a labor shortage and if there is, then well- ... -well who knows because damnit there is no labor shortage. So, we don't need 'em. It's more complicated than either there is a labor shortage or there isn't one. There's lots of stuff that requires human labor that is too expensive to be practical.

There's a more complicated story than: there's us and then there's 'em. Immigration opponents see us as something static (we've been this way for as long as I or anyone else I know can remember and damnit lets stay that way). Our history does not bear this view out -- Irish, and Jewish, and Italian and Polish immigrants were once 'em and now they're us. It's not that we've opened our doors before so we must forever thrown them open, but that the view of a static-"us" that the elites are destroying isn't accurate.

Posted by: ChuckyDuBoise on May 22, 2007 8:13 AM

This is an issue in Australia too, not to mention the UK. Why is this so? I think Kalb's points hit the nail on the head as to why.

Posted by: Scott Wickstein on May 22, 2007 8:59 AM

Will legal immigration even help with the protection of the rights of immigrants? One reason some people seem to prefer illegal immigrants for their pools, housekeeping, etc., is that it's easier to get away with not paying them properly and not bothering with payroll taxes on their behalf. I saw many examples of this in my parents' wealthy (and mostly Democrat, BTW) neighbourhood in Washington.

So the illegal immigrants will continue to go to the United States and find employment in the houses of the well-to-do, because the price of the legal ones will be too high. The only possible moral justification for amnesty for illegals, or for expanding the numbers of legal immigrants, is thus a hollow one.

Posted by: alias clio on May 22, 2007 9:38 AM

It is in their interest to expand the human resources available to them, even at the expense of those who are already citizens, and weaken the ties that make it possible for the people to resist rational management and act somewhat independently.

Framing it this way suddenly makes it sound like a corporate governance issue -- the managers and directors of a public corporation sometimes want to increase the number of shareholders, because every shareholder buy-in gives them additional capital to work with. Shareholders, in contrast, sometimes oppose these expansions of the voting franchise, as it were, because it dilutes the value of their individual votes, and makes it harder for shareholders to gang up against the current management when it fails to serve their interests -- their preferred option then becomes exit (sale of shares) rather than actually voting in new management. In any event, these kinds of expansions of the shareholder base are sufficiently important that, as far as I know, corporate law throughout the US requires that the board go back to the shareholders for approval of the issuance of shares up to some particular number; once they hit that number, they have to go back for approval again.

I get the impression that in Britain today -- or from Britain today -- the number of middle-class expats moving out to other countries has been increasing. I wonder whether the same will be true of the Americans in the near future.

Posted by: taeyoung on May 22, 2007 10:19 AM


I'm curious--where do you think middle-class Americans will be moving TO?

Posted by: beloml on May 22, 2007 11:29 AM

Ricpic -- That's a great quote, tks. Tks too for introducing me to Dow Blog, which I hadn't run into before. Poking around his site, I find him making another great point too:

"Mass immigration is likely to create a backlash, creating further racial and ethnic polarization in the country. Our political elites actually welcome such an outcome as it provides justification for further meddling in the lives of citizens. The management of racial and ethnic strife is bread and butter for the State..."

Chucky -- I don't think Dean Baker is attempting to deal with the entire immigration thang in his two sentences, do you? Just with the argument that's often made that we *need* ever-renewed heaps of low-skilled immigrants because no one already here will do those jobs. Sure people already here will do those jobs, once salaries for those jobs are raised high enough. As for the rest of the conversation .... Whether or not we want immigrants ... if so, how many and what kind and on what basis ... All those are, as you say, excellent questions. (As far as I'm concerned, they're among the most important questions around, policy-wise. What do we want to be like as a nation?) So why aren't our elites allowing these conversations to be had?

Scott -- Kalb's good, isn't he? I'm looking forward to his book.

Clio -- It seems that the people who benefit most from our current policies are those people who, as you say, are the most able to wall themselves off from the actual on-the-ground impacts of these crazy policies: lower wages, increased competition, crowded conditions, ethnic strife, disrupted neighborhoods, etc. Too bad the people behind those walls are running the country! A lot of grumbling bloggers like to crack jokes about how new immigrants ought to be settled in upper-class and upper-middle class neighborhoods.

