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







« How Real Are Tourist "Cultural" Events? | Main | Manzoni's Cans »

June 19, 2007

Frum on Losing the Faith, Plus Linkage

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum started off a dewy-eyed neocon, enthusiastic about our no-enforcement approach to immigration policy. The more the better! And who cares who they are! Then real life started to intrude on his fantasies. He writes here about how he finally lost the no-borders faith. Nice passage:

I ... began to learn that you could hardly name a social problem without discovering that immigration was aggravating it to the point of unsolvability.

Health insurance? Immigrants accounted for about one-quarter of the uninsured in the early 1990s, and about one-third of the increase in the uninsured population at that time.

Social spending? The Urban Institute estimated in 1994 that educating the children of illegal aliens cost the State of California almost $1.5 billion per year.

Wage pressure on the less-skilled? The wages of less-skilled Americans had come under ferocious pressure since 1970. How could you even begin to think about this issue without recognizing the huge immigration-driven increase in the supply of unskilled labor over the same period?

Competitiveness? How could the U.S. remain the world's most productive nation while simultaneously remixing its population to increase dramatically the proportion of poorly educated people within it?

Good for Frum. Of course, the question does arise: Why do we have so many puffed-up, wet-behind-the-ears, know-it-all brats like Frum in positions of government and media authority in the first place?

Steve Sailer pokes some well-deserved fun at David Frum. Frum responds.

Mickey Kaus wonders why more lefties aren't protesting against the current (and still kicking) immigration proposal. Isn't the left supposed to stand up for the lower-class American workingperson? A Rasmussen poll finds that only 15% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of immigration questions -- yet still he presses ahead. What drives that man? Screenwriter "David Kahane" offers some humorous perspective on the immigration follies from L.A.: Go ahead and take care of our lawns, just don't start undercutting our screenwriting wages.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at June 19, 2007




Comments

Is there a bigger villain in our day than a properly informed open-borders type, or a bigger fool than the ignorant pro-immirgation cheerleader?

Posted by: PA on June 19, 2007 1:22 PM



Frum, Perle, and the rest, they're all really good at talking and writing, like law school students, they can come off as qualified on any issue, even if they're empirically clueless. Engineers, doctors etc, people in practical professions, have practical world views. People in esoteric professions where you dream things up in your brain and say them, have idiotic, utopian and anti-practical world views.

All of this wouldn't be a problem if practical people ran the country, but they don't - esoteric priests do. All of this stems from giving intellectuals, especially lawyer types, too much power. Politicians come and go, journalists and intellectuals, the rotting core at the center of most western problems, stick around forever, and learn how to manipulate politicians, like Perle did Bush. And so charlatans like Frum get their way.

Posted by: metallica's orion rocks! on June 19, 2007 2:21 PM



Health insurance? Social spending? Wage pressure on the less-skilled? Competitiveness?

And the only solution the right can come up with is deport the illegal immigrants. Talk about a failure of imagination. If the U.S. can't figure out how to be strengthened by the millions of people flocking here to work their asses off for us, we don't deserve to be successful.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 2:28 PM



JA is ignorant.

The Right wants to stop additional immigration, enforce the laws we currently have, deport criminals, seal the border, and punish rouge employers.

Posted by: PA on June 19, 2007 2:49 PM



Proper immigration can be a very good thing for a nation. The problem is in half assed and illegal immigration.

Posted by: T.W on June 19, 2007 2:55 PM



Dear Mr. Atheist:

A lot of employers have figured out how to privately benefit from large numbers of low-skilled immigrants; pay them rock bottom wages and socialize around 50% or more of their true costs via free public education, effectively free public health care, free public roads, free public defense, etc., etc. Of course, if you're not in a business that employs low-cost low-skill labor, that doesn't do much for you.

More generally, I've never seen any studies that suggest a significant net benefit to natives of the 12 million illegals now in the country. Well, you might have to modify that for the New Class-types (professionals, financiers and top corporate executives) who have figured out how to grow their incomes significantly in excess of the underlying economic growth rate; for those guys and gals, economic growth, in and of itself, is a good thing, no matter how it occurs. (Also, of course, they have a wonderful supply of low-cost domestic help, gardeners, etc.) For the less fortunate people in the bottom 90 percentiles, at least over the last 40 years, growth per se and particularly from immigration hasn't paid off so well; they've just gotten stuck with the congestion and the cultural disruption, the bad schools, tighter housing markets, environmental degradation, etc.

But hey, because we knew that mass immigration worked out well in the 19th century (prior to modernization of the economy and prior to having a welfare state), it should still work out now, right? Right.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on June 19, 2007 3:49 PM



Jewish Atheist,

How many spare bedrooms do you have in your house? Are they full of your hispanic friends? Why not?

The real lack of imagination comes on the part of the mexicans who can't make their own country work. I suggest you spend as much time coming up with negative angles on them as you do for the rest of real american citizenry. You know, equal treatment.

That is, if you have the imagination required do so.

Forgetting the above crank, is anyone else as amazed as I am about how quickly the public debate on this has shifted? Just a couple of years ago, you could find any number of proponents for this on the left and the right. It seems that the whole tide has turned, with the most pleasant surprise coming from the new opposition of those on the left. It seems that the statistics finally won them over--increased crime, lower wges, environmental problems, etc. I think the tipping point was reached last year after the illegal marches and general elections. The next domino to fall will be legal immigration. It seems that the downturn in the economy and job losses will take care of this, along with continued outsourcing.

Bush's true motives to increase immigration have nothing to do with his stated ones. The idea is to merge the US, Mexico, and Canada and allow the free flow of people across borders--a businessman's wet dream. Low wages in every pot! I'm glad the public is starting to wake up in a big way. There's hope to stop this nonsense.

Posted by: BIOH on June 19, 2007 4:32 PM



"There's hope to stop this nonsense."

But Jean Raspail's 'Monster' will still endure amongst the elite. And the elite gets what it wants in the end, one way or another. Politicans from the areas that have been Mexicanized - Texas (Bush), Cali, Arizona (McCain), support amnesty, because Mexicans are a valuable constituency. Whites vote for whoever, but Mexicans tip the balance, indeed the elevation of minority power at the expense of majority due to the balance tipping phenomenon is one of the primary indictments of democracy today. Texas, Cali and Arizona are America's future, Raspail's monster has already come, infected and ravaged this land.

