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 ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
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
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
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


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

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Elsewhere | Main | DVD Journal: "Murder by Numbers" »

June 05, 2007

Elsewhere

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* That "we're a nation of immigrants" claim you often hear, justifying crazy immigration policies? John Derbyshire makes some important points in response to it. Oh, what the hell, I'm going to copy and paste the best passage:

In fact, immigration to the USA has been spasmodic and regionally biased. For quite long spells, there was no immigration at all into quite big regions. (There was very nearly no immigration into New England, for instance for almost TWO HUNDRED YEARS between the Puritan settlements of the mid 17th century and the arrival of the Catholic Irish in the mid 19th). There was hardly any immigration into the entire USA from 1924 to 1965. If Americans are so strongly emotionally attached to immigration, how come they weren't periodically rioting in the streets of Boston and Providence all through those 200 years? Can you offer me some evidence of popular demand for more immigration in the 1924-65 lull?

* Mark Krikorian says that what Bush wants is open borders. A nice comment from Krikorian:

There's no excuse for any large guest-worker program. A vast, mobile labor force like ours -- willing to move, willing to change jobs, change occupations -- does not need to be supplemented by peasant labor from abroad. A 21st-century society like ours doesn't need 19th-century workers to function.

And another one:

The fact is that much of our elite has become what I call "post-American." They've moved beyond concern for the national interest and become citizens of the world, if you will.

* The rowdy, freethinking, and outdoorsy team at Querencia has come up with a fun new blog-game: They've been posting photographs of their reading stacks -- those towers of I'm-in-the-middle-of-them books that pile up on desks and end-tables. Here's Steve's stack, here's Reid's, here's Matt's. Time for me to post a photograph of my DVD heap.

* Alexandra lists her nominees for the 7 New Wonders of the World.

* Raymond Pert writes a moving posting about the day his dad died, and comes up with an excellent ongoing blog-theme too: 3 Things That Made Me Happy -- here, here, and here.

* Henry Chappell passes along his favorite recipe for baked squirrel.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at June 5, 2007




Comments

Derbyshire's a smart guy, but I'm not sure he has his facts completely right about New England. The Irish starting coming in during the 1820s, for example, which isn't what I would call the mid-19th century. (See this Rhode Island history). Portuguese and Italian immigrants were far from unknown as well, although they became more prominent later on.

Moving beyond just the Northeast, we don't even have reliable numbers for much before 1819, which is when the statistics began to be kept. But what about the Scotch-Irish, for example: do they count as immigrant foreigners or not? The English settlers certainly didn't see them as brothers, from what I recall, which may be one reason so many of them (like many of my ancestors) ended up out in the frontier boonies.

Derb may well have a point about the 1924 - 1965 period. But the 18th and 19th centuries are harder to categorize.

Posted by: Derek Lowe on June 5, 2007 3:20 PM



I think we can honestly say both that America is proud of its immigrant heritage and that many people in America are and were scared of new immigrants not just like them.

For one thing, the Americans in question aren't homogeneous -- some welcome immigrants, some fear them -- and aren't all in the same position with respect to new immigrants.

At any rate, I recently read that immigrants are welcome in Spain — which seems like it should be ironic — and that Spain has benefited greatly. Here's an important point:

And the government says immigrants' tax and social security contributions exceed by more than 20% the cost of public services they use.
If you can bring immigration above board and tax it appropriately, everyone can benefit. If you drive it underground, but elect not to punish it -- and in many ways to reward it -- what can you expect?

Posted by: Isegoria on June 5, 2007 5:12 PM



Dear Michael,

I take exception with Krikorian's assertion that there is, "no excuse for any large guest-worker program. A vast, mobile labor force like ours -- willing to move, willing to change jobs, change occupations -- does not need to be supplemented by peasant labor from abroad."

California's 9 billion dollar agricultural sector is dependent on "peasant labor from abroad." By "peasant labor" I assume he means "unskilled labor." Anyone who has tried to pick next to a seasoned Mexican crew soon learns that there is skill there as well as stamina and an untiring work ethic.

Skill? A friend and co-worker with a large prune orchard tried to get the pruning crew to train her eye to recognize the new wood that must be left for next year's crop. She could never get it straight while they cut away furiously and perfectly. And this woman was a seasoned tomato inspector with great hand eye coordination and perfect vision. If her crew is driven out of the country, she will not even be able to train ordinary Americans to the work if she could find them.