Taeyoung -- I like your "corporate-governance" and "diluting shares" image, it's very helpful. And I hadn't thought about whether middle-class types with ambitions will be moving out of the country in greater numbers, but it certainly seems like a legit worry. I wonder if the U.S. is big enough for that not to happen ... Maybe they'll just move from certain areas of the country to others. Oops, that's already happening ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 22, 2007 11:38 AM

Sadly, while the Democrat-Republican political divide isn't the only driver of this business, it absolutely remains one of the drivers of immigration reform. The Democrats have been pursuing a strategy of "if you can't whip up a domestic majority, import one" for many decades now. (Those of you with long memories will recall that there was simply never any money available for border control before the Republicans took over in 1994, to say nothing of the extremely partisan shenanigans involved in the 'review' by Federal judiciary of California's Prop 187) Hispanics have loyally rewarded the Dems for their support of mass immigration, especially of the family reunification kind. Some "we'll do anything to be in power" Republicans, especially our idiot-in-chief Bush, are just trying to get in on the vote-buying act.

This dynamic, I presume, will become more apparent as the bill moves along, if this quote is any indication:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has signaled that any immigration bill clearing the chamber this summer is likely to look considerably different from a Senate bill designed to attract Republican votes.

Of course, the war in Iraq, which will almost certainly further (and justifiably) degrade the fortunes of the Republicans politically at the next election makes illegal-immigrant-friendly "reform" virtually a certainty. If not now, guys, then in a couple of years...

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on May 22, 2007 11:41 AM

Received nations made USA anyhow, I agree however the issue stands beyond left-right polarization. Arizona (my home nation) will bring fresh ideas I think because we cope directly.

Posted by: Brian Hadd on May 22, 2007 12:48 PM

Re: Beloml

I'm curious--where do you think middle-class Americans will be moving TO?

Canada for one -- their immigration system is often held up by American opponents of illegal immigration, as an example of common sense in immigration policy. Points, preference for skilled and educated labourers, French/English language, etc.

Of course, precisely because they have a sensible immigration system, it's not a foregone conclusion that Americans seeking to immigrate will necessarily be permitted, but as a fairly well-governed country, English-speaking, and culturally close to the US, it would be an attractive immigration target.

Other targets could include Australia, to the extent Australia will let in American immigrants, and -- for those who want to relive the Imperial dream -- Latin America and certain parts of Southeast Asia. Of course, those latter are somewhat unlikely targets for immigration, since it's precisely to get away from an illiterate peasantry that most of these Americans would be leaving their mother country. On the other hand, the appeal of hiring a household of servants and playing the colonial grandee -- something not possible yet in the US, even with increased immigration -- may be enough to draw them out.

For those Americans with family ties in other parts of the world, of course, it may be possible to slip by hyper-restrictive foreign immigration systems. Chinese-Americans can return to China (which, as I understand it, has been encouraging China's vast diaspora of the past few centuries to return anyhow); Korean-Americans can return to Korea; and so on.

Posted by: Taeyoung on May 22, 2007 1:42 PM

Americans often do "hold up" the Canadian immigration system as a model, but ours does have its own problems.

First, our definition of who can claim refugee status is too lax, and we've let in people who may in fact be war criminals as a result. Realistically, how do you distinguish between Somali or Rwandan refugees and war criminals? It isn't easy.

Second, we ask for highly qualified immigrants and then make it very difficult for them to get certified to work in their own professions (the middle class protecting its turf?).

Third, we probably let in too many immigrants whose young people we cannot integrate properly because there aren't enough Canadian pupils in our schools in the neighbourhoods in which they settle. This leaves unintegrated youths from very foreign cultures to band together and foster their sense of group unity while not forming an attachment to Canada.

Finally, we suffer from the same problem as the US in that those govts under which immigrants enter remain the ones which they support once they are citizens. As a result, it's difficult for a party even to threaten to change immigration policy without serious political consequences.

Our system's greatest real advantage over yours is that Mexico is not our southern neighbour.

Posted by: alias clio on May 22, 2007 2:39 PM

Before the housing bubble burst there had been a labor shortage in the construction industry for over a decade. The majority of laborers in that industry are immigrants from south of the border. We all benefit via cheaper food and housing because of the low wage labor provided by these immigrants. I am amazed that anyone cannot see this economic reality when it is evident in both cities and rural areas throughout the country.

Posted by: mr. closet organizers on May 22, 2007 6:07 PM

"Our system's greatest real advantage over yours is that Mexico is not our southern neighbour."