Posted by: metallica's orion rocks! on June 19, 2007 4:50 PM



This astonishing article explains the position we are in, and why things may get worse. http://vdare.com/misc/070220_chaves.htm

Posted by: metallica's orion rocks! on June 19, 2007 4:55 PM



Immigration isn't an issue, it's a symptom. A sympton of the much larger problem of global population growth. Global population in 1950 was 2.6 billion. It now stands at 6.5 billion. By 2050, it will be 9.5 billion. (source www.census.gov). With North America and Western Europe birth-to-death ratios at or near 1, the bulk of the population explosion has been in third world and newly industrialized countries (read:China). What we're seeing is a normal physical phenomenon called osmosis. Highly concentrated pockets of humanity are diffusing across national borders into pockets of humanity with low populations. Thus, the population problems in the West. It's only going to get worse and there's nothing we can do about it.

Posted by: ron on June 19, 2007 5:04 PM



Dear Michael and Friedrich,

I am so glad you guys agree on this issue. You guys are intellectual gurus to many of us.

Ultimately, the leftist fallacy is people cannot prefer their parents to others. Leftists believe in the right to prefer, but they are unable to take positions consistent with this right because the positions conflict with their desires. Although this is perfectly human behavior, it must be recognized as dysfunctional behavior.

Posted by: Paul Henri on June 19, 2007 5:30 PM



PA:

JA is ignorant.

The Right wants to stop additional immigration, enforce the laws we currently have, deport criminals, seal the border, and punish rouge employers.

Isn't that what I said? The right's only solution is to deport all the illegal immigrants. Unless you aren't including them in your "criminals" category, in which case they will be in our country but unable to work (if you're punishing rogue employers. Doesn't sound like much of a plan -- the American people won't stand for that kind of mass deportation and preventing millions of people from working won't do anybody any good.


FVB:

A lot of employers have figured out how to privately benefit from large numbers of low-skilled immigrants; pay them rock bottom wages and socialize around 50% or more of their true costs...

Hey I'm all against employers externalizing costs to the people. I'm not sure it's fair to call education or health care a cost that employers should be paying, however.

More generally, I've never seen any studies that suggest a significant net benefit to natives of the 12 million illegals now in the country.

We can do better. 12 million workers can't be a net negative even assuming higher than average criminal rates. It just doesn't make sense. If we made it easier to find legitimate employment, their net benefit to the country would surely go up.

For the less fortunate people... they've just gotten stuck with the congestion and the cultural disruption, the bad schools, tighter housing markets, environmental degradation, etc.

Again, that's a fault of our policies, not of the immigrants per se.

But hey, because we knew that mass immigration worked out well in the 19th century (prior to modernization of the economy and prior to having a welfare state), it should still work out now, right? Right.

Defeating an argument I didn't make. Well done. ;-)

My main point, though, is this. The illegal immigrants we already have are pretty much here to stay. Half the right probably hasn't accepted this yet, but the American people will not stand for mass deportation. I don't think that really sealing off the borders is going to happen either. This is turning into yet another issue (abortion, gay rights, health care, Iraq) that the right is doomed to lose but will do their best to make everyone's lives miserable in the meantime.

How about instead of demonizing the immigrants ("I had to push one for English!") we grant them amnesty, or at least a path towards amnesty? Even if it is a net negative, I don't see any other options which have a prayer of actually happening.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 5:55 PM



JA:

And the only solution the left can come up with is to give amnesty to the illegal immigrants. Talk about a failure of imagination. If the U.S. can't figure out how to defend its borders against the millions of people flocking here against our wishes to work their asses off for themselves, we don't deserve to continue as a sovereign nation.

And as for the American people not standing for mass deportation, wanna bet? I'm with BIOH in being amazed at how rapidly public opinion is changing on this issue. And it's going to continue to change for as long as America's (say it!) traitorous ruling class continues to ignore the express wishes of the people it pretends to represent. It's almost as if this issue is the storming of the Bastille...the harbinger of bigger changes to come.

Illegal immigration? Ecrasez l'infame!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 19, 2007 6:30 PM



Dear Mr. Atheist:

The illegal immigrants we already have are pretty much here to stay. Half the right probably hasn't accepted this yet, but the American people will not stand for mass deportation. I don't think that really sealing off the borders is going to happen either.

I suspect that America can deal with the 12 million illegals we already have, one way or another. However, if we truly cannot control our borders, then debating "comprehensive" immigration reform or bothering with any kind of immigration policy is just pointless lip-flapping. We'll shortly have far, far more "undocumented" immigrants than a measly 12 million to deal with. (The progression seems a tad ominous: 3 million in 1986, 12 million twenty years later; this would suggest we'll have 48 million in 2027.)

I'm not sure if you are predicting that border control will never be enforced, or is physically unenforceable; I'd be interested to know which, given that we really do spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a military machine that could be presumably be deployed along the border. If we either cannot or will not control the border, the consequence would appear to be our being compelled to accept, say, the 40 million or so Mexicans who have indicated a willingness to better their personal lot by moving to the U.S. And, of course, that says nothing of the tens (hundreds?) of millions of other foreigners who might want to take up residence here. I'm intrigued: do you see any limits on this process? At least other than when the quality of life degrades to the point where nobody wants to come here anymore?

I'm also struck by your assumption that we should be able to get 12 million illegals, many of whom lack even a high school education, to the point where they don't need to be subsidized. Today, state and federal spending per capita is somewhat above $10,000; are you suggesting that strictly by better policies we can get these people's income up to the point where they actually kick over $10,000 in state and federal taxes annually? Or let me put it another way; if by waving a magic wand we could force employers to bear the full costs of such employees--that is, by paying them enough to generate that $10,000+ in taxes--I seriously suspect the supply of jobs that "Americans won't do" would dry up pretty fast.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on June 19, 2007 6:49 PM



I disagree with the fatalists. Immigration, or "osmosis," is not an unstoppable force of nature. Given the will, any sovereign state can enforce its borders via physical security and removal of incentives to immigrate. Look at Malaysia. Their "amnesty" means that an illegal has the opportunity to leave before he is caned, fined and imprisoned for traspassing.

