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

« Happy Music | Main | More on E-Books and E-Book Reading Devices »

November 29, 2007

Facts for the Day

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Immigration makes the news:

  • Immigration into the U.S. over the last seven years was the highest in any seven-year period ever.
  • Over 10 million new immigrants have settled in the U.S. since 2000.
  • More than half of them are illegal immigrants.
  • The majority of immigrants during this period came from Mexico and Central America.
  • There are now 38 million immigrants living in the U.S. In the U.S., one in eight people is an immigrant.
  • One third of immigrant families receive public assistance.
  • Over the last 15 years, immigrant families have accounted for three-quarters of the increase in those without health insurance.
  • 31 percent of immigrants over 25 years old, both legal and illegal, have not completed high school, compared with 8.4 percent of American citizens.
  • Among adult Hispanic immigrants, nearly 51 percent do not have high school diplomas.




posted by Michael at November 29, 2007


It's difficult, immigration.

Here in Portland, Oregon we just completed a pretty ghastly political effort that ended with the establishment calling my neighborhood racists.

An Hispanic committee, in league with an activist mayor and city council, decided to change the name of a Interstate Ave. to Caesar Chavez Ave; this was done without consulting local merchants and neighborhood residents. It was done without using the street renaming process outlined in local law. We local folks got pretty upset with the new diktat. Eventually, we the people defeated the move after the mayor walked out of the council meeting and made it clear we locals were racists and the Hispanic committee declared we were all racists and they refused to surrender to our bigotry.

Comically, the local pols tried to dump process again and rename another street Chavez. But, when the local Chinese realized that it ran through Chinatown they would have none of it. The Oregonian ran photos of two local power latinas daubing their eyes after having met defeat by local "racists."

Meanwhile an Hispanic community college student was busted at the department of motor vehicles for using fake identification and is to be deported. The student had been mentored by a local Chicana activist employed by the college and mayhem has ensued.

My point is that politicians and "progressives" in every avenue of governmental authority do not consult the people on immigrant issues. Local educators and politicians are abetted by journalists is consistently portraying as racist any attempt at immigration control or or rational discussion about such laws.

It took be three readings of the article on the PCC student's arrest to understand the newspaper report; the journalist had gone to great length to disguise the fact that she had tried to obtain a valid driver's license w/phony documentation.

I see but don't understand the magic of word racism.

Posted by: Larry on November 30, 2007 12:29 AM

Actually the total number is closer 40 million, not 38, in round numbers. This is because roughly 2 million illegals were not counted in the census on which the lower figure is based, as is admitted in the body of the new report. Indeed, the total may be higher since they don't reference the methodology for estimating the mission 2 million or so. We don't really know how many illegals there are.

Posted by: Luke Lea on November 30, 2007 12:52 AM

And your point is what? 40% of Americans living today have ancestors who came in through Ellis Island in the 1900s. I'd venture to say that 90% of all Americans born here are either children of immigrants, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren or great-great-great-grandchildren of immigrants.

Another statistic that might be good to quote is that we are the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world. Our wealth and growth has continued since our founding and immigration has been part and parcel of this.

Lastly, the study you quote is not the definitive analysis on US immigration patterns. Our current immigration wave is nowhere near the massive influxes of immigration we saw in the 1900s where a higher percentage of Americans were foreign born than they are now.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 1:02 AM

My problem with your argument, JP, is you have information from the past and you pass that along as if it automatically makes things OK today. But actually you dont even go that far. You just state the past was OK.

Well, go ahead and tell us what is going to happen with these immigrants and how it is going to happen. The school system, the policians, the welfare state, Telemundo -- what is going to make it all OK?

I guess I shouldn't complicate it by asking you where the water is going to come from for Calif? Hey, we had immigrants and water in the past so surely we will have it in the future.

Posted by: sN on November 30, 2007 2:20 AM

The massive wave of Ellis Island immigartion consisted of Euorpeans: population supplement. Current immigration is third world: population replacement.

Posted by: PA on November 30, 2007 8:40 AM

Larry's experience in Portland is fascinating. Myrna was from Portland, so I've spent a fair amount of time there. The "racist" baiting doesn't surprise me.

Battering people with allegations of racism is such a potent weapon that it has completely corrupted our public dialogue. (The same could be said about beating up people with allegations of "sexist and homophobic.")

Sometimes, I'm not sure whether the goal is really temporal, i.e., whether the naming of the street is that important to its proponents. Often, it seems as if enforcing doctrinal purity and putting the fear of god in those who would deviate from the party line is of far greater importance.

Go ahead and get mad because I refer to Woodstock, but it's a laboratory case. One loony cult after another passes through town, ranging from the Rajneeshies to the current Farm Animal Sanctuary... and they all employ the same tactic that the Maoists employed... the re-education program designed to enforce the correct consciouness. Read about the demise of Antioch College for more of the same.

What's really hard to understand is how a Republican president has caved into this. At the risk of alienating his own base, President Bush has refused to secure our borders. Likewise, a certain segment of the Republican Party aims the same vile insults at its own constituency for opposing illegal immigration.

It's odd, isn't it, how policing people's speech for offense leads to utter paralysis of the political system. The substance of the immigration issue is completely lost in the face of the all powerful diversity agenda.

Of course, twenty years ago I would not have dreamed that sitting through classes in which I was forced to endure bitter denunciations of my ancestry (because of my race and gender) would be a condition of employment.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 30, 2007 8:56 AM

"The massive wave of Ellis Island immigartion consisted of Euorpeans: population supplement. Current immigration is third world: population replacement."

Comments like this one certainly do little to convince anyone that racial bias is not part of the current immigration debate. Of course, during the Ellis Island years there were "No Irish Need Apply" caveats added to help wanted and housing ads. Poles and Hungarians were pointed to as uneducated and incapable of rising above their lower status. And we don't even need to talk about the warm reception everyone gave to Eastern European Jews. Now it is Hispanics who are the problem immigrant group.

Perhaps if employers were severely fined or even served jail time for using undocumented laborers, or forced to pay livable wages by U.S. standards to their workers, we'd get somewhere on the issue. As it stands the calls all seem to be for walling off the borders while deporting and punishing the immigrants, not those who profit from their labor. Most immigrant laborers have taxes taken out and so contribute to to the services they use ... or are refused or don't even seek to use because of their status.

Anecdotes are always wonderful. Did that Community College student arrive as a young adult or was s/he brought to the U.S. as a child by parents? Whose interests are served by a system that sees no differences among various types of illegal immmigrants and offers no opportunity to be assimilated for those who are hard working and tax paying or their children who had no say in the matter and who grew up in the U.S. not the place of their birth?

And Shouting, maybe if you were a little more mellow and less prone to insensitive comments about women (other than traditional, subservient women who love you) and gays and leftists and people of color and ... well anyone not male, free, white and 21 ... you'd be spared "diversity" sessions by your employer.

Posted by: Chris White on November 30, 2007 9:52 AM

Yeah, everyone’s a racist, unless you give me something for nothing, hombre. Gracias.

Posted by: Matt on November 30, 2007 10:27 AM

Comments like this one certainly do little to convince anyone that racial bias is not part of the current immigration debate

You're assuming that racial bias is an illegitimate factor. Why?