The way things are going that my not be a true statement in ten years.

In Austin Texas my son started kindergarden with a couple of non English speaking students. Last year(fifth grade) each grade level had at least two classes of non english speakers. As a result all field trips were canceled, no special classes for those needing help, nothing. All the money goes to the extra expense of teaching (trying at least)those students.

I don't think most people realise the extend of problem. Or the rate of growth of the illegal population.

Posted by: Ron on May 22, 2007 6:36 PM

Our political elites actually welcome such an outcome as it provides justification for further meddling in the lives of citizens. The management of racial and ethnic strife is bread and butter for the State...

Okay, has anyone ever heard any of their elected representative (or viable, but losing candidates, since they'd have to be part of the giant conspiracy) say *anything* like this? I know its hard to believe, but politicians are people not unlike ourselves.

If politicians were really willing to sell out their own country, why hasn't someone spent $200 billion to bribe the American gov't to annihilate the U.S. A few billion would be way more than any politician would see in several life times.

If we were talking about a race rather than an occupation, I think people would be rolling their eyes in disgust.

While I've only personally known a few federal politicians (for example, my high school history teacher was an Federal Member of Parliament for a term, and he didn't seem much changed by the experience), they've all seemed to be middle class people doing the best they can.

Have people tried walking down to the district office of their congressman and having a talk with him/her? It might remind one that politicians are people too.

Posted by: Tom West on May 22, 2007 8:19 PM

Well, if politicians are people, too, than they must be pretty stupid people. I mean, we've been down this road before. The '86 amnesty promised all kinds of enforcement. Problem would be solved. In the event: no enforcement, problem has tripled in size. And we're back to the same drawingboard with the same head draftsman: Teddy Boy.

I don't pretend to understand what's going on, but could it be as simple as politicians not being able to stand up for sovreignty and all that goes with maintaining it because sovreignty has been delegitamized by the forces of PC?

Posted by: ricpic on May 22, 2007 9:26 PM

I take it Rod's a Republican. Hmm, who to vote for? How about Tancredo? Or Ron Paul?

What about Pat Buchanan when he ran?

If you live in Suffolk County, New York, you could have voted for Steve Levy. Heck, they did; he won!

How about that guy in Pennsylvania? In Hazleton?

The idea that "all you can do is move" is also a false dilemma. There are plenty of things you can do. Even besides voting. How about reading a few books or blogs like this, getting a clue and a grip.

Posted by: Chris on May 22, 2007 9:30 PM

Thanks for the link, Michael.

It was such a kick finding that article. The left is unhappy, the right is unhappy, the immigrants are unhappy -- the only ones who think this bill is a good idea are the politicians!

I just hope we can stop it.

It's been feeling lately like so much of this stuff is so huge and gets so much momentum behind it that there's no chance for any clear thinking -- exemplified here by Sowell's article -- to squeeze in.

I'm reminded of the creation of the Homeland Security Department. I haven't parsed this out too much, so it's only an impression, but the elements in common include a huge price tag, the overnight exponential enlargement of a federal agency's charter, the sense that it's being pushed by Washington without the benefit of saner, outside-the-beltway consideration -- the sense that once again that the only answers politicians have to problems are "more money" and "bigger bureaucracy."

When, as Sowell suggests, merely freeing our existing law enforcement processes from a few poorly conceived constraints would accomplish so much, at far lower cost.

Posted by: Kirsten on May 22, 2007 9:58 PM

"Before the housing bubble burst there had been a labor shortage in the construction industry for over a decade. The majority of laborers in that industry are immigrants from south of the border. We all benefit via cheaper food and housing because of the low wage labor provided by these immigrants. "

Huh? Cheap houses?! During the housing boom, the price of houses soared but the wages of construction workers actually FELL! If construction workers can't prosper during a building boom, when can they prosper? Labor shortages tend to make wages rise, not fall. Also during that time, there were workers hanging out on street corners, looking for day work. Sorry but this just doesn't square with a labor shortage. There was, if anything, a glut.

Also, in Herndon, VA, a Day Labor Site (DLS)was set up to eliminate the (mostly illegal) workers hanging out in front of the 7-11, looking for work. The results of this DLS were interesting.

First of all, the mayor and city council members who voted for it lost in the next election. People in Herndon did not want it there.

Second, smaller groups of (mostly illegal) workers started appearing all over Herndon, hanging out and looking for work. Why was this?