I am optimistic. For one, the West is waking up from its PC-slumber and the taboos are falling -- John Edwards just got an ovation at a speech where he gave some lip service to restrictionism, and Pat Buchannan of 1992 is mainstream discourse on this subject today -- and two, birth rates are dropping worldwide; the West is just slightly ahead of others.

Jewish Atheist -- there are two ways to hold your position on immigration, I figure: with an attitude of "realist" acceptance of a necessary evil, or with enthusiastic approval. What's your attitude? I'm honestly interested.

Posted by: PA on June 19, 2007 6:53 PM



"....the American people will not stand for mass deportation."

I'm American and I don't have a problem with mass deportation. Gains - less taxes, better schools, better enviroment, better medical, less traffic, less crime etc; losses - well I mow my own yard so I'll have to think about that one...

Posted by: glennron on June 19, 2007 6:57 PM



Did you notice how this jewish atheist turns the tables and blames us for the immigration problem? Like we are the ones who broke the law! Its you, the average citizen, who have the problem! You're at fault! Just read his posts--the immigrants are perfect! They do no wrong, ever! Its you that's the problem! What a joke of an argument. If you only had more "imagination" in solving everybody else's problems, then everything would work out okey-dokey! What nonsense!

I bet about 80-90% of americans would have absolutely no problem rounding these people up and shipping them out. I wouldn't. Like I said in another post, if you just round up and ship out 150 a day (three Greyhound busloads) from each state, that's almost 3 million a year. In a couple of years, half would be gone and the other half would be headed back. I'd be the first to organize a barbeque/sendoff for these folks as they make their long journey back to their native lands, where their friends, family, and relatives are all anxioulsy waiting for them to come home! Imagine the joy and celebration on both sides of the Rio Grande!

How about instead of rewarding the crooks, we ship them out on a rail? How about noticing that this isn't a right/left issue anymore, as democrat/leftists of all stripes are now on our side? How about respecting the law? How about getting a clue that if you import a population that commits more crime, pays less taxes, drops out of school more, has more broken families and illegitimate kids, demands more welfare, and is basically a low-skilled, low IQ underclass, that's a bad thing? Get it? What part of that do you not understand?

Why can't all of us idiots get behind the idea of turning our country into a third world hellhole? Why do we cling to such antiquated ideas as ethnic and religious (christian too, I bet that eats at you pretty good, eh?) identity and the rule of law? Why can't we all just roll a joint and forget about it?

JA, why can't you just roll a joint an forget about it? See, I can turn the tables too.

In fact, I think we should kick the illegals out and start invading their countries again, just like we use to! They could stand a little diversity, being ridiculously homogeneous, backward hellholes. And whites could probablly stimulate their backward economies as well! Genius! See the solution is another round of colonialism--you just haven't figured that out yet.

Again, how many bedrooms of your house do you let out for illegal aliens? its a pretty simple question to answer.

Posted by: BIOH on June 19, 2007 6:58 PM



PatrickH:

And the only solution the left can come up with is to give amnesty to the illegal immigrants. Talk about a failure of imagination.

The left has come up with other suggestions as well, such as a path to citizenship.

If the U.S. can't figure out how to defend its borders against the millions of people flocking here against our wishes to work their asses off for themselves...

Funny how people on the right completely abandon economics when immigration is involved. Isn't people working for themselves what makes our economy tick?

And as for the American people not standing for mass deportation, wanna bet?

Uh, yeah. What do you think happens when the first crying children are shown on t.v. watching their parents being dragged off? Or when the whole family is dragged off?


FVB:

I suspect that America can deal with the 12 million illegals we already have, one way or another. However, if we truly cannot control our borders, then debating "comprehensive" immigration reform or bothering with any kind of immigration policy is just pointless lip-flapping. We'll shortly have far, far more "undocumented" immigrants than a measly 12 million to deal with. (The progression seems a tad ominous: 3 million in 1986, 12 million twenty years later; this would suggest we'll have 48 million in 2027.)

I largely agree with you. I don't think the immigration is going to slow down at all. That's one of the reasons I think we need a better way to integrate them rather than cursing the inevitable.

I'm not sure if you are predicting that border control will never be enforced, or is physically unenforceable; I'd be interested to know which, given that we really do spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a military machine that could be presumably be deployed along the border.

The former. I suppose it's theoretically enforceable, but deploying the army along the Mexican border would be an absurd waste of resources, not to mention carrying a number of other intangible costs that come when an army faces civilians.

If we either cannot or will not control the border, the consequence would appear to be our being compelled to accept, say, the 40 million or so Mexicans who have indicated a willingness to better their personal lot by moving to the U.S. And, of course, that says nothing of the tens (hundreds?) of millions of other foreigners who might want to take up residence here. I'm intrigued: do you see any limits on this process?

I'm not sure what the limits could be or would be. Perhaps if we enacted a policy making legal immigration much easier and speedier, it would let us get a little more control of the process. I don't know.

At least other than when the quality of life degrades to the point where nobody wants to come here anymore?

Why do you take it as a given that the quality of life will degrade with immigration? We've experienced huge population growth since the founding of the country (and before) with vast increases in average quality of life.

I'm also struck by your assumption that we should be able to get 12 million illegals, many of whom lack even a high school education, to the point where they don't need to be subsidized.

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I do think it's possible.

Today, state and federal spending per capita is somewhat above $10,000; are you suggesting that strictly by better policies we can get these people's income up to the point where they actually kick over $10,000 in state and federal taxes annually?

Between taxes they pay and revenue they otherwise generate (through their work) I don't see why not.

Or let me put it another way; if by waving a magic wand we could force employers to bear the full costs of such employees--that is, by paying them enough to generate that $10,000+ in taxes--I seriously suspect the supply of jobs that "Americans won't do" would dry up pretty fast.

So what's the problem? I thought conservatives were for competition. Are you arguing that we simply won't have enough jobs to go around? Why would that be? What's so special about the exact number of people we have today that it's the optimum population level for employment?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 7:06 PM



Read what Lawrence Auster had to say about Frum's latest...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008090.html

Posted by: Bob Grier on June 19, 2007 7:18 PM



PA:

Jewish Atheist -- there are two ways to hold your position on immigration, I figure: with an attitude of "realist" acceptance of a necessary evil, or with enthusiastic approval. What's your attitude? I'm honestly interested.