Posted by: PA on November 30, 2007 11:22 AM

Re: sN's comments... I agree that overpopulation is a concern, and scarcity of resources are a concern. I do believe that these problem would happen with or without immigration. There are jobs in California... whether they come from immigrants of people from other states, people are going to keep coming. Right now the source of the low wage jobs happens to be Mexico. Yes, water is an important resource and this needs to be handled. The problem is that our economy (in CA) is growing and to fuel that growth we need jobs at every level of the economy, including the low wage jobs. If we stop immigration, the low end of our labor market would be drastically affected. As a small business owner, if I can't find people to do my unskilled jobs, then I have less of an incentive to stay in business. California is the 5th largest economy in the world. If we are to keep growing (which I guess some people might argue we don't) then we need all the resources we can get and that includes labor. If you can't get me affordable labor from other states, then I'm going to get them by either exporting jobs overseas throughout outsourcing or importing jobs from overseas through immigration.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 11:46 AM

Shouting: I know what you're saying. Race politics has made the conversation about immigration very muddled. But, I would argue it has happened on both sides of the argument. This is actually why I think that our own president, in this instance, has risen above the race politics and endorsed something that makes sense for the country. He most certainly isn't doing it to appease any particularly race or ethnicity. George W is a capitalist. Anyone who is a strong proponent of capitalism and the free market supports immigration as a way to bring in cheap labor to fuel innovation at higher levels. This is why the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation and most business owners are supportive of immigration. I, for one, don't care for the race politics. Its a practical matter of course. We should let in as many immigrants as we need to do the jobs and that's it. When the jobs are filled, we stop the flow. Of course, that is happening already... immigration flows (legal or otherwise) tend to rise and fall with the labor markets. Hmm... the market does seem to know what its doing.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 11:56 AM

OK, Chris, I'm going to call somebody a racist.

My late wife, Myrna, at the time of her death combined two very fascinating roles:

1. She made in excess of $100,000 as training manager of an international corporate law firm. She was in charge of six offices on the East Coast. She did this in spite of being born into poverty in the midst of a war in Olongopo.

2. Myrna was becoming an established blues and jazz singer, playing in NYC, Chicago, Portland, Woodstock, and other places. She was, I'm going to inform you, on of the most inspired musicians I've ever met. She was also a brilliant strategist in the music business. If she had survived, she would have been an incendiary figure in American politics and arts.

3. My girlfriend, the Karaoke Queen, is an important figure in New Jersey Republican party politics. Every major figure in NJ Republican party politics makes sure that he/she receives the Queen's blessing. She also makes quite a respectable income. And, if you want to play a role in real estate in northern NJ, you'd better consult with the Queen.

So, Chris, you are a racist. Your assumption that my late wife, or that my current girlfriend are "subservient," is a completely racist assumption on your part, based on your loony preconceptions about Filipinas.

I always find this to be true of leftists. They are the most virulent of racists.

And, my employer required "diversity" training of all employees. In no way was such training based on my personal record.

It's not often that I can find a justification for saying this, Chris, but you are dumber than dirt.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 30, 2007 12:12 PM

cheap labor to fuel innovation at higher levels.

Cheap labor hinders innovation at higher levels by eliminating the need for advances in automatization, high-end electronics, etc.

Posted by: PA on November 30, 2007 12:15 PM

JP, the perfect businessman: If WE are to keep growing (which I guess some people might argue WE don't) then We need all the resources WE can get and that includes labor. If you can't get ME affordable labor from other states, then I'M going to get them by either exporting jobs overseas throughout outsourcing or importing jobs from overseas through immigration.

From "we" to "me" in consecutive sentences.

Put another way: I know who you are, but whose this "we" you keep talking about?

Put another way:

Q: Dr. Friedman should the U.S.A. open its borders to all immigrants? What is your opinion on that?

A: Unfortunately no. You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. Citation omitted.

Posted by: CC on November 30, 2007 12:41 PM

I live in Vancouver, just across the river from Portland oregon. The attempted renaming of Interstate Avenue by the Commissars was quite entertaining. The attempt to rename 4th avenue was even more entertaining and loopy as well (if you have numbered streets, why not rename one of the cross streets, which do use names, rather than renaming a numbered street).

The fact that the Chinese have been in Portland for over a century (and have endured much harsher discrimination and persecution in the past than the hispanics) and yet do not demand that a street be "ethnically" named tells you that the hispanics are just being thin-skinned here.

Portland has a long history of Asian immigrants (Chinese, Japanese, Philippines) and has a growing number of Vietnamese, Thai, and Indians. Yet these people seem to settle in and get on with creating life for themselves without being obsessed with having street names and other cultural artifacts being named after themselves.

I think that the hispanics are just being whiny and thin-skinned about this issue.

Posted by: kurt9 on November 30, 2007 1:23 PM

ST, I'm pretty sure CW made his assumption based on your many comments praising subservient women.

Also, I had no idea you lived in Woodstock. Please mention that more often.

Posted by: JV on November 30, 2007 1:54 PM

Your country increasingly looks Third Worldish to a lot of us fortunate enough to live to your north. Avoiding American cities is a major priority of Canadians driving to the beaches down south.

Chris, do you have any evidence of the "No Irish need apply" signs? I thought that was an urban myth.

Posted by: CanadianObserver on November 30, 2007 1:58 PM

Congrats, Shouting. As Neal Stephenson has written, Filapinas are among the most beautiful in the world...

Posted by: Brutus on November 30, 2007 2:29 PM

CanadianObserver, the "no Irish need apply" is a red herring used by radicals to whip up Irish Catholic fervor. It was and is b******t.

Posted by: Bob Grier on November 30, 2007 2:33 PM

And immigrants are much more than cheap labour, JP. They eventually turn into voters. And voters in today's ethnic spoils system are likely to vote favours for themselves if they don't do well academically or economically. Hispanic immigrants are academic disasters and economic mediocrities. So they've decided to take the political and litigation routes to advancement. Witness their accomplishment in getting themselves grouped with blacks as in need of affirmative action, despite no history of slavery or Jim Crow.

Which is why Hispanic immigrants, legal or otherwise, are just plain not desirable. We don't need more victim groups demanding special treatment to make up for their failures. We don't need a larger underclass. And we don't need more ethnic conflict.

If that makes employing workers for sub minimum wages more difficult, then so be it.

Posted by: PatrickH on November 30, 2007 3:11 PM

The "Irish need not apply" signs were NOT urban legend in Massachusetts back in the day. Unfortunately, some were still able to get jobs, which led directly to the dreaded Kennedy Hegemony here.

Some old school Brahmins in Boston would STILL like to ban the Irish!

Posted by: Brutus on November 30, 2007 3:15 PM

The notion that sexual and romantic relationships between men and women should conform to some ideological platform is the stupidest fucking nonsense in the world.

Some time ago, I went out to hear an all woman band, Big Sister, in Woodstock. People had told me repeatedly that they were a great band.

They were awful in every way, both in terms of music and as performers. Midway through their second set, a male member of the audience called out a request for one of their tunes.

"Fuck you," the lead singer replied. "No man is gonna tell us what to play."