There was never enough work for the workers who showed up at the DLS. They drew numbers to allocate who got whatever work that came in. Workers whose numbers were so high that they knew they wouldn't get work that day would often leave and congregate in the informal sites.

So, who was hiring in the informal sites? In a lot of cases, it was contractors who had failed to buy licenses and pay fees and who probably were paying off the books.

Does anybody really believe that Bush-Kennedy will stop worker exploitation? BTW you'll notice that McCain (R-AZ) who is running for President is lying low on this right now. LOL!

Posted by: D Flinchum on May 23, 2007 7:42 AM

Whilst it may not address your current predicament at hand, i'd recommend that my esteemed American brethren read The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald, which in scholarly detail goes some way towards explaining the reasons for the US's border enforcement problems.

Posted by: Jeff on May 23, 2007 8:06 AM

Jeff: MacDonald's thesis in Culture of Critique is that Jews today, like Jews throughout history, devote themselves as a minority group to destroying the culture of the majority population in whatever country they happen to be living in at the time.

So Jeff, my esteemed American bubba,
it's Jews that are our misfortune?
Why don't you just say so?

Posted by: James M. on May 23, 2007 12:59 PM

The system is stacked against homeowners? Please. House prices in the U.S. have doubled since 2000, with the highest raises in.....California and New York, America's immigrant meccas.

Look, this is a complex issue. I have a pretty liberal stance on immigration, but I understand reasonable people can disagree. However, frankly, most immigrant bashers don't really present arguments, just flimsy anecdotes to disguise naked prejudices.

Take Dreher's article. Undoubtedly, there can be problems such as the one he describes with immigrant families. Yet, in my town (San Diego) multiple-occupancy, loud partying, clogged street are huge problems caused mostly by college students.

Just for fund, substitute "white college students" for "Hispanics" in the above-mentioned article. Do you think it'd be published anywhere?

Posted by: Andrew on May 23, 2007 10:49 PM

Dear Andrew:

I live in the San Fernando Valley. The reality of what police officers call multi-generational Latino gangs is not in dispute there. One such gangbanger killed another on the sidewalk in front of my office a few years ago; the bullet, after killing the young boy, went through my window, would have killed me had I been sitting in my chair, and after bouncing off some metal hit one of my employees, who was fortunately not seriously injured.

This doesn't convict all Hispanics, or all immigrants of anything, but let's not kid ourselves that the massive influx of Mexican immigrants into the area has been an unmixed blessing. Poverty has increased both in concentration and in extent all throughout Los Angeles. LA was the only major metropolitan area in the U.S. that saw a decrease in average household income during the 1990s. The LA Unified School District has been effectively trashed; half the kids drop out before receiving a diploma. A nearby suburb, Calabasas, solely as a result of having an independent school system (Los Virgenes) has become an island of wealth. I could go on and on like this, but I think you get the picture.

Meanwhile, real estate prices, buoyed by population growth and of course low interest rates have gone up spectacularly. There is a busy trade in the redevelopment of single family homes into "condos"--sometimes 8 or 9 tiny houses on the same, undivided lot, as a strategy to maintain "affordable" housing prices in the area. The poor remain in apartments, the rich are sitting pretty, and the middle have largely been pushed out to the Inland Empire or out of state. You can describe this situation as idyllic, I suppose, if you own a big house (as I do), or if your comparison is life in Mexico, but if your comparison is with the middle-class San Fernando Valley of 25 years ago, it looks pretty bad.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on May 24, 2007 2:14 AM

I spend several months a year in San Diego. I've noticed the billboards the bus signs in many ( I repeat, many) of the areas are in Spanish. The TV stations have opened Spanish stations. And now I see the local paper puts out a Spanish version which is NOT a translation but a special product. Is this assimilation? I don't want to speak Spanish. I don't want to have my country speaking Spanish. It is the beginning of cultural dispossession. This process will not happen overnight, which is what pro immigration folks seem to need as proof.

I read an article where -- I believe -- about 40 percent of San Diego school kids were functionally illiterate. If this is not disaster, what is, sir? Hey, but the house is still valuable. Great. And statisitics show American famlies are leaving San Diego and other parts of California. All together now: ADIOS.