I think it's a combination. I have the attitude of a realist in that I think there isn't much we can do to stop it, but I'm also somewhat enthusiastic about the prospect of improving the lives of millions of immigrants coming here for just that reason, especially if we can maintain or improve our nation's status at the same time.

BIOH:

Did you notice how this jewish atheist turns the tables and blames us for the immigration problem? Like we are the ones who broke the law! Its you, the average citizen, who have the problem! You're at fault! Just read his posts--the immigrants are perfect! They do no wrong, ever! Its you that's the problem! What a joke of an argument.

Really? Didn't I basically concede that illegal immigrants have a higher than average criminal rate? Did I deny that they are less educated? I do think we can do a better job on the issue if we start dealing with reality rather than giving into fears, xenophobic or reasonable. Isn't that my prerogative?

I bet about 80-90% of americans would have absolutely no problem rounding these people up and shipping them out. I wouldn't.

According to the first poll a google search turned up, about 48% of Americans favored deporting illegal immigrants in 2006. I believe that number would drop drastically once the reality of deportation set in.

Like I said in another post, if you just round up and ship out 150 a day (three Greyhound busloads) from each state, that's almost 3 million a year.

You seem to be under the impression that the logistics of moving people is the problem. The problem is doing the "rounding up" in the first place and maintaining public support while you tear apart families and inflict whatever else collateral damage such a massive undertaking would entail.

How about respecting the law?

The law is completely impractical and basically unenforceable. I'm sure that many of the readers here would make the same choice those illegal immigrants have made given the choice of being able to feed their families and following some law.

How about getting a clue that if you import a population that commits more crime, pays less taxes, drops out of school more, has more broken families and illegitimate kids, demands more welfare, and is basically a low-skilled, low IQ underclass, that's a bad thing?

It might be a bad thing. The question is, how bad is it, how long will it be bad, can we deal with it, and is it worse than the alternatives? That's where you and I differ.

Why can't all of us idiots get behind the idea of turning our country into a third world hellhole? Why do we cling to such antiquated ideas as ethnic and religious (christian too, I bet that eats at you pretty good, eh?) identity and the rule of law? Why can't we all just roll a joint and forget about it?

I thought America isn't supposed to discriminate based on religion or ethnicity. Are you pining away for a national church or a whites-only policy? I'm in favor of the rule of law, but the responsibility runs both ways. The people must follow the laws, but the laws must be reasonable and practical.

And whites could probablly stimulate their backward economies as well!

Careful. Taking that attitude to its logical extension, we Ashkenazi Jews should just get rid of you WASPs and just run the world ourselves. Or are you only a fan of IQ differences you're in the higher group?

Again, how many bedrooms of your house do you let out for illegal aliens? its a pretty simple question to answer.

Zero. I currently rent out zero rooms to illegal aliens. Of course, I only have one bedroom, so perhaps that's reasonable.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 7:53 PM



JA:

I'm curious how you distinguish between my "amnesty" and your "path to citizenship".

I haven't abandoned economics, JA. I was merely contesting your tendentious description of illegal immigrants as "working their asses off for us." Illegal aliens don't come here in violation of our laws because of some altruistic concern for our welfare. Why then should we continue to allow such flouting of the law of the land because of some misguided altruistic concern for their welfare?

As for the dragging off, I do agree that the media will find the most heartrending examples and make sure they're broadcast throughout the news cycle. I have confidence in the hard-heartedness of the American people to see through the media's manipulations, though. It's the idealist in me, I guess. I still believe in my innocence that Americans are a sovereign people willing to defend their country from unwanted intruders.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 19, 2007 8:20 PM



JewishAtheist

I'm assuming that your being serious and that you just really don't understand what it's like to live in an area where the number of illegal aliens have risen to the point of destroying the culture. I live in Austin Texas. I'm just an average Joe Bob. Let me give just a few examples.

Recently, on a holiday Sunday, my 20 year old daughter was sick to the point where she needed medical attention. We went to the local emergency room as her doctor was not available. In the waiting room there was one guy who had cut most of his finger off doing (his own) yard work, he spoke English, none of the other 20 or so people waiting for medical attention did. The receiving nurse kept explaining that if we couldn't pay the bill the state would. I had a hard time convincing her that I really, really had insurance. Of course my insurance premiums were also paying everyone else's bill as well. My insurance cost? $800 a month.

My 12 year old, 6 grade, son was attacked by two illegal 7th graders, he fought back, didn't win but he fought back – a big no no in our PC school. ( I live in a good enlightened part of town) No one disputes that it was self defense, it's just that self defense is not allowed. We had to go to Muni court. Of the 30 some odd kids 4 were black, 2 were white and the rest spoke little or no English. Because the two other kids mother's claimed to have no money they received no fine, just 8 hours of community service. My son's fine for defending himself?? $200.00 dollars. As an added bonus non English speakers cases were heard first so the court interpretors could go home early.

Not convinced yet?

How about going to the local store and asking a clerk was to find something.....going to be met by a blank stare because she speaks only spanish.

How about being rear ended and having the cop not ticket the really drunk guy with no insurance or drivers license? Because he's not allowed to ticket illegal aliens.

This is just a short list of the real world problems that us Joe Bobs live with because of illegal aliens.

Of course we don't really count, except for our votes, and in today's world thats' only a maybe.

Glennron


Posted by: glennron on June 19, 2007 8:52 PM



I find it odd that we are constantly bombarded by calls for more and more resources and support for education at every level. We are told how important it is to get a good education in order to "make it" in life (ie. stay out of low paying hard labor jobs). And yet, our elite politicians and business leaders turn right around and tell us that what we REALLY need are open borders so that millions of uneducated (and probably uneducatable) Hispanics can come into the country and "do the jobs Americans won't do." I presume that means jobs like washing dishes, mowing lawns and picking fruit and vegetables. Did we decide to inoculate native born Americans so they will NEVER have to even consider such work? So that we HAVE to import labor? So which is more vital? Education or illegal aliens? Am I the only person to see this incredible contradiction?