The idea that average Americans could be motivated to work cheaply, efficiently and with skill in Califorinia's Central Valley sun is ludicrous to those of us who have worked alongside them.

I do not know what the solution is. But I can tell you that if we cut off those "peasants" who have been born, raised and who live 'outside' on the land, half of the agricultural products of the United States will fail. people who have spend their lives indoors wuld have a rude awakening working outdoors with temperatures routinely exceeding 100 degrees.

Good right wing growers in this valley are in shock at the far right and urban uninformed who think that farm labor is unskilled, easily replaced or unnecessary.

Allan

Posted by: Allan on June 5, 2007 8:04 PM



Derek -- A lot is left out of Derbyshire's account -- six sentences can only cover so much. I think his point, though, is to take issue with the concept of the US as a nation of immigrants. I'm pretty sure that his picture is quite different: that there was an initial population of English invader/settlers (and black slaves), which grew, which established a political/economic framework and a culture, which permitted immigration in fits and starts, which insisted on assimilation, etc. The "nation of immigrants" crowd uses the idea of a "nation of immigrants" to argue that the US has no identity of its own, that it's just a big bag of mixed populations, that sizable immigration has always been a fact of life here (except when racists shut it down), etc etc. So Derbyshire and his crowd are taking issue with that particular strategy.

Isegoria -- I think we can also say that a big majority of current Americans are unhappy with our current immigration policies! Which is enough (or about 90% enough) for me. Why should their wishes be defied?

Allan -- Thanks for the bulletin from the field. Still: *Why* is California's ag industry dependent on peasant labor from abroad? Are these seriously jobs that 1) couldn't be replaced by automation, or 2) that couldn't be done (if at higher wages) by natives?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 5, 2007 10:29 PM



"I recently read that immigrants are welcome in Spain — which seems like it should be ironic..."

I guess it all depends on who you read:

The European Observatory against Racism, based in Vienna, said Spanish intolerance towards immigrants has hardened and they are increasingly associated with crime and terrorism.

As Jaime Mayor Oreja, the former minister of the interior, put it: "Immigration is problem number one for Spain during the next decade."

Posted by: David Fleck on June 6, 2007 7:38 AM



"California's 9 billion dollar agricultural sector is dependent on "peasant labor from abroad.""

This may well be true, but is it a good thing? Or is having a permanent underclass of underpaid and exploited workers just a necessary evil of California's agricultural business? (Here in the Midwest we seem to get along pretty well with local talent, as far as I can tell. In fact, my daughter, like many local teenagers, is looking into doing some corn detasselling work this summer for extra cash.)

Posted by: David Fleck on June 6, 2007 7:47 AM



Allan - So California agriculture is utterly dependent on a labor system that is imposing great and growing social costs on the rest of the state (and the nation). Seems to me that intelligent, long-term thinking about the future of their industry ought to include more than concerted lobbying efforts aimed at forcing continued public subsidy of their labor costs. (Market forces for thee but not for me, a common refrain.)

I guess the nightmare scenario for California ag would be waking up one morning to discover that Mexico and nations southward had become the well-governed, prosperous places that they ought to be. It's probably much more of a hassle to get dirt-cheap labor from over the oceans. (But still a better deal than modernizing the industry or paying better wages and benefits!)

Posted by: Moira Breen on June 6, 2007 9:11 AM



The idea that average Americans could be motivated to work cheaply, efficiently and with skill in Califorinia's Central Valley sun is ludicrous to those of us who have worked alongside them.
[...]
[P]eople who have spend their lives indoors would have a rude awakening working outdoors with temperatures routinely exceeding 100 degrees.

As with eating, so with construction. Before the last decade or so most of us were living in grass huts, the building of houses being beyond the native skill-level and unaffordable, before mass migration from Mexico.

Posted by: Moira Breen on June 6, 2007 10:34 AM



I guess my response to the concept of "we're a nation of immigrants" is too simplistic: I'm not an immigrant, I was born here. My parents were born here and my grandparents were born here. THEIR parents were immigrants, but that was over a hundred years ago AND they did it legally. At what point do we stop being immigrants and start being citizens? My thinking: when we choose to do so. I have no interest or care for the "culture" of my great grandparents. When asked my nationality, I always answer "American". That's my culture, such as it is. I'm so sick and tired of "Mexican-Americans" and "Irish-Americans" and "African-Americans". You're here, you were born here, you're an American. As soon as you stop distancing yourself from the populace because of where your great grandparents came from, the sooner you'll be accepted by the populace. If you're a recent immigrant, great! You came here because in comparison your old home sucked. Stop trying to turn this one in to that one.