I ve been in town the last two months and every weekend a Latino -- or several -- has been stabbed or shot. But, hey who need anecdotes? As for statistics: please tell us Mexican crime rates, fertility rates, education rates? Of course, you think we don't have arguments because you probably get your lack of information from the media which tells us don't worry be ... what is Spanish word for "happy?"

The people who made this system said an educated public was necessary for it to work. Did you know that? And I've seen the noisy college kid story on the TV news here about 10 times So if anyone does not have an argument, It is you, sir.

Posted by: sN on May 24, 2007 4:01 AM

Can't remember its origin but I think I read it first in the old "Public Interest" magazine, now sadly gone: If you want to avoid long-term poverty, you must do 3 things. First, complete high school. Second, do not have children before you are settled, in your 20's, and married. Third, get a job - even a low-paid entry level job - and keep it because you can't go UP the ladder if you aren't ON the ladder.

Good advice all around although you really need more than HS these days.

Most of the illegal immigrants that we are about to grant amnesty to (I fear) fail miserably in the first 2 items and that will keep them from getting far on the third item. This includes the children of these immigrants as well. You can't "fight" poverty while importing it wholesale.

And as I've mentioned many a time, you can't repeal people after you legalize them. We can raise and lower taxes, get into and out of war, but legalized people are forever and they're the gift that keeps on giving.

BTW about 1/3 of the LAUSD who were SENIORS this year failed to graduate in part because they failed a fairly simple exit exam. This doesn't even address the students who dropped out before their senior year.

Posted by: D Flinchum on May 24, 2007 9:37 AM

France' solution: it started. Carrots and sticks.

Posted by: Tatyana on May 24, 2007 12:05 PM

Published here in the USA there have been, at various times, newpapers published in Yiddish, German, French, Polish, Italian, Russian, Chinese and so on. If the past is any indication immigrants cling to the language and culture of their homeland. This may because it is difficult to simultaneously work one's way up from the bottom, raise a family and learn a new language after decades of being monolingual. The first born generation (or those children very young when they immigrate) become bilingual, often acting as translators for their parents. The second generation are generally English speakers who often have little or no ability to speak the language of their grandparents. What evidence is there that this pattern will not repeat itself with today's immigrants?

Similarly, the poor (regardless of race or immigrant status) tend to have larger families whose children do less well in school. As the gap between the top and bottom continues to widen and the anti-tax, anti-government forces keep targeting public education (funded in large part by property tases, it is usually the one area where a concerted effort by a small number of highly motivated activists can gut a local school budget) these problems will persist. It is NOT, however, reasonable to attribute the problems primarily to the character, ethnicity or quality of the children being educated.

Posted by: Chris White on May 24, 2007 1:22 PM


Thanks for the reply. Needless to say, of course there are bad apples among the immigrants, as in any group. Yet, the dramatic fall in crime rates over the last 20 years has coincided with the current immigration surge. Of course, correlation is not causality. But at the very least it does suggest that immigrants don't have a higher propensity to commit crimes than the native born.

The housing issue is complex and your argument is simplistic. Nobody forced the good citizens of the San Fernando Valley to sell their homes. So count me as not convinced.


SeƱor, you're wrong on so many counts it's hard to decide where to begin. Nobody is forcing you or anyone to learn Spanish, and no one needs to use it hear, despite urban myths to the contrary. But may I suggest that knowing a second language would be good for you? Particularly one with a very rich literary history as Spanish! And, by the way, all those Spanish language TV stations, well, need I remind you that most are Mexican stations from Tijuana. Also, sir, my kids go to San Diego public schools and they --and they're classmates, including many, many Latinos--read just fine. Anyway, I could go on, and on.

Look, this issue is difficult. And yes, most Mexicans have a grade school education that will make it hard for their kids to catch up to average education levels for a couple of generations (and white flight aggravates the problem). That's the big, big issue, not moronic concerns that they're unwilling to learn English, assimilate, etc.

How to deal with it? Actually, IMHO, the best solution would be to sign a very, very generous guest worker program with Mexico (maybe also Central America), have a very rigorous identity check system for employees and make it very hard for them to bring the whole family. In other words, they can come and earn good money, but their families stay back home and they'll have to return too.

Posted by: Andrew on May 24, 2007 6:19 PM

Macdonald appears to be a crank: his books are "self-published."

However, Jewish influence is a major contributor to the elite/mass division on this issue.