Posted by: Bob Grier on June 19, 2007 9:08 PM



PatrickH:

I'm curious how you distinguish between my "amnesty" and your "path to citizenship".

Presumably, the path would require certain things of the immigrants before allowing them to become citizens. I haven't followed the details of that plan too closely, I admit.

I haven't abandoned economics, JA. I was merely contesting your tendentious description of illegal immigrants as "working their asses off for us." Illegal aliens don't come here in violation of our laws because of some altruistic concern for our welfare.

Obviously. They are working their asses off for them in the sense that their motives (like all of ours) are primarily selfish. However, they are also working their asses off for us in the sense that they are working for us.

Why then should we continue to allow such flouting of the law of the land because of some misguided altruistic concern for their welfare?

First of all, I'm not sure why altruistic concern for their welfare is "misguided." You might not share the concern, but having different values than you doesn't make one misguided. Second, you have to consider the alternatives. I don't think there are any better ones. When the majority of people the law applies to violate that law, you probably have to rethink the law.

As for the dragging off, I do agree that the media will find the most heartrending examples and make sure they're broadcast throughout the news cycle. I have confidence in the hard-heartedness of the American people to see through the media's manipulations, though.

I believe and hope you're wrong and furthermore I think that it's the very non-hard-heartedness of Americans which has made our country so great. America took in my ancestors, most of whom would surely have died in Europe during WWII otherwise. For over a hundred years, the statue of liberty has read in part:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It's the idealist in me, I guess. I still believe in my innocence that Americans are a sovereign people willing to defend their country from unwanted intruders.

Are you unable to distinguish between immigrants seeking a better life and an invading army?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 9:09 PM



Glennron:

Your examples are not problems with immigration per se, but with misguided policies.

Taking them one by one:

The emergency rooms are filled with poor people (immigrant and otherwise) because we're too stupid and greedy to provide them with regular medical care, which would be a lot more affordable than waiting for things to get so bad they have to go to the emergency room.

Obviously that's a bad thing, but is deporting all illegal immigrants the best or only way to prevent that sort of thing from happening? Regarding the no self-defense rule, I'm in 100% agreement with you that it's ridiculous.

How about going to the local store and asking a clerk was to find something.....going to be met by a blank stare because she speaks only spanish.

I encounter people who don't speak good English working in stores all the time. It's annoying, to be sure, but I seem to manage ok. What's the big deal?

How about being rear ended and having the cop not ticket the really drunk guy with no insurance or drivers license? Because he's not allowed to ticket illegal aliens.

I'm a little skeptical of that -- sounds crazy to me. It wouldn't even be an issue, though, if he were legal. That's what people mean when they talk about bringing them out of the shadows.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 9:18 PM



I, in good faith of your good intentions, tried to give examples of the problems created by illegal aliens. You choose to transfer the blame. I'll try to be more direct.

"The emergency rooms are filled with poor people (immigrant and otherwise) because we're too stupid and greedy to provide them with regular medical care, which would be a lot more affordable than waiting for things to get so bad they have to go to the emergency room."

No illegal aliens = no overrun emergency rooms = no $800 a month insurance premiums. What's hard to understand about that?

"I encounter people who don't speak good English working in stores all the time. It's annoying, to be sure, but I seem to manage ok. What's the big deal?"

Who said anything about bad English? I'm talking abut no English. I'm guessing that in your world we should all speak Spanish to accommodate the illegals. FYI I do speak Spanish, at least a little and my daughter is spending the summer going to collage in Peru and speaks very good Spanish. She tells me that no one there expects to speak English to accommodate her. Wonder why??

"I'm a little skeptical of that -- sounds crazy to me. It wouldn't even be an issue, though, if he were legal. That's what people mean when they talk about bringing them out of the shadows."

Skeptical you may be but go to any overrun city and talk to a cop off the record and you will learn the truth. As for it not being an issue if he were legal, well that is the issue is it not? He is not legal and has no right to be here. And when push comes to shove that's really your point is it not? You don't see, and refuse to see, no problem with unlimited numbers of immigrants, legal or otherwise.

I'm guessing in 5/10 years, depending on where you live, when your world no longer exists that you will wonder why this was allowed.

Glennron

Posted by: glennron on June 19, 2007 10:44 PM



I'm going to reply to Jewish Atheist with a completely ad hominem attack. Yes, ad hominem and proud of it. Yes, attack. He deserves worse, like being sentenced to live next door to 25 Mexicans in a house built to accommodate four or five.

Jewish Atheist is a prime example of a brain exercised for its own sake. I say brain rather than mind because mind includes other abilities besides manipulating words. But Jewish Atheist (hereafter JA) takes great pride in his intellect. He doesn't look, he doesn't listen, he doesn't do any reality testing; but give him (or more correctly, let him give himself) a premise and he's off like a champion debater greyhound.

I will assume JA is serious in letting us know that he is ethnically a Jew, although of course he is above all that religious crap. Except that he is religious; his religion is the grand love of all mankind that expresses itself in contempt for anything less, such as indigenous Americans or nationhood.

But conventionally Jewish in religion or not, JA is conventionally Jewish in his belief that any limits to immigration are a personal insult; after all, his parents or grandparents or whoever were immigrants. So giving a free pass to anyone and everyone from whatever wretched place on earth they come from is something we owe him, because it validates his ancestors.

I would also bet a dollar to a dime that JA lives in a hard-core urban environment, very possibly New York. He's spent his life in crowds, waiting in lines, trying to understand the heavily accented speech of cab drivers and waiters and the hundreds of other underlings who serve him -- secretly glad that no nice Jewish boy or girl has to work at a low-paying, low-prestige job because there's an endless supply of peons to take care of that end. I'll bet he lives in a high-rise apartment building where he constantly hears the noise of neighbors from left, right, up, and down.

JA personally knows no other kind of life; he accepts the herd existence as natural and normal. Anybody who objects to having it forced on them through massive population increase because of uncontrolled immigration must be some kind of nut, he figures.

And the idea of trying to do something to stop and reverse the invasion? What nonsense! It's fated, it's our inevitable destiny. JA lives in an environment too big, too corrupt, too "diverse" for him to exercise any control. Why should anyone else be entitled to choose their own living conditions?