Perhaps we are a nation of immigrants, but the significant point is we're not a nation of ILLEGAL immigrants (protests from the Native Americans aside...)

Posted by: Upstate Guy on June 6, 2007 10:35 AM



Dear Michael

Thank you all for the conversation. I am not an expert on California agriculture. I report on this elephant standing back here holding the tail.

As to the 'peasant' talk. That is Krikorian's term, not mine. I've been at this for over 40 years and many of the supervisors in my organization are former farm workers and the children of migrants who send their children to college and who are wonderful caring intelligent friends and citizens.

Thanks David from the Midwest. Let me make a rough contrast between Midwest and California agricultural roots. Midwest farms were settled by the quarter with four families per square mile. Historically summer rains meant that grains were cut and dried and hauled in wagons to large standing threshers for separation into grain. Families gathered to carry out this communal harvest.

Early California farms became a crucible of farm technology. California's flat valley, dry Meditteranean summer, mountain water and perennial labor shortages due to the gold rush set the scene here. Wealthy 'bonanza' farms sprang up to feed the mining and trade and had a ready supply of mechanics from the gold industry. Huge farm machines plied large, flat, bone-dry farms. These machines would have bogged down in damp Midwestern fields, compacting the soil and clogging the separators with damp grain.

Harvesters with powerful gasoline engines, light weight steel bodies and 'side-hill' separators largely negated California's early advantages by 1925, but California still lives by technology.

Take my processing tomato industry as an example. Large farmers and canners met with farm machine engineers and plant pathologists at the UC Davis ag campus in c1955. They planned to develop hard, determinate (all tomatoes ripen at once) processing tomato hybrids while the engineers developed machines capable of picking them. When I started inspecting as a graduate student in 1966 about 100 pickers spent 4 hours picking a truckload of boxes. The original harvester (1964)had 27 sorters who could harvest a truckload of bins in 4 hours. Modern harvesters with electronic sorters and satellite telemetry pick bulk loads in 20 minutes now. That is, handpicks at 1600 hours per load, early mechanical harvest at 100 hours per load, and modern harvesters at 1 hour per load. A similar waterfall of technology has reduced labor costs in processing, cultivation and our inspection as well.

As for subsidies, Moira, California is largely out of the loop. Southern cotton and rice and Midwestern corn and grain have the inside track. I was looking forward to the end of all subsidies. Farm subsidies more than technological reason drives the ethanol corn craze IMHO.

Also Moira, I do not fear Mexican prosperity. In fact, it would be a welcome relief. Several processors have tried tomato factories in Mexico. A short season, bugs and tropical diseases make the crop risky. Poor farm practices with massive uncontrolled pesticide use make the products questionble at best. From my prospective a good inspection of foreign ag products would even the playing field a great deal.

Chinese gluten mixed with melamine masquading as quality soy is one of many as yet undiscovered problems with food from developing countries. The inspection services have been largely dismantled; what you don't see isn't happening.

For my money, our farmer's market supports local growers near my urban home. I readily admit that here are all sorts of inequities in our farm sector regionally and nationally. However, illegal immigrants lowering wages in the construction, food service, and hospitality trades are a far larger problem in my mind.

Allan Jones


Posted by: Allan Jones on June 6, 2007 12:08 PM



Allan - As for subsidies, Moira, California is largely out of the loop. Southern cotton and rice and Midwestern corn and grain have the inside track. I was looking forward to the end of all subsidies. Farm subsidies more than technological reason drives the ethanol corn craze IMHO.

I wasn't referring to direct agricultural subsidies (though I would like to see them disappear, too). If, as seems to be the case, the public is subsidizing "cheap" labor in the form of educational and medical costs, high housing costs, degraded infrastructure, etc., then California is most certainly not "out of the loop". Do you believe that there is negligible "socialized cost" (I believe that is the standard term) to recent high-volume immigration into California?

