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

« What's Dewing in Washington | Main | Non-Chocolate »

May 31, 2007

Immigration Linkage

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Democrat Glen Hurowitz thinks his fellow libs should be more wary of the Bush-Kennedy immigration proposal than they are.

* Steve Sailer dissects the polls and concludes that a majority -- a big majority -- of Americans want immigration levels reduced, and the US-Mexican border enforced.

* Which prompts the question: If this is in fact what most Americans want, why on earth are our elites so determined to defy our preferences? (If anyone wants to claim that it's because our elites know better than we do -- well, let me indulge in a hearty laugh.)

The usual answer to this puzzle is that Democratic pols want votes and Republican pols want cheap labor. In a recent commentsthread, Moira Breen reminded me of a startling piece (PDF alert) in which Fredo Arias-King argues that another factor is involved too. King -- who worked for a time as an assistant to Mexico's Vincente Fox, and who interacted with many American legislators -- argues that what's really behind the U.S. political class's love of high immigration levels is a more straightforward lunge for power. The political class, he says, feels hamstrung by the rights the rest of us wield as citizens. The politicos want more of the country in their own hands, dammit; importing a lot of meek and grateful immigrants is a way of attaining that goal. It will negate the power of us citizens via dilution -- and via creating a lot of government clients -- and thereby allow the pols to have their own way. Yet another good reason to do what we can to block their plans, as far as I'm concerned.

* William S. Lind thinks that the dogma of multiculturalism may be the death of the nation-state. BTW, he thinks that this would be a bad thing.

* The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector says that the proposed Bush-Kennedy immigration bill may well prove to be "the most expensive bill the U.S. taxpayer has ever seen." We're talkin' trillions here, folks -- and all for what?

* George Borjas catches New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg being an idiot.



posted by Michael at May 31, 2007


Feh. I'm not convinced, I still hold to the double-corruption theory. You really think both Democratic and Republican elites work in unison like that? They may both be rich, but they hate each other.

At any rate, how do you plan to do anything about it, with both parties supporting it?

Posted by: SFG on May 31, 2007 5:49 PM

Although it's true, that the Dems want more Dem voters and the Pubbies want cheap labor for the business interest, I think that there's something more sinister going on. The final goal of the bill's architects (and they are primarily radical leftists who have made the long march into the top ranks of our permanent government bureaucracy) is the - to use their favorite term - deconstruction of America. They hate America. They hate American individualism. How to end it? By replacing the individual independent mindset that is still dominant in our people with a mass slave mindset. And how to do that? Dilute the spirit of independence: flood the country with serfs.

Posted by: ricpic on May 31, 2007 6:49 PM

The William Lind piece is a must-read. Calling our hideous actions in the Balkans a "strategic imbecility of replacing the Ottoman Empire as the protector of Balkan Moslems" is a grimly apt way of putting things in perspective.

Posted by: PA on May 31, 2007 8:05 PM

Don't miss Ann Coulter's cold and angry piece either. She gets right to the point and calls president Bush stupid

Posted by: PA on May 31, 2007 8:07 PM

Is it feasible to enforce the border? I don't mean simply logistically, although that's an interesting question itself, but politically and economically? What are we going to wall the whole thing off? Shoot climbers? And what of the illegals? Are we going to round them up in cattle cars and deport them all?

The fundamental problem with immigration is that we have an unenforceable policy. The proposed bill will be equally unenforceable, as far as I can tell, so it's not like I'm defending it. But this war on illegal immigration is as dumb as the war on drugs.

If someone wants to be an American, what's the problem? So some of them are criminals. So are a lot of Americans. Some are stupid and illiterate. So are a lot of Americans. Will immigration make us a little bit worse off? Maybe. Will it make the immigrants a lot better off? Almost definitely.

I think America can handle mass immigration. We might need to rethink some social welfare programs and how they relate to immigrants, and if there is political support for such reform, it will undoubtedly happen.

Do we really need America to be just an enormous gated community?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on May 31, 2007 8:35 PM

What motivates the politicians? Maybe access to enough campaign funds to win the next election? Dems and Reps alike. At least that I can understand.

Posted by: Luke Lea on May 31, 2007 9:41 PM

Hey, tolerance is the highest virtue isn't it, JA? In fact the only virtue. And we can tolerate anything can't we, JA? So why have borders? Why not turn ourselves into a universal cesspool nation and gaurantee that only the wealthy few can escape by gating themselves off. Let's all be noble and drown...together.