Okay, JA, you can post a reply telling me I'm all wrong about you. But not as wrong as you are about me.

Posted by: Rick Darby on June 19, 2007 11:20 PM



Glennron:

No illegal aliens = no overrun emergency rooms = no $800 a month insurance premiums. What's hard to understand about that?

It's a false dichotomy. Illegal aliens wouldn't overrun emergency rooms if we provided more preventative/routine care for them. ("ARGH! give them care?!?!" The conservatives have conniptions. And that's why we don't. And that's why the ERs are full. And that's why your insurance costs $800 a month.)

I'm guessing that in your world we should all speak Spanish to accommodate the illegals.

Not at all. I just don't see what the big deal is if the occasional clerk doesn't speak English.


Rick Darby:

He doesn't look, he doesn't listen, he doesn't do any reality testing; but give him (or more correctly, let him give himself) a premise and he's off like a champion debater greyhound.

I'll admit I sometimes go charging after a premise, but I'm always open to changing my mind. That's half the fun of arguing.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 19, 2007 11:53 PM



Ashkenazi Jews are fond of inflating their IQ scores and acting as if they are the only group of intelligent people on the planet, when their scores are no higher than regular Poles or Germans. They are behind an awful lot of anti-americanism though, not to mention their anti-white and anti-christian racism and bigotry, which is largely shuttered up by the press. But its getting harder to get whites to non-identify themselves with the papers and TV on the decline, isn't it? Too bad the internet exists. I guess its time now to try to control that too, eh?

Actually you can't be jewish and an atheist--the two are mutually exclusive. Its like calling yourself a catholic atheist, its ridiculous. The claim that judaism is also some sort of ethnic trait which gives an identity despite the atheism is also ridiculous. Its like calling an irish atheist a catholic, because their ethnicity is irish, even though they are atheists. But since there are a significant number of jews who hate whites, they can't identify themselves with whites, and since they were so often refugees, not with any country either. Hence the clinging to a religious identity, even if they are irreligious, an obvious absurdity. You have allied youself with a movement, socialism, both the national and international kind, which jews played a heavy hand in, and which ironically killed millions of your own people. Obviously as a socialist, ashkenazi jew or not, you need all the gentile political wisdom you can get.

I guarantee you that if it was practical enough to ship these people in, it will be practical enough to ship them out. They came here little by little and they can go home little by little, kids and all. Use big numbers all you like, but it can easily be done and most of the american people will gladly turn them in. I'll start by volunteering my services to the cause. I'm sure many, many others would also throw in their hats. If you think Noah saw a flood, you haven't seen anything yet!

See, if these people can't take care of themselves, they really have no business coming here and demanding that we take care of them. We would all be much better off with a new form of colonialsim where we invaded their countries, taught them how to speak english, taught them our Bible, imposed our civil laws and way of life, and generally ran things for them so they couldn't screw things up so bad that they all wanted to leave. In return, they could pay us with their natural resources, such as oil and other essential minerals, as well as agricultural products. See, all the problems would stay there while all the benefits would accrue to us here. Just think, we would actually be cleaning up their environment by disposing of all that toxic oil here, by burning it up safely in our cars! Its really genius if you think about it, which obviously you can, given that gigantic ashkenazi jewish brain of yours. Ahh, the good old days! It was really a much better system. And a whole lot of gentiles are starting to agree with me on that!

Its not much of a surprise that, given a bit of goading and logical opposition, your bigotry came out. I knew it would. What people don't know is that there are an awful lot of people like you in many organizations around our country, working hard to destroy white christian Europe and America, and consolidating jewish power and international socialist interests. Of course, most jews are not involved in this nonsense, just as there are many blacks or hispanics who aren't members of the Nation of Islam or La Raza. But they are aware of you and they fear the backlash you will cause. They are the smart ashkenazi jews, and you are not one of them.

I'm glad you revealed yourself as the bigot you are on this board. Now maybe white christians will start to see what they are really facing and piss all over the "racism" bullshit that is constantly leveled at them. This invasion, and that is exactly what it is, is not simply about economics, or about tradtional immigration. It is an intentional plan to displace and disempower you, and to make you slaves in the lands your forefathers conquered, by a broad coalition of anti-white, anti-christian haters and racists who want to destroy you and the homelands of your forebears. If you poke around a little bit, you can find ample evidence of these communist dipshits who are trying to destroy you. If you are worried about being a racist, you are the only group in the world that is. Get a clue from this guy and start acting in your own interest. I keep telling you tribalism is survival. Get tribal. And get mean. Mean and tribal, and you and your country(ies) survive. Nice and tolerant, and they take it over and you will either flee or spend your life giving them your money, rights, and opportunities. You think that can't happen here--it is happening here, and you are seeing it! Its been going on for the last 40 years and getting worse! Kick them out or you will get kicked out. There is no neutral ground.

Posted by: BIOH on June 20, 2007 12:57 AM



"false dichotomy" You need to look up the meaning. Debating ideals is fun, but you are just a troll, I'm going to sleep. It's a better use of my time.

"I'll admit I sometimes go charging after a premise, but I'm always open to changing my mind. That's half the fun of arguing"

Nope, your just a troll, no fun at all.

Posted by: glennron on June 20, 2007 1:02 AM



I've had some "fun" calling senators on this issue. The morning the bill was out one aide told me I had not read the bill -- he of course had. The several hundred page bill had been out a few hours. I laughed at him, and I made him admit he had not read it. I've gotten several flat-out lies and talking points, which I rebutted on the spot. Apparently, the aides can be as dumb as the senators.

Often the phone is continuously busy. When it is answered, they want to dump you ASAP. I asked one woman aide if lobbyists are cut off at the knees or is that special treatment reserved for citizens. I have always been polite, except when I called Lindsey Graham's office and asked if they could cut me in on the deal to represent the Mexican govt. and corporate interests. I told them I would join for a cut of the pie. There was just no point in speaking to him. (An insane aside: Why do I just want to fix up Lindsey with John Edwards? I think they'd have a lawyer or boy named Sue that is born to run for office.)
Mostly what I get from the senators' workers is annoyance. One would think, if there were a real media in the country, citizens' experience in dealing with their (prepare the Heimlich maneuver) --representatives -- would have made the news. I know Feinstein called her callers racists in the NY Times (I believe). Well, that settles that ...right?