Incredibly, this drew applause from the audience. The band had nothing going for it except that it struck an ideological pose that Woodstock loves.

Acting like a fucking asshole has become the left's definition of a favorable, clever role for women. Anything short of playing the fucking asshole is supposed to be some sort of self-abnegation.

Relationships between men and women are not subject to ideological scrutiny. Suggesting that they are is Statlinism. And, there's plenty of that garbage out there.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 30, 2007 3:22 PM

ST - My reference to your preference for "subservient" women had to do with various of your own statements on threads here in the past about male/female relationships and the type of women you loath versus the women you have loved, not any presumptions about Filipinas in general or your partners in specific outside of their relationship with you. If your employer required all employees to undergo diversity training and all you got out of it was seething anger and a feeling that your race and gender was being denounced, either it was a particularly bad effort on their part or you need a refresher course.

Posted by: Chris White on November 30, 2007 3:30 PM

Well, for what it's worth, here is a passage from the Wikipedia entry on Anti-Irish Recism and those "No Irish Need Apply" signs.

" The issue of job discrimination against Irish immigrants to America is a hotly debated issue among historians, with some insisting that the "No Irish need apply" signs so familiar to the Irish in memory were myths, and others arguing that not only did the signs exist, but that the phrase was also seen in print ads and that the Irish continued to be discriminated against in various professions into the 20th century.

"Whether or not the signs ever existed in large numbers, many New Yorkers and other Americans harbored Nativist sentiment against the Irish Catholic poor in the post-Civil war period. Irish Americans were effectively barred from certain occupations."

And here is a direct link to a scanned image of one such classified ad;

Posted by: Chris White on November 30, 2007 3:44 PM

Well, CC, to hell with business. I guess this country could do better with a socialized system whereby the government determines prices, wages, inventions and keeps everything working smoothly through bureaucratic adjustments here and there.

As for the WE/ME comment, I meant to put the Me comment in quotes as if quoting your average business.

Re: cheap labor... I think you're assuming that innovation will get rid of cheap labor. There is always a need for cheap labor. Maybe one day, we'll have robots that can do everything. But until then, we'll need somebody to do all the heavy lifting. Ask the Japanese about this. Their population is getting very old and they have not added much to the population through childbirth or immigration. As that population ages, there won't be people to do some of the less skilled jobs, caretakers, hospice workers, old age home workers, construction, farming etc. So they are investing in robotics. I hope that works out for them.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 3:57 PM

Chris White, Brutus,

Cite one verifiable source for that "No Irish need apply" business. Not a reference to a claim by a left-wing historian like Howard Zinn, but a real artifact, such as a photograph of such a sign from a book published in the period when they were supposedly to be seen. Not that it would prove anything except that some people didn't like Irish, which has zero relevance to our contemporary immigration dementia.

When more than 10 million immigrants are allowed into the United States and the majority are Latinos — and most of the rest Asians, I have no doubt — what else can you call it except population replacement?

The globalized corporate elite don't want to be bothered with a citizenry that is relatively educated, with standard-average-IQs and a tradition of "Don't tread on me." Too many people like that can't be counted on to follow orders, shut up and consume. It's much more convenient to flood the country with lower-IQ mestizos whose ancestors have been tribesmen and peasants for thousands of years, are conditioned to obey power, will accept (for the moment) being paid minimally to do the jobs that can't be outsourced to China and India, and are dazzled enough by El Norte's glitzy products to keep the buying spree going a little bit longer while the rapidly dwindling middle class is forced to subsidize them. What a racket.

Oh, I forgot. Close on a hundred fifty years ago the country used to import Chinese servant labor to build the railroads. So now it's a scientific, unquestionable fact that non-white immigration is good for us, the more the better. Anyone who can't see that is a racist and bigot. How can I argue with such carefully reasoned, logical arguments?

Posted by: Rick Darby on November 30, 2007 4:11 PM

Patrick, nothing that you have said is backed up with solid evidence. I'm an independent and I don't believe that government should replace rational thinking by people. I also believe people should take care of themselves, not the government. Your issue is with the democrats and what you believe to be their "welfare state" politics. What you claim about Hispanics can be said about a lot of groups, including Blacks, poor Whites and working class Americans of all stripes.

The ethnic conflict, as I see it, comes out of people like you saying, "we don't need any _______" fill in the blank people. Most people come to this country to put their heads down and work their butts off. No one is looking for a handout. The immigrant is someone who comes here to work, not to play around in politics or ethnic warfare. Sure there are exceptions that people like you LOVE to trumpet, but they are not the rule. Just like YOU, are not the rule, but the exception, to the average American who also wants to work hard, play hard and lets people mind their own business.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 4:21 PM

JP: "As for the WE/ME comment, I meant to put the Me comment in quotes as if quoting your average business."

Then you see my point: your average businesses ignores the other side of the coin on this issue --the externalities, the costs borne by average joe citizen employee (unemployee?), and the cultural costs, --in so many words has a "Fortunate Son" mentality.

From the whole of your comments, including your first, you seem completely unperturbed about immigration and seem to "quote" if you will, with approval, your average businessmen's view. Indeed, I read your first comment as: So what? We're only halfway or so through another Great Wave of Immigration, and that one was great and worked out fine!

Or have I misread you as badly as you have misread me? (Yeah, socialists are always quoting Milton Friedman.)

Posted by: CC on November 30, 2007 6:09 PM

The problem with using the "immigration is good for business" argument is that there is far more to any country besides making money. Money-grubbing, historical and cultural ignoramuses refuse to understand that. If you can't run your business without illegal cheap labor, you suck at business, that's all. Why we are getting lectures in business from what are basically modern slavers is a mystery to me. Usually successful businesses make their owners and employees more money, not less. Its just a race to the bottom, that's all, led by a bunch of losers who can't run a business without cheap-ass slaver wages. Spare us the "free market capitalism" lectures.

So if its not the worship of the Great God Money that makes a country, what is it? Race, language, culture, and borders. Anybody who argues for a multi-racial state, a multi-lingual state, a multi-cultural state, and an open borders policy is basically promoting the erasure of any country. Think that's bullshit? Define any country without those things.

But isn't it our multi-culturalism/race blah blah blah that made us a great country? No. What made us a great country was white european immigrants that spoke english and were Christian fought for our present land and borders and freedoms. Now that we are multi-race, multi-lingual, etc, we are in sharp decline, and everybody knows it. Even our individual freedoms are under huge attack. Far from being the richest country in the world, we are the most indebted in history. What a load of BS.

Most of these so-called "american" immigrants have loyalties elsewhere, to other countries that are usually failures, and who know quite well that its race, culture, language, and borders that makes their homelands dear. They aren't confused.

It is the offical policy of the elites to keep the borders wide open and to encourage racism and groupthink amongst the non-white immigrants (and natives too) while heavily policing whites against any form of racial cohesion or thinking. They wan't to import non-whites until they are the majority and then reduce whites to second class status, because we are the only race to overthrow the elites in the past, and they fear us. Slavery is good for business. So they want to make us fight with other races--divide us and conquer us. That's history, and its being repeated.