Posted by: ricpic on May 31, 2007 9:44 PM

With all due respect, the "meek and grateful immigrants" argument is a whole lot of bull (and frankly insulting).

The main problem is democracy in America has nothing to do with immigrants, but rather with massive "disengagement" by the native born. Voter turnout rarely reaches 50% even in presidential elections. There's a huge debate about why people have become so civically apathetic, but the fact is that we've meet the "meek and grateful", and they're us!

Frankly, most of these arguments boil down to the fact that the right believes Latinos will become hard-core Democrats. Ironically, this is hasn't been the case, but is becoming increasingly true simply because the Republican party (or certain groups within it) are very hostile to them. Ask yourself, if you were Latino, would the party of Tom Tancredo et al appeal to you, even if leaned right ideologically? No way José!

Posted by: Andrew on May 31, 2007 10:37 PM


What makes you think we will drown if we increased legal immigration by a ton? How does it rob your pocket, specifically?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on May 31, 2007 10:45 PM


I seem to recall hearing that there's a fence around Israel. How do you think they stop people walking in from Gaza?

Of course, no fence is perfect. If the Mexican Army launches a surprise attack with eleven panzer divisions, the armored spearheads of the Reconquista will presumably crush any strips of chicken-wire in their path as they grind inexorably toward the Great Lakes and victory.

But the better a fence is, the more serious an effort has to be made to breach it. And the more any such effort is presumably motivated by some desire that demands an aggressive response. At a certain point this becomes a virtuous cycle. It's how law enforcement always works - or is supposed to work, anyhow.

If there was an Israeli-style fence on the US-Mexico border, would you propose tearing it down? Do you think that such a proposal would win much support in Congress?

If not, why do you oppose building one? Is it the money?

Posted by: Mencius on May 31, 2007 11:14 PM

JewishAtheist: Don't you think importing a large lower-class population, of which a large criminal element is a part of, would only exacerbate the criminal activity in this country?

Posted by: Cody on May 31, 2007 11:18 PM

Here's some easy math for those who think deportation is unrealistic:

If each state in America were to deport only three busloads of illegal aliens each day (about 150), that's almost three million a year. In three of four years (probably less, since most ot the rest would get the picture) problem solved.

That's only three busloads a day. Per state. How many busloads of school kids do we move each day? Entirely doable. Easy really. A class trip to Great America each day per state.

They came here little by little, and they can be shipped out little by little.

We have an easily enforceable immigration policy. All countries have enforceable borders. Most countries enforce their borders. Only the countries under the stranglehold of the new international socialism (NWO) don't. That's why they are dying. A country with no enforceable border is not a country. A country where anyone with a plane ticket can claim to be a citizen is not a country, its a nothing. Any country without the rule of law is not a country. If America has no common culture (multi-culturalism), no specific race (polyglot), no common language (multi-lingualism), and no real border (open borders), and no rule of law (illegal law breakers are tolerated and rewarded), then how can you call it America, or anything at all? Its a nothing, it isn't even a definable land because it has no borders. Race, language, culture, law, and borders define a country. America with none of those and no democracy and rule of law is nothing. Its not even a subject, not even a noun. What you are advocating is the complete destruction of the greatest nation the world has ever seen, period.

What if everyone in the world wanted to be an Israeli citizen? Why not stuff that country to the gills, eh? Why only here?

The only way America will survive as a country is when its not for everybody. That conversation is coming up real soon too. When we have to start defining what is America and who is american, that's when we will survive. If we don't, we won't--its that simple.

I think you've been listerning to too much John Lennon and smoking too many happy sticks. Think more seriously about what you are advocating. Unfortunately, about 80-90% of the legal citizens agree with me, and are starting to get really pissed off. International socialism, like national socialism, doesn't work. Both are totalitarian nightmares, and opposite sides of the same coin, really.

Posted by: BIOH on May 31, 2007 11:23 PM

Hey, Jewish Atheist, do you have walls on your house? Why, when folks can just come in your doors or windows? What ya gonna do, shoot 'em?

What if the local homeless circle wants to be Junior Jewish Atheists inside your home? Some of them stink, but, hey, so do some of your arguments. They may start eating your food and choosing which programs they want to watch, but you can change that through a democratic process - if there is political support for such reform.

Now, some of these homeless may be criminals but there are criminals in the phone book and you let that in your house. Some may be illiterate, but you can go to the crapper with them and read to them. I don't see how this would hurt your lifestyle.