Posted by: sN on June 20, 2007 1:57 AM



"The claim that judaism is also some sort of ethnic trait which gives an identity despite the atheism is also ridiculous."

Try telling that to Hitler, the Nazis or just about any anti-semite alive now.

The debate about illegal immigration that keeps popping up here in the comments section is like watching Lou Dobbs or AM talk radio, andf it's all equally pointless, except for people who just love arguing.

Corporations, and local and national business lobbies want a permanent surplus of poorly paid, easily abused workers. They get their way by funding the political parties to do nothing to stop illegal immigration. Without eliminating private campaign financing, this will never change.

David Frum is a consummate opportunistic conservative hack. He was Bush's speechwriter (he coined the "axis of evil" trope) and cheerleader and a foremost neocon pundit. Like so many of his odious ilk, he's now latched on to the anti-immigration fervor as a way to clean off the stink of his Bush sycophancy.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on June 20, 2007 3:17 AM



Frum's a decent man, and he's willing to admit when he's found himself in error.

I wish his loudmouthed critics resembled him.

Posted by: Erich Schwarz on June 20, 2007 3:28 AM



The power the media and lawyers have acquired over policy in the US has complimented and ensured the rise to power of the post-national Jewish elite. The Jewish elite have been attacking immigration restrictions since 1924, entirely on behalf of their own ethnic interests. Their high verbal IQ's allow them entry to the cognitive elite in unprecedented numbers, and they have used this power to undermine America, to change who 'we' are.

The article I linked to describes the secular relgious mindset of JA perfectly:

"t is as if, once faith in the Transcendent was lost, the legitimate guilt once felt for enacting in one's own person the Seven Deadly Sins, and for failing to enact the Cardinal Virtues, devolved and degenerated into a poor, secular mockery of itself, the "Devil Imitating God" and convincing his hapless victims that they deserve to lose their very being because they are guilty, not merely of petty personal faults, but of the entire weight of suffering of the entire human race. Of course, this is a burden no individual can or should try to sustain. The attempt to do so, masquerading as limitless compassion, is in fact a form of enormous orgueil, pride, the original and supreme sin."

Posted by: metallica's orion rocks! on June 20, 2007 4:36 AM



Great commentary by one and all. One of the most interesting commentathons in the plethora of commentathons in 2 Blowhards postings.

Personally, whether I agree with him or not, thanks to Jewish Atheist for getting everyone's interest and bile up.

And now back to the exchange of words....

Posted by: DarkoV on June 20, 2007 8:03 AM



Hah, JA, I have to admit it's been fun watching you singlehandedly get the attention of so many commenters, including me. I once blurted out to several Jewish friends that I would have been a great Jew, because I'm smart, especially verbally, I have a great memory, and I love to argue. They were understanding enough to laugh. I can see that you live up to your nic, because you love to argue too. And the "Atheist" part only makes it worse! :-)

I'm not going to comment on your replies to me any more, except to your last point: "Are you unable to distinguish between immigrants seeking a better life and an invading army?" Well, yes. One of them uses weapons and violence to occupy a country against the wishes of its inhabitants; the other doesn't.

You assert, as far as I can tell without any evidence, that nothing can be done about migration into America. I'm curious as to how illegal aliens have acquired the mysterious superpower of entering America at will, and why they've only chosen to exercise that power so much only in the last 20 years or so.

I for one hope America doesn't heed your counsel of "bend over and take it, but use some lube so it doesn't hurt so much". America should at least give a try to maintaining its sovereignty. For some reason, the thought of America as a third world sinkhole depresses me. Though not some others, apparently.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 20, 2007 8:48 AM



But conventionally Jewish in religion or not, JA is conventionally Jewish in his belief that any limits to immigration are a personal insult
Rick, was it your intention to insult all Jews?
Please confirm, either way.

Posted by: Tatyana on June 20, 2007 9:20 AM



What people don't know is that there are an awful lot of people like you in many organizations around our country, working hard to destroy white christian Europe and America, and consolidating jewish power and international socialist interests.

Wow. I think this argument is officially over.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 20, 2007 10:08 AM



Er, tweet.

Just checking in here for the first time in a while ...

Y'all rock, of course. But this whole "Jewish" thing is making me nervous and is getting out of hand. While I think that the impact of Jewish opinion on American immigration policy is a valid and good (if touchy) topic, I also think that treating each other as mere instances of our ethnicities is bad debating strategy. I mean, sure, me being of Northern-Euro mutt descent has some effect on how I see the world. But I'm also a grownup who has done a fair amount of independent thinking, and I'm entitled to expect to be treated as such. Especially here at 2B, where we encourage freedom of thought but also civility of expression.

So for the sake of a cooling-off stretch here, I'm going to let the conversation continue to roll on, but I'm going to delete any comment that picks up on the "you think that way because you're Jewish" tactic. Keep it on the issues, dudes.

Speaking of which ... One issue that (to my mind) never gets addressed enough is a very practical one. If our immigration policies are disliked by a big majority of Americans (this has been true for a loooooong time), and if the current proposals are an example of our elites doing all they can to put one over on us despite our clearly-expressed preferences (this is also clearly true) ... Well, then, the effect is going to cause a lot of strife and resentment -- it'll be divisive, it'll increase mistrust of the government, it'll set off lots of ethnic strife. (Hey, it already has.) Why on earth would anyone desire those results? So it seems to me that those who argue that high or increased immigration is desirable have some obligatoin to make the case that their preferred policy is worth the perfectly-predictable costs. To my mind, it most certainly isn't.

Anyway, onward, etc. But: civility!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 20, 2007 10:32 AM



So it seems to me that those who argue that high or increased immigration is desirable have some obligatoin to make the case that their preferred policy is worth the perfectly-predictable costs. To my mind, it most certainly isn't.

That's a good point. I'm certainly not in favor of the legislators ramming this through without informed public debate.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on June 20, 2007 10:57 AM



Michael: If our immigration policies are disliked by a big majority of Americans (this has been true for a loooooong time), and if the current proposals are an example of our elites doing all they can to put one over on us despite our clearly-expressed preferences (this is also clearly true) ... Well, then, the effect is going to cause a lot of strife and resentment -- it'll be divisive, it'll increase mistrust of the government, it'll set off lots of ethnic strife. (Hey, it already has.) Why on earth would anyone desire those results? So it seems to me that those who argue that high or increased immigration is desirable have some obligation to make the case that their preferred policy is worth the perfectly-predictable costs.