Any little despot who thinks that CITIZENS cannot choose to exclude those who want to come into their land for the reason that it makes us a weaker, more divided country is taking away our right to pass law, our right to freely associate, our rights to self-determination. There is not one thing that we have here that cannot be imported elsewhere--no bit of knowledge, no machine, no law, no nothing. Its not our job as citizens to make everybody else's life better somewhere else--its their job. Our job is to run our own country. And money-grubbing, law-breaking slavers are telling us that we cannot look out for the health of our own country, that we cannot exercise our rights. Screw you. We are the majority now. Shove your racism argument up your ass. Its not working anymore.

Posted by: BIOH on November 30, 2007 6:54 PM

One way of telling the tale of North America has it that European explorers discovered a new continent. It was a vast wilderness lightly populated by primitive people who could not be negotiated with and who had no justified claim to the resources and land they occupied. This was in part because they were not fully exploiting its technological and commercial potential, and in part because they were ignorant heathens whose very humanity was subject to theological and legal debate.

Opened to settlement, intrepid common men and women from Europe made perilous journeys to arrive here. They were brave, hard working, entrepreneurial and sought religious freedom. The Spanish dominated areas that are now Mexico, the West Coast and the Southwestern U.S. The French had a string of outposts in Canada and down the Mississippi. The English spread North, West and South from the New England and the Mid-Atlantic areas.

The French tended more toward alliances and treaties with the native tribes than the English and Spanish. This is ultimately why they've had the least lasting influence here. The Spanish were more interested in subjugating and religiously converting the natives and absorbing them as serfs (peons). The English tended more toward alternately using treaties and military campaigns to carve out ever-larger portions of the continent as exclusively theirs (a form of what we now call apartheid).

After the American Revolution the pattern continued with the U.S. being the ideal combination of French egalitarian revolutionary fervor and English respect for law and tradition. Slaves were imported from Africa to serve the labor needs of the plantation system operating mostly in the south and the islands. Through treaty and military campaigns (and with a Civil War thrown in for good measure) the U.S. eventually spread from sea to shining sea and from the Rio Grande to the 49th Parallel.

Today the U.S. is under siege by Hispanics, a permanent underclass. They are the low I.Q. mixed blood descendents of those uncivilized natives who were here before enlightened Europeans arrived and their Spanish masters, from whom they acquired only a language and proclivity for laziness.

There are other ways of telling this tale, of course.

Posted by: Chris White on November 30, 2007 6:58 PM

The last two posters (BIO and Mr. White) are hilarious... You and the angry, unhappy folks like yourselves are nothing but a group of grumpy Don Quixote's tilting at the windmills of reality, angry at the fact that people don't recognize your brilliance, your racial superiority and intellect. I don't see you winning over too many people to your myopic views, despite your high IQ's. Poor, poor misunderstood White guys.

As for CC's more reasonable comments, I am not wholly unperturbed about immigration, but I see it as a problem that has been blown WAY out of proportion. There are two bigger issues here that people seem to be confusing: is it immigration in general that we are against, or just illegal immigration? The arguments for and against immigration in general are multitude and honestly, I am not fully convinced of either side, only that the immigrants I see in my California community contribute way more to my community than they are detracting from the community. This is just my experience living in California. Additionally, I don't think immigrants are SLAVE labor as some people have put it. Try to pickup a day laborer and pay him less than $10 an hour. Businesses have to abide by labor rules because they are audited by the IRS. Taxes need to be paid, regardless of whether their employees have legitimate ID and are legal or not. When I worked in construction a long time ago, the immigrants were paid pretty well, as far as I could tell. Immigrations has not negatively affected my life in the least. At the very least, we have some great Mexican food here in California.

Business IS important in this country. Your arguments make it seem that all businesses are run like global corporations without any concern for the well-being of society. Business provides opportunity, jobs, products and progress in this country. Most businesses are not huge conglomerates. Most are small entities run by citizens / entrepreneurs employing a small handful of employees. These people care about their local community. You can't rail against business when business is what provides jobs, income, healthcare (sometimes) and progress in this country. When there is a shortage of labor (at any price) then businesses look to get labor elsewhere. You can't just expect businesses to keep raising wages until eventually someone who might never work in unskilled areas (housekeeping, landscaping) will say, "heck, who cares that I am trained as a mechanic / engineer / etc. this landscaping stuff is starting to look like a good choice." It just doesn't work that way.

I believe immigration should exactly reflect our labor needs. No more no less. When we need the labor, and we can't get it locally, let's bring it in. When we don't need it any more, stop letting people in. Right now, though, we're not legally letting ANY unskilled labor in. But they are coming anyways. Why? Because there is a DEMAND for labor here. Why do you think people take a risk and pay upwards of 10 grand to come into this country? That's because they know there's a job waiting for them. They stop coming when there are no jobs. Right now, we're letting in less than 1000 unskilled people a year legally due to restrictive immigration quotas. I say, formalize the process, charge em a couple grand and keep track of them. Your solution and the solution of other anti-immigrant people is to attack the business owners who need labor. Send them to jail. Tax them. Penalize them. How about just provide them with the labor they need. Solves all the problems.

Unfortunately (and fortunately), as our country has become more prosperous, demographics have shifted towards people with more skills, more college education. Indeed, our population is aging. As people age, we gain more experience and we earn more. So what happens to those businesses that rely on younger, less skilled people... starter jobs if you will? The construction, restaurants, labor, services, farming businesses? If you take the immigrants out of the equation (legal and otherwise) suddenly our demographic is older, wealthier, better educated. The baby boomers did not have enough children, unfortunately. So then, who's to do those less skilled jobs? It's not about abusing an "underclass." It's about finding the right people for the right job.

If you're against business, then what ARE you for really? Government? Socialism? Some sort of system where people miraculously get paid the perfect wage and labor is plentiful by decree? I don't understand.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 8:23 PM

....and here we go, round and round...Yawn.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 30, 2007 8:49 PM

JP, the Urban Institute and Harvard's Civil Rights Project determined that nearly half of all Hispanic students do not graduate from high school. Of those that do, most do not read or do math at anything like a grade twelve level. California has a high school pass out test of math proficiency. It tests math at a grade eight level, and still half of Hispanic students don't pass it.

Hence my designation of Hispanics as 'academic disasters'. As for 'economic mediocrities', I can't cite chapter and verse for now, but I haven't seen much evidence to indicate a strong entrepreneurial tradition among Hispanics. I am willing to be corrected on this, but...

As for playing the victim God, man, where have you been? You do realize there are admissions quotas for Hispanics in major universities, don't you? Where is the legacy of discrimination for Hispanics that is used to justify quotas for black students?

As for comparing an ethnic group whose major lobbying effort is named 'the Race', which is notorious for making demands for bilingual services, to blacks, poor whites and working class Americans, what is basis of your comparison? Do poor whites and working class Americans want more Hispanic immigration? Have I been missing something here?

Posted by: PatrickH on November 30, 2007 9:12 PM

Tatyana, why do you yawn? If the arguments are meaninglesss. Then, are not all arguments meaningless? Are the arguments and sides more empty than the abyss of your wide open mouth?