Jews have a deep historical memory of being "unwanted foreigners" - everywhere they have lived for the last two thousand years. (Even in the U.S. there was hostility.) It skews their thinking and their very perceptions on this issue. When restrictionists say "We need to control the border" or "the U.S. doesn't need another 10M semiliterate Hispanics", many Jews hear (unconsciously) "We're sending your grandmother back to die in Auschwitz" or "Taste Cossack leather, zhid vermin!"

"Ellis Island nostalgia" is also very strong among Jews. For so many, the U.S.A. was the Promised Land. Other ethnicities have homelands: Jews don't. That makes them reflexively sympathetic to people who want to come here now.

And Jews are enormously, disproportionately influential. They've earned this position on merit, but the fact can't be ignored.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on May 24, 2007 10:34 PM

Trying to argue with some of you pro illegal folks is like talking to a wall -- unfortunately not a border wall.

It is muy bueno that your offspring sit next to latinos that can read. I offered you hard data that I read in the newspaper on the problems of San Diego city schools and you come back and tell me that the kid sitting next to your kid can read.That's good I believe you and that has what to do with the argument? I do not dismiss anecdote, not at all, but there are hard facts on Mexican failure. There are also statistics showing that this does not change over generations. Are you familiar with any of this? Your system requires educated people. So tell me, how is this going to work? And you and Mr. White can quit making excuses. I remember a BBC report on Afghanistan in the 80s-- you could hear the artillery explosions in the background. The school kids were in school and many of them spoke English. A few days ago, I read in the local paper about a person born in LA and she speaks little English. Wonderful.

Don't tell me about falling crime rates. Tell me about the Mexican crime rate, especially that of the children of Mexcian immigrants. If I tell you that incarceration rate is three times that of whites, what would you say? "Well, little Andrew Junior has never been stabbed or shot." Mexican gangs control...control entire areas of LA. Does that matter, or do you blame the people who sold their houses there instead of taking a bullet in order to prove a point to you?
"No one forced them out." These are the words of a total... Yeah, no one forces you to think of your family's safety. Are you at all familiar with the black vs. Latino conflicts in the LA area schools? I've told on this blog how I know a child whose school has become mostly the children of illegals. He told his single mom that he no longer wanted to go to school. He and his sister are teased and he has been physically beaten. They don't mince words "We hate white people." Maybe, you could translate that into Spanish for me, senor. I'd give my life savings to have your little child exchange place with that poor kid, Andrew. But, hey, who cares about him? Just a bad luck citizen enjoying the fruits of your ignorance and the malice of those who think like you.

Chris, as for the Germans used to have German papers. Don't tell me that. Tell me that these many papers, many Television stations (which don't come out of Tijuana) are going to go away. You can't. You just mention something and that is it. So these stations worth hundreds of millions are going to encourage assimilation and English, so they can put themselves out of business? By the way, I do some work for corporations and a few have Spanish offshoots now. These are professional folks; they all speak Spanish constantly. Their living and their workplace value is contingent on a Spanish speaking society. Am I suppose to take comfort in that. You may too blind to see the cultural dispossession, but I can see it.

Posted by: sN on May 24, 2007 11:33 PM

Y'all probably saw this paper when it came out last summer, but if not, it's an interesting exposition of Michael's thesis that the elites, do, as a matter of fact, consider the current majority working- and middle-class an annoyance and would indeed like to "elect a new people".

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 26, 2007 10:49 AM

To anyone who thinks crime rates have actually fallen, and not been doctored by big city politicians, look up Nicholas Stix's excellent article of a few years ago on's website about "disappearing" crime statisics. Also, hispanics are 18 times more likely to be in street gangs than whites, which is a higher multiple than even blacks. Asians are far more likely to be in street gangs too. How can absolute crime stats be down with 30-40 million more people here in the last 10 years, and probably 60 -70 million more in the last 20? How can crime rates be down with soaring prison populations and overloaded courts? No, something is not right about those numbers. Far be it from politicians to lie, even to the FBI.

Andrew is just playing the placating game. If you have any concerns about this situation, don't worry. He has a completely fallacious and seemigly rational excuse for it. Just ask him.

Look at what a success these mexicans have made Mexico! That's the proof. That's all you need to know. The rest is just thickly-sliced baloney. Anybody who has seen the decline of Southern California over the last 40 years know the truth. It used to be paradise, and now its a dump--from the best schools in the nation to the worst. More to come too.

Posted by: BIOH on May 27, 2007 1:53 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?