I was going to say that they're still in deep, deep denial about the "perfectly-predictable" costs, but on reflection I don't think that's true. People (myself included) have a remarkable capacity for not seeing things that don't have a direct negative impact on them. I don't think that even the cheap-labor lobbyists or hustling H1-B immigration lawyers are either machiavellian or "in denial" about the long-term consequences of their behaviors - they just arrange their psyches such that they can avoid thinking about it. Or, if they do think about it, rationalization comes to the aid of scrupulosity.

5-10 years ago I wasn't paying any attention to the issue, either. (In hindsight I'm astounded at the ability of very large elephants to make themselves invisible in small living rooms. Surely it's the elephants, and not my eyesight!) But the waterline of "negative externalities" is now reaching people, e.g., in nice middle-class Virginia suburbs, and the thud of falling PC pieties is heard throughout the suburbs of the land! Everybody above that class, or aspiring to be above it, is still absorbed in playing "spot the bigot", though. If my purse were fatter I'd probably still be playing, too.

PatrickH: Hah, JA, I have to admit it's been fun watching you singlehandedly get the attention of so many commenters, including me.

Gotta love that blow-torch-proof cockeyed American optimism, dontcha? "Look, I'm not saying there's a pony in this shitpile! There's a unicorn in this shitpile!"

Posted by: Moira Breen on June 20, 2007 3:34 PM



My former boss, who died about six months ago, had to move out of his Houston neighborhood because it "went Mexican." Went Mexican means murder and gunshots. This is ignored by people that lionize Mexicans as pitiful hard working people.

Posted by: Paul Henri on June 20, 2007 6:04 PM



Michael,

I thought this thread had reached a point of diminishing returns and was not planning to comment further. However, Tatyana asks me, "Rick, was it your intention to insult all Jews? Please confirm, either way." Since she has requested a reply, and raised an issue about my character, I hope you won't delete this, notwithstanding your wish to leave the Jewish angle out of the discussion.

Tatyana,

Don't read more into my comment than what I said. I don't know what you consider "insult[ing] all Jews," but unless you think a criticism that I believe applies to many U.S. Jews is insulting all, then the answer is no, of course not.

I will say that public policy ought not to be dictated by people with EIRS (Ellis Island Romanticism Syndrome). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V (DSM-V) lists as the main symptom of EIRS a fixed idea that because one's ancestors were immigrants, we must allow any number of people from any source to pack up their troubles and bring them to the United States. A secondary symptom, often found in advanced cases, is the belief that any restriction on immigration will surely lead to pogroms and concentration camps.

I hope that answers your question.

Posted by: Rick Darby on June 20, 2007 8:31 PM



Rick,
this is what you said: " ...JA is conventionally Jewish in his belief..."
Conventionally Jewish doesn't mean "Some Jews think this way, as far as I understand. Or "many Jews". Or "sometimes". The presumption is there is a conventional view all Jews ascribe to.

Thanks for explanation, now you're firmly planted yourself with R.Rostrom, BIOH and others.

Posted by: Tat on June 20, 2007 10:48 PM



Tat,

For you to argue that "conventional" is the same as "all" is completely absurd, especially given Rick's explanation.

Posted by: Roy on June 21, 2007 7:19 AM



Tatyana, I think what you once referred to as your "sketchy English" has let you down. "Conventionally Jewish" implies "many Jews" or "most Jews" (U.S. Jews, naturally, in context), but not "all Jews". To a native speaker there is absolutely no doubt about that at all.

Posted by: intellectual pariah on June 21, 2007 9:21 AM



Am I the only one amused by the fact that conservatives consistently argue against Big Government initiatives, yet fervently believe that constructing the largest wall in the world and rounding up and deporting all 12 Million illegal immigrants is a project that could be managed by the government within a budget, within scope and within a timeframe.

Two words: Big Dig.

Today's conservatives are small government only when it's not a conservative project.

Posted by: James Dudek on June 21, 2007 9:33 AM



Jews are overwhelmingly liberal on immigration and other issues Tat, so there is nothing controversial going along with the statistical average. Unless of course, like most idiots who opine on subjects on which they know nothing, you believe that a statistical average is the same thing as that most heinous of things - the 'stereotype'. Din den duhhhhh.

Posted by: metallica's orion rocks! on June 21, 2007 10:00 AM



I am not arguing anything, Roy. I asked a question, got an answer and made my conclusion. You're free to make yours.

"Conventional" means something established, something axiomatic, universally known and accepted.
There is no such thing as "conventional Jewish attitude". "Convention" is purely in the minds of anti-semites. It doesn't change, geographically or chronologically. No matter what happens, no matter what country or political system, it's always Jews' fault. Socialism is Jews fault, and New-Conservatism is, too. There is pro-immigration camp? Then their reasons must be based in their Jewishness. As if only Jews arrived in America through Ellis Island. Ellis Island has nothing to do with "conventional Jewish attitude": thousands of years of persecution does. It's the exceptional - yes, exceptional - humanity of us, Jews, as a nation, that we don't want other people to suffer as we have been suffering. That's the reason that should have been close to Christian heart, but inexplicably, they manage to turn it, too, into accusation.

And again, here's this undeclaired belief that there is some Jewish conspiracy, that tiny sprinkle of Jews are controlling the economy, politics, sciences and American minds in general - otherwise why is that obsession with opinion of a miniscule minority? After all, as BIOH screamed here - Ashkenazis aren't smarter than the rest of America, our IQ average is the same - why is then your attention is glued to the familiar scapegoat?

I'm sick of you all.

Posted by: Tat on June 21, 2007 10:43 AM



40% of journalists Tat, not a minority among the elite. That is the problem.

Posted by: metallica's orion rocks! on June 21, 2007 11:05 AM



jewsjewsjewsjewsjews ...

OK, fun though this has been, I'm closing this comments thread. On to new discussions!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 21, 2007 11:28 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?