Posted by: sN on November 30, 2007 10:46 PM


First of all, the Hispanic data on high school graduation includes immigrants who came here without hs diplomas and began working. Even so, does it surprise you that immigrants are less likely to graduate from HS? Is that a news flash to you? Seriously. Kids who are born and raised here do much better than those who immigrate. More go to college and indeed that is confirmed. There is a very clear progression of improvement. Just like it was with the past waves of uneducated, unskilled immigrants from places like the Eastern Block, Ireland, Germany, Poland and so forth.

As for economic mediocrities, Hispanics have actually shown the highest growth of small businesses in the past 5 years (I believe 35% growth) and make up 10% of small business owners. Check the Small Business Administration on those figures. There is plenty of progress being made among that group. They have shown to be quite adaptable and entrepreneurial. Where in the world do you live, Patrick? I mean really. I see Hispanic businesses all the time even in my largely White community of San Diego. Everything from restaurants to small hotels to mechanic shops to florists. I have a guy who comes around with a mobile car wash set up and washes the cars in my neighborhood for people like me too busy or lazy to wash our own cars. I mean, talk about being resourceful.

As for playing the victim card, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't made one single mention of someone being victimized. Rather, I've made a case that our interfering with the labor markets and penalizing small business is not a SMART thing to do economically. We should make it easier for companies to hire labor, not harder.

I've never seen more motivated, hard working people in my life and not once NOT ONCE has anyone ever asked me for a favor, a handout or what have you. In fact, one of my neighbors was going through some tough financial times and the Hispanic guy who runs the landscaping business kept doing his landscaping free of charge. The guy eventually moved out of the neighborhood and never paid the landscaper for the numerous months of free landscaping ($100 per month) he got. If anything, I've seen that these are very charitable, church-going, hardworking people, not people looking for handouts. Not only that but they have the highest rate of employment of any other ethnic group. They're certainly not sitting at home waiting for a handout.

I'm not sure what you're talking about "major lobbying effort" is called the race. There are all sorts of lobbying organizations claiming to represent different groups, even you and me. To think that they represent the values of everyone in that group is silly. I'm just a small business owner and a member of the community that appreciates the labor and hard work that immigrants (legal ones) offer. Now, if I could just have some more legal immigrants, that would be fantastic. How about it?

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2007 10:55 PM

Why is that we are told that all the jobs that go overseas are fine -- part of the inevitable global economy, but here in the U.S. we must absolutely keep the hotel maid, chicken slaughtering, fast-food and car detailing rolls at full force? And do you object to us taxing all these businesses to pay for medical and other expenses of the illegals?

You don't seem to give the drop out situation, much weight, but that may not be the worst of the school problems. In LA Unified, gangs control many of the schools. At many schools, you can't go to the bathroom because that is gang turf. I just wish that would be the case at your business for even a week. Just one glorious wake-one-out-of-a-coma week. Nothing between you and the crapper, JP, but the 18th Street gang. Good luck, amigo.

If you look at the test scores from schools in your area (San Diego), you can see that we don't have to import low-skilled workers, we have huge numbers sitting in school at 10 grand a year. I hope these kids have the same happy attitude about doing your neighbors' lawns as the current workers. If not, it could be trouble. (repeat) It could be trouble -- just maybe, you can see that? (See France for further insight)

By the way your state is going broke. Did you know that? They dont seem to have spent that money on road repair and infrastructure in Calif.; much of it is going to service the illegal disaster. Those hardworkers really put the pinch on govt. for some reason that people like you, just seem unable to figure out. Apparently, they ask Uncle Sam instead of you for handouts. If it is not true, then let us forbid "entitlement" payments to immigrants. You will hear the howls from New York to Mexico City.

Finally, I've been in San Diego. I see many Spanish billboards. I hear many Spanish stations on radio, TV and cable. This country does not need a Spanish language contingent. It does not need a country next door to it exporting several million people illegally into its territory. By any sane definition that is an invasion. Thank god people are starting to see that.

Posted by: sN on December 1, 2007 3:55 AM

sN, my open mouth is none of your concern. If I want to yawn I will, if I want to talk I will, if a thought of spitting on mexican [or any other, i'm not discriminating] graves occur to me I will and thousands of smart alecs will not change it one tiny bit.

As to why I'm bored - type immigration into a search window on this site, and read a few entries. same arguments, same voices, same hysterics, same hatred, same unmanliness. talk talk and talk, cheap talk. i'll wait till Rudy will take a wheel, he's man enough to act.

Posted by: Tatyana on December 1, 2007 7:43 AM

JP - I think you need to re-read my comment. This time, think of it as a script for a bit on "The Daily Show" not "Rush". I guess, in the context of certain other comments here, it is sometimes tough to tell sarcasm from over the top nativist nonsense.

Posted by: Chris White on December 1, 2007 8:46 AM

JP, I now give up you. You missed so much in your posts above, it's just too much effort to correct you. I'll just point to two of your screwups to instill, I hope, a little humility in you:

Chris White was being sarcastic. Reread his post.

You have never heard of La Raza? And you think you're qualified to comment on the political manoeuvrings of Hispanic lobbyists?

There's more, much more. But I'm tired now. Hispanics are not desirable immigrants. They're just not smart enough. Sooner or later, I hope sooner, America will stop letting them in in such large numbers.

And I don't care about your business needs, JP.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 1, 2007 10:09 AM

Sorry Chris. I get it now. Unfortunately your post was mixed in with posts like Patrick H who believe in the inferiority of people's based on their intellect.

Patrick, it is I who give up. Like you, I actually have a life. Your points in the length "rebuttal" to my earlier post do not address my points at all. Where to begin:

a) I don't believe all the jobs SHOULD go overseas and never said so. All I said is that they could if we didn't find suitable options. Secondly, hotel maids are a necessary service. All the business travel in this country is reliant on hotel services which can't be outsourced. Ditto for landscaping, construction etc. Your point makes no sense.

b) The drop out situation is a big deal, but I argue that using it as justification for why Hispanics are not desirable immigrants. Like I said, the number is inflated by the fact that many people come here without high school degrees to work in the unskilled jobs that we need them for. The second generation shows a dramatic improvement in HS graduation. The gang anecdotes you reference are not specific to Latinos, but to many areas where people live in poverty. You could easily argue against the existence of Blacks and Asians for the same reasons. This is yet another attempt by people to paint all Hispanics as gang members when the truth is actually the opposite. These are a small minority of people who are gang members in the Hispanic, Black and Asian and yes, even White communities. There's always been gangs, even among Irish, Italians (the mob, anyone?) and other groups. So lets not bring up this red herring over and over again.

c) the situation in France is quite different to our own because they have a much more entrenched Welfare state than we do. Also, the populations are very different. It is irrelevant to our current discussion.

d) No, our state is going broke because for every dollar we pay in taxes, we actually get something like 70 cents back. The rest goes to the federal government who uses it to subsidize poor, states like Mississippi Louisiana and other states that actually receive more than they pay in taxes. Our state has its share of financial problems, but that is not germane to this discussion.

e) Re: Spanish billboards, what do you care? The companies obviously want to capitalize on Hispanic purchasing power (which is considerable, estimated at almost $1 trillion a year). If you don't like their signs then don't patronize their businesses. The signs are usually in Spanish areas. In my area I see no signs, but I don't think it would bother me if I did. If you don't want to hear Spanish radio or Spanish TV, then simply don't watch it. What, are you incapable of changing the channel, is that too much effort for you? What the hell do you care. Marketers want to get their brands in front of the Spanish-speaking or bilingual immigrants early. The next generation speaks English fluently, so they don't need to advertise to them in Spanish after that. It's just business. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in business.