Also Moira, I do not fear Mexican prosperity. In fact, it would be a welcome relief. Several processors have tried tomato factories in Mexico. A short season, bugs and tropical diseases make the crop risky. Poor farm practices with massive uncontrolled pesticide use make the products questionble at best.

I don't see your point here. Imitating the California ag industry is Mexico's only ticket to prosperity? Mexicans can't be producers in anything but agriculture? Whatever, that's neither here nor there. The point is that California ag would not have a ready supply of cheap labor if Mexico wasn't politically dysfunctional and could provide opportunities for its citizens. So it's hard to see how a prosperous Mexico could be a "welcome relief" (strictly in terms of economic self-interest, that is) to someone who is arguing that his business is absolutely dependent on a continued inflow of cheap Mexican labor.

You have claimed, flatly, "no Mexicans, no business". So, if the rest of the citizenry decided that the social costs of massive immigration had become too high, what would you do? Agricultural businesses would have to adjust, or fail, just like any other businesses. People who have seen their quality of life degraded by uncontrolled immigration are going to respond very skeptically to claims that we're all going to starve to death or be poisoned by foreign produce if we don't allow a huge chunk of the population of Mexico (and points south) to move here. (We've been pretty much living on Canadian, not Californian, peppers and tomatoes while we wait for our own garden to yield its fruits. Go figure. I envision vast greenhouses across the tundra.)

I readily admit that here are all sorts of inequities in our farm sector regionally and nationally. However, illegal immigrants lowering wages in the construction, food service, and hospitality trades are a far larger problem in my mind.

Quite possibly, though you must admit yours is not a disinterested opinion. I am not, as a matter of fact, opposed in principle to any migrant agricultural program. But ag (or any other illegal immigrant loving industry) isn't gaining credibility with the public by claiming first that immigrants in their hundreds of thousands, then in their millions, and now in their tens of millions *just aren't enough*. (Gee, where'd they all go?) Look, Allan, if this shamnesty passes, and the projected 30, 40, 50 million new immigrants were to pour in over the next few decades, to do "the work that Americans won't do", growers would *still* be whining about their rotting peaches. Though I think the public will have told them to go pound sand long before that date. Can no longer compete without turning the U.S. into Mexico? Fail or find a better way of running your business.

I've been at this for over 40 years and many of the supervisors in my organization are former farm workers and the children of migrants who send their children to college and who are wonderful caring intelligent friends and citizens.

So? What does this have to do with the price of melamine in China?

Posted by: Moira Breen on June 6, 2007 3:42 PM



Dear Michael,

Michael, I believe that some crops like orchards require highly skilled workers. Americans could be trained to do the work, but I don't think they will. I am one of the few who chose to work 70-80 hours per week in the heat. I was also not afraid of heavy labor.

I do not think that many kids today will follow in my footsteps. My daughter, using more good sense than her father, became a chartered financial analyst.

Sorry Moira, I feel like you are casting me as biased because as you say it is "in my economic self-interest." My tomato crop uses fewer immigrants than most crops. Tomato fields are laser leveled and prepared by machines guided by global satellite. There may or may not even be a driver. The satellite makes sure that the drip irrigation isn't disturbed. Transplants, often from Mexico, get a jump on weeds. The harvester crews are, for the most part, small and local. Many work all winter maintaining the equipment. The processing plants are all outside cities because they require few workers. I visited one several years ago that was operating day and night seven days a week with a crew of 37 including administration and maintenance. The guy who took me around introduced me to the two local housewives who sat on opposite sides of the control panel that ran the incoming and processing lines. No immigrants, no low wage slaves. Other crops that are not so industrialized will do something else.

I will retire in a few years if the industry doesn't decide that it doesn't need inspection and lay us all off. If they do, I will work as a painter and designer; that is my personal goal anyway.

The big influx of immigrants here is for construction and other trades. They have broken the unions and lowered wages and benefits. I would appreciate the business people who use them to be fined and jailed. Migrants are commonly used in meat processing plants. Both slaughter houses in my town closed and reopened in the Midwest and South; they run non-union with illegal workers. The people around here who were laid off were not amused.

Labor intensive crops will fail without skilled farm labor.

Posted by: Allan on June 6, 2007 6:15 PM



The big influx of immigrants here is for construction and other trades.

Yes, let's not forget who's rebuilding New Orleans as well as pitching in on the 'pubs newest fence across the border...

Posted by: Upstate Guy on June 7, 2007 2:17 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?