OK, You may be a little worse off, but que sera sera.

Why the mention of cattle cars in your post? Is that just to raise a Furher with your critics? Well, we will give in to you on that point. I'm willing to send them back in a conga line or even federalize every casino bus in the state so as not to offend your sensitivities on travel.

As to whether we need to be a country that's an enormous gated community, we are a country of laws and when you think of it laws are sort of like gates, "telling" you where you cannot go or where others cannot go on your property or person. However, I do support your right to have a virtual nonfence in your head, where you can imagine the United States as one big open multicultural super-store (cue the small world music) where folks in their native costume perform female genital mutilation, march in the aisles celebrating their corrupt homeland, don't buy car insurance (so be careful in the parking lot) and the list goes on...

Excuse, us for taking a pass on your Utopia, which we will call it. As it has been stated why call it the "United States" if that only translates to "OPEN" in every language.

Posted by: sN on June 1, 2007 2:19 AM

I'm not saying immigration won't cause problems. I'm saying that a) we can handle it, b) immigrants, legal or not, are people, too, and c) it wouldn't be worth the cost of stopping it anyway.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 1, 2007 6:52 AM


Do you favour open borders for Israel? I mean there must be millions of Arabs who'd like to work in Israel for higher wages than they get back home. There must be plenty of Israeli businesses who'd appreciate the cheap labour. Besides Arabs are people too - though one wouldn't know it reading the neocon press - and Israel can surely handle it, right?

Posted by: CanadianObserver on June 1, 2007 1:15 PM


Every single point you raised in your last post is irrelevant and wrong. We don't want to handle it, all people are people (what the hell does that have to do with anything--since we pity people we give them everything we have? Nonsense), it is easily worth stopping the importation of an underclass with higher crime rates, higher illegitimacy rates, different ethnic loyalties, and lower educational and mental abilities into a welfare state. You can become a citizen of the world anytime you want--just hop on a plane and have at. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Posted by: BIOH on June 1, 2007 3:24 PM

CanadianObserver: Heh.

Posted by: Brian on June 1, 2007 3:43 PM

Canadian Observer, Brian et all: I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish Atheist advocates for removal of the Israeli Wall, too.

Hard to understand, I know. I have been pulling my, already not very dense, hair, ever since started to read Israeli lefties' blogs - since last summer Lebanese War.

Posted by: Tat on June 1, 2007 6:19 PM

As a legal immigrant who worked for over two decades for a green card I am absolutely appalled at this tolerance and sympathy for those who have "jumped the queue."

The easiest way to enforce the law would be to penalize employers who hire illegals. Anyone caught hiring an illegal pays a fine. Anyone hiring 3 or more pays a very high fine. Anyone hiring a larger number should risk punitive fines.

Lawsuits on shoddy work which involved illegal workers should be subject to higher tort damages.

Also, sell more legal green cards to English speakers with degrees who are willing to pay $50,000. This would serve as a pretty good screen and save time for those immigrants the average American is likely to want.

Eliminate all family reunification except for spouses and minor children.

Test all immigrants for English language fluency a year AFTER receiving a green card, with a failing grade leading to revocation.

That should do it. A system like this would quickly dry up the desire of many south of the border to even make the effort to come here.

It wouldn't solve the problem of existing illegals but it would make them want to move and stop others from trying to cross the border.

Posted by: cord on June 2, 2007 10:07 AM

I don't see anything as subtle as Arias-King'sd thesis at work.

What I see working is:

1) The malign influence of immigrant-exploiting businesses, primarily on the Republican Party.

2) Ellis Island nostalgia, primarily (but not exclusively) in the Democratic Party and among liberals.

3) The disproportionate influence of Jews. That influence is legitimately earned, but has to be recognized. Jews have a two-thousand-year history of being unwanted foreigners everywhere they lived. When people speak of stopping illegal immigration or the difficulty of assimilating illiterate Hispanics, many Jews hear "We're sending your grandmother back to die in Auschwitz" or "Taste Cossack leather, zhid scum!"

4) I think there is a disconnect betweem the Washington insiders of the Republican Party and its base. The insiders decided that immigration restriction/enforcement was a losing issue - in part because they listen too much to the national media and the Democrats around them. Having so decided, they defend this choice by rejecting the immigration complaints from the base as mere bigotry. They cut off Party support for restrictionist insurgents in 2006, and then pointed to a couple of restrictionist losses in November as confirmation.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on June 3, 2007 2:48 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?