You are an alarmist and a person full of unjustified fear. There is no INVASION. We are not LOSING the American way of life. No one is trying to take over the world. This is just something drummed up by xenophobes and white nationalists to scare their followers into a frenzy, seizing on little tiny anecdotes and blowing them out of proportion to scare the crap out of the average American. The reality is too boring, I'm afraid, so its hard to compete with the sensationalism.

Posted by: JP on December 1, 2007 12:34 PM

Leave it to the Rude-head to crap on the immigration discussion. Sanctuary city anyone?

So, how did having the city's emergency operations center in 7 WTC work out for NYC on 911? Or the radios?

Yeah, Rudy can't fail.

Posted by: CC on December 1, 2007 2:28 PM

JP, you don't have any conflict of interest on this issue?

"I believe immigration should exactly reflect OUR labor needs....
I'M just a small business owner and a member of the community that appreciates the labor and hard work that immigrants (legal ones) offer." (Emphasis added.)

Meanwhile, how you handle comparisons to France, with it's growing muslim population (at first blush comparable to our growing Mexican/Latin population --different language, culture, traditions, poorer background), and criticisms of California, with it's state government fiscal problems (possibly going broke due to state subsidizing of immigrants), is brilliant: "Irrelevant." "Not germane." Is that how you handle objections or complaints from clients and customers?

Posted by: CC on December 1, 2007 4:07 PM

JP doesn't believe in national sovereignty. JP can't make a distinction between citizens and foreigners, and tries to equate the two by calling them both immigrants.

JP doesn't care about crime, the bankruptcy of federal, local, and state governments, and racial segmentation and conflict brought about by illegal immigration. He talks about never having to give a handout--its the taxpayers who are giving the illegals all the handouts. Nice misdirection and swivel from a master of dissembly.

JP only cares about money.

So if JP only cares about money, why should anyone here listen to him? Every time you make a reasonable argument about stopping illegal activity, exercising your rights as a citizen, he ignores you and calls you a racist. And if you call him a venal, despicable slaver, who exploits brown people becaue they are poor and brown, and who actually walks the walk of racist, he can't take it. No, the racist finger must point at you while he makes out handosmely.

Eighty-five percent of the American citizenry thinks JP is full of shit. The other 15% are illegals.

JP is actually one of a cadre of people being paid to go to different blogs on the internet and sell this invasion, all the while pushing the racist baloney wagon, to cower people into sitting down and letting it happen. You are all supposed to be happy "non-racists" as you are dispossesed from your country and jobs. But for the moment, lets just play his game.

If JP really wants cheap labor, why stay here? Why not move to Mexico? Or any other third world corrupt cesspool, instead of importing that here? If money is the only important thing, and not quality of life for the citizens, any third word cesspool should be fine.

JP profilts from lying and hiring illegals, which itself is a crime. He is a criminal, and lies to the government and to his fellow citizens to run his cheap-ass slaver business. Why believe him? He has discredited himself. Follow your own good instincts on the issue. The tide has turned. JP has lost. He knows it. The old "racist" line has lost its magic.

Posted by: BIOH on December 1, 2007 4:50 PM

JP - Hilarious. Hey, you're just an honest capitalist, workin' hard and contributin' to progress - is it your fault that the socialist welfare state compels the rest of the polity to subsidize your labor costs?

There were many gems in your comments, but the bit about California's wreckage being attributable to underwriting Mississippi was truly choice.

Chris White: And Shouting, maybe if you were a little more mellow and less prone to insensitive comments about women [...] you'd be spared "diversity" sessions by your employer.

Chris, you always struck me as a decent guy regardless of our disagreeing about just about everything. But...did you write the above in haste? Am I being a bit dense? Or are you sincerely in line with every appalling implication of that statement? ST is a free citizen (theoretically, anyway) and can think what he damned well pleases about any kind of woman. And you and I can think whatever we damned well please about him. Win-win.

If your employer required all employees to undergo diversity training and all you got out of it was seething anger and a feeling that your race and gender was being denounced, either it was a particularly bad effort on their part or you need a refresher course.

"Seething anger" is the normal response of any self-respecting adult to being harangued by the lackwit pharisaical proselytes of the huckstering "diversity" industry. Hell's bells, Chris, I'm a card-carrying man-hating American beeyotch of ST's nightmares and *I* almost got myself sacked once for refusing to attend the Orwellian sexual harrassment seminar "facilitated" by the resident Diana Moon Glompers. Chris, you know those human toothaches who beset blameless pedestrians, minding their own business, with commands to "Smile!"? And even though you were in a perfectly pleasant mood and right with all men, after your encounter with the facial-expression bullies your brain was occupied with fond thoughts of flaying the flesh from their skulls with repeated applications to adjacent plate glass and brick walls? Diversicrats have that effect on people.

Posted by: Moira Breen on December 1, 2007 8:33 PM

Um, JP, you're confusing my posts with pretty well everybody else's on the board. You're out of your depth here. Go home.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 1, 2007 9:19 PM

Tatyana, there is some repetitiveness in the argument, but that is partly because we can never get a reply form the pro illegal side.

The importance of the argument is that you are seeing what may be the beginning of a revolution: Many of the white males and others are spitting out the racism gag. Our arguments must be made and made again to let those who would join us in saving this country know that the left-PC game is going to be over. They don't have to tip-toe through the PC tulips. The race game is the number one game in this country and guess what --whitey is going to play --so hold onto your "Diversity is our greatest strength" T-shirts because this could get rough.

As for JP, ..."dude, where's your logic?" Are you really telling me several million people entering a country illegally from a neighboring country is not an invasion. Maybe, the problem is that: It is an invasion IF you live in a country, and it is not an invasion if you live in a dream world.

You admit that you don't care about having one language. To me, you're just not a man if you don't defend the language and culture of your country, -- something the Mexicans themselves understand -- but you can still be a good businessguy. There are many problems with having two languages; that little statement "from many one" runs into a bit of trouble with your way of thinking, but again, I just dont expect you to even think about it.

Illegal aliens are not germane to a discussion of the Calif. state budget? I think you just won the show, the Last Comic Sitting (on your hands). Congrats.

Posted by: sN on December 1, 2007 9:42 PM

For fuck's sake, please stop saying "white males." It's white men.

Posted by: PA on December 2, 2007 7:35 AM

Rick Darby – I take it you did not follow the link to the scanned classified ad image from the period of the Irish potato famine immigration era with the NINA exclusion.

Moira – Having been lectured a number of times by Shouting Thomas for taking his jabs at me "too personally" and being reminded by him that this is, after all, a place for blowhards ... and given his repeated rants about feminists, gays, etc. ... I did not think my comments were particularly egregious. I presumed, wrongly perhaps, that, given the topic was immigration with a sidebar into office diversity sessions, we were NOT talking about private relationships between individual men and women, but rather how these attitudes play out in the public sector. Certainly I agree with ST that personal "relationships between men and women are not subject to ideological scrutiny." The only caveat should be when those relationships edge over a line and become abusive and dangerous to one of the partners.

Having spent my entire adult working life in the arts, half in very small non-profit situations and half as an independent consultant, I confess that I've never had to take part in corporate "diversity training". Maybe they are not what I imagine them to be, even if I applaud their underlying philosophy as I understand it.

Posted by: Chris White on December 2, 2007 9:13 AM

I apologize to JP for my last post, which was personal. I disagree with virtually everything JP has said, but I had no business saying to him what I did in that post.

Sorry as well to Michael, the Blowhards and the community for lowering the level of discourse here.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 2, 2007 10:18 AM

I confess that I've never had to take part in corporate "diversity training".

I've attended a few as a state university employee when I was in college. It's basically a left-wing Nuremberg rally.

Posted by: PA on December 2, 2007 5:46 PM

It's fine that you guys have your minds set up on this... nonetheless, your obsession with the immigrant problem is a) attributing things to me I never said b) blinding you to any viewpoint contrary to your perspective and c) causing you to insult me, d) calling me some sort of shill, d) insulting my manhood... wow. Quite a group of people that visit this blog. Some of you, though, have been fairly respectful (thanks) and I even accept Patricks apology for being rude... although its not necessary. I think we're all adults here (are we?)

To recap what I have NOT said, in case BIOH and whomever did not read it carefully: I never said we should have open borders. I never said we should cede our sovereignty to another nation. I also never said that we should have more than one language. I never said my business wants cheap labor, in fact we don't use unskilled labor at all so that doesn't affect me. It is a consulting business so we hire college educated people.

I simply hear a lot of hysteria and am not just going to go along with it just because rage and anger is fashionable among my fellow citizens. On this topic, I strongly believe that the country is going in the wrong direction. Isolationism is not going to help in the long run. I'm not a PC punk liberal as you guys are trying to paint me and, while I am interesting in the well-being of my fellow man, my reasons are not humanitarian... it is pure economics to me.

Look, we need to make an honest assessment of how much unskilled labor we really need. If we can't get that labor internally (which we can't, based on virtually every economist who has spoken out on the subject) then we have to get it elsewhere. If we have to get it elsewhere then we need to have a process by which those people can come in legally, provided there is a job waiting for them, they are not criminals or diseased. Charge them $2500 (less than the average Coyote these days) and put that money towards enforcing the borders. Now, we have them on the books instead of in the shadows. Now we have a group of people who will gladly fork over $2500 so they can come in to make some money and then, get this, go the fuck home. Since they are legal, they can go home when they're done and don't put down roots.

Right now, a miniscule amount of unskilled laborers are let in the country legally. Something like less than a thousand. But, somehow, magically, millions are employed... and our payrolls keep growing. You think the demand for those millions of jobs will disappear? People will stop construction projects (or God forbid, raise the price of housing even more)? No. Not going to happen. Business needs these laborers. We need to allow them in. By clamping down on immigration of unskilled laborers, we have created an artificial barrier that has had the opposite effect: more immigrants, higher cost of coyotes and more illegals than ever before. Since 9/11, return migration (which used to be 50 to 70% prior) virtually disappeared because going back meant having to try to sneak in again. So, by restricting LEGAL, sanctioned, controlled and taxed migration, we have increased ILLEGAL, dangerous and uncontrolled migration. It is an economic force in place. Just like the alcohol prohibition did little to stop alcohol consumption, so will this unskilled laborer immigrant prohibition.

Also, when I said that illegal aliens are not germane to the budget, the reality is, we have much bigger issues on the budget. Cutting immigration is not going to remotely solve the problem. In fact it will worsen the problem (by creating a labor crisis, driving up housing even more, ultimately driving down tax receipts and productivity etc.). Our state's budget crisis is for another post where you guys can gang up on me there as well (or maybe not).

Another point, to reference BIOH's point above... My wife can vouch for me on this... a few times a year, I let myself get drawn into these long threads on different topics and I get obsessive about trying to make my point even in the face of an onslaught of abusive people who disagree with me. On some topics, there has been some give and take. I have learned some and the other posters have learned some. Not so much on this topic. The point is I guess I should be honored that you think I'm being paid to do this... it is costing me in time better spent sleeping, working, or time with family. I am just a citizen who feels that occasionally I need to stand up for what I believe in. I don't appreciate being called a criminal. As I said, I only hire legal, skilled, college-educated people. I worked my ass off to get where I am (with the help of God) and I am not going to apologize to anyone for it.

Lastly, I want to point out that in no way do I believe that being against immigration makes anyone racist or ignorant or xenophobic. There is obviously a certain logic to not wanting too many people coming in from another country. However, comments like "Hispanics are undesirable" or "people with lower IQ" from a few of you does indicate that you are looking to cleanse the country of people who are not like you or who are undesirable. I don't think it was just in reference to illegals, but to all Hispanics, 80% of whom are legal residents, citizens and even war veterans. 90% of the comments about crime, education, job prospects being made here are applicable to Blacks and other ethnic groups. It gives me the impression you'd like to get rid of them too, if you could. I've been on several other blogs recently and I've heard many comments from White nationalists regarding this topic and it has given me great pause. Tell me I'm wrong and I will apologize for any insinuations of racism.

All I'm saying to you people is, don't let your anger over immigration get the best of you. Try to seek other points of view, that's all.

Posted by: JP on December 3, 2007 1:50 AM

Hey JP

If illegal aliens are so much more productive than native workers, whey do you pay them LESS? Why are people who are more productive paid LESS? And you are helping them? What kind of BS is that?

Because they have no legal status--you profit from them having no legal status! You exploit people because they are brown and have no legal status! You are a RACIST!

Don't you ever lecture me on "isolationism"! I don't need your double-talk! We can trade and develop other countries through trade. You just want to import cheap foreign labor to increase your profits! Or because you can't compete by paying the prevailing wage! That's your problem. Don't make your inablility to run a successful business our problem! Don't tell us that the displacement of American citizens for your profit is CLOSE-MINDED! WE DON"T CARE!

We know you are a neo-colonialist with no concern for the rest of us. You disguise your greed with phony compassion. Its disgusting. Save your pathetic rationalizations! We're sick of it!

The tide has turned and you greedy exploiters and equivocators are going to get what's coming to you! And those illegals will be deported! Bank on it.

Posted by: BIOH on December 3, 2007 12:06 PM

I guess that's what happens when you try to address people's comments in an overly wordy, longwinded post like my last... people actually don't actually read them. At least that's the impression BIOH gives me.

LET ME REPEAT: I don't hire unskilled labor, so it is not my personal issue. I only work with college grads. I compete just fine thank you. Five years in business and counting.

ALSO: I agree we shouldn't exploit people... That is why we should have MORE LEGAL IMMIGRATION. You can read the above post for more detail.

BIOH: You are confusing my support for immigration with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is wrong and I don't support it. I am simply proposing that our IMMIGRATION LAWS REFLECT OUR LABOR MARKET. If that happened, we would have very few illegals and abuse would be minimized. If I lived during prohibition, I would be against people subverting the law to do something even if they believed it is right. But I wouldn't be supportive of the law and I would speak out against it. Prohibition did not work and I believe that the overly restrictive quotas on unskilled immigrants from Mexico does not work either and has exacerbated the problem more than it has helped.

For the love of all that is sacred BIOH! You sound like you're about to blow a gasket. Calm down and try to keep your wits about yourself. Your side is winning! You should be happy, smug even, not outraged. Soon we'll probably have a national guard soldier on every 10 feet of the US-MExico border. Regardless, we'll still have the demand for unskilled labor. If we don't allow people in LEGALLY, to do these jobs, then economic growth will be stifled. If you want our country to be weaker economically, then, by all means, let's toy with the labor markets and keep our country from being competitive in a global market. China is growing and has all the labor they could ask for. That is who you should be worried about. Not the immigrants who want to come in and work hard.

Posted by: JP on December 3, 2007 2:57 PM

JP: what do yo propose is done with surplus legal immigrants once they are no longer needed due to an economic downturn?

Posted by: PA on December 3, 2007 3:58 PM

JP: "Look, we need to make an honest assessment of how much unskilled labor we really need."

Now who’s the socialist? Honest assessments? What shall we do, form a committee? Draft a five-year-plan? I thought the market took care of honest assessments of supply and demand.

"If we can't get that labor internally

Who said we can’t get that labor internally? Maybe if we paid citizens more.

"(which we can't,

Ah, what a relief; we’ll just beg the question.

"based on virtually every economist who has spoken out on the subject)

Note: zero citations. I’ll bite:

George J. Borjas, professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Citatation omitted (just to bust your balls a bit : ) ), but see, e.g.

“[T]he net economic benefits from immigration are small, probably less than $10 billion a year.”

[We have a $13 trillion dollar economy. (GDP $13.13 (2006 est.))]

Borjas’ analysis suggests don’t need much unskilled labor, i.e. we can get it internally. Anecdotally, one wonders how the Japanese get buy with, in comparison, much less immigration?

Now, where were we?

"then we have to get it elsewhere.

Oh, that’s right, we were begging the question, assuming away things, setting up false dilemmas, issuing veiled threats against our fellow citizens, putting words in others mouths, setting up straw men, evading the issue, etc. etc.

"[W]e need [blah blah blah a guest worker program]… they can go home when they're done and don't put down roots.

Borjas again: “The wisest remark I have ever heard about guest workers was made by Swiss writer Max Frisch. Referring to the German experience, he said: "We wanted workers and we got people instead."”

"[S]omehow, magically, millions are employed... and our payrolls keep growing.

This is really the guts of your argument. You want the money. Ooops, excuse me, a better economy. Fair enough. But then you go on to say tough luck to those naïve enough to disagree with you on your weighing of things.

"Not going to happen. Business needs these laborers. We need to allow them in… So, by restricting LEGAL, sanctioned, controlled and taxed migration, we have increased ILLEGAL, dangerous and uncontrolled migration. It is an economic force in place. Just like the alcohol prohibition did little to stop alcohol consumption, so will this unskilled laborer immigrant prohibition.

Interesting to see you borrow the logic of drug dealers, bootleggers, pimps, brothel owners, casino bosses, abortionists, proponents of condom distribution, etc. etc. I mean, basically your form of persuasion is a big FU to representative government: just give business –as you define it by the way, what it wants. I repeat: "Not going to happen." What, exactly, does that mean? Sounds like a threat to me. And you wonder why some people seem to blow a rhetorical gasket?!

Posted by: cc on December 3, 2007 4:18 PM

I don't givbe a damn if you hire unskilled labor or not--THAT"S NOT THE ISSUE! Stop equivocating and confusing, baiting ans switching!

We have an unemployement rate of 8.6% NOW (BLS, U-6, and that number is massaged). We don't need your cheap-ass foreigners to DISPLACE native workers so you and your buddies with bad business skills can make money!


If you're so goddamned concerned about foreigners and you are addicted to cheap labor, move your goddamn business elsewhere. China's great. If they are so great, pack up and leave. Go live in Shanghai.

Start listening to your fellow citizens and we wouldn't have to shout at you. I don't give a damn about your business. I care about my fellow citizens. I give a damn about our sovereignty. I give a damn about my country. You only give a damn about your business.

You don't fool me with your baloney about saying that you don't think our opposition isn't racist, and then you drop your white supremacist bomb, and all other nonsense. You're paid to go all over the blogoshpere and push this baloney and call anyone who opposes it racist. You're paid to pretend you are business owner to scare us into thinking that our economy will fail if we stop the invasion. You've got one and only one tactic, and ITS NOT WORKING ANYMORE! We're sick of it!

You and your rotten business skills are what's going to suffer when the rest of us pull back the H1-b, and start arresting rotten business owners who are hiring illegals. Your day is coming soon, and you and your race hustling buddies are panicking! Nobody believes you and your stories, your rationalizations, your money lust, and your BS that countries are nothing more than businesses!

ITS OVER! Read the tea leaves, buddy. You and your race-hustling friends need to dig your heads out of the sand. Its not 2002 or 2003 anymore. We are the giant, and we are awakening! Your magic word "racism" won't work anymore! Nobody is afraid anymore! Our free speech on the internet has slayed you!

Global market my ass! National sovereignty! National sovereignty! Raise the tariffs! Raise the tariffs! Let the prices rise! Let the people know what the Fedreal Reserve has done to our currency! Let them rise up and overthrow the whores in suits who run the government! Let them overrun the race hustlers and psuedo capitalists! Let them throw the traitors in jail! LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Posted by: BIOH on December 3, 2007 5:03 PM

"Our free speech on the internet has slayed you!"

That's the best thing I've read in months. I'm having that printed on t-shirts and bumper stickers as I type this.

Posted by: JV on December 3, 2007 7:21 PM

JP, this line of yours I think highlights the problem with your POV:

"Since they are legal, they can go home when they're done and don't put down roots."

As cc quoted, "We wanted workers and we got people instead." Most foreign workers, legal or otherwise, use a job as a foot in the door to remain in the US. This isn't necessarily a problem if controlled, but your line of thinking here is flawed, I believe.

Posted by: JV on December 3, 2007 8:31 PM

I not going to dignify BIOH with a response because now he is bordering on hysterical. Calm down BIOH. Then we can talk. You can't just shout people down because you don't agree with them. And stop calling me a fucking shill, you goddamn fool. Exclamation point, exclamation point, CAPITAL LETTERS, MORE CAPITAL LETTERS. What are you a f-ing 12 year old girl?

OK, now to JV's more reasonable comment. You very well may be right on this. However, my feeling based on a number of different sources I've read and immigrants I've personally spoken to is that many immigrants come here for temporary reasons. They want to save up some money, get back on their feet, maybe even build a little house and then go home. In fact a lot of the money that goes back to Mexico is to support family still home and to build housing.

There has always been return migration back to the homeland. I read somewhere that 50% of Italian immigrants that came in the early 1900s eventually went back to Italy (there's several books on the phenomenon, none of which I've actually read, but summaries are available). Another study on migrant mexicans I read (I studied econ and international relations in college) showed that of lower skilled Mexican immigrants from Western Mexico, 50% had returned to Mexico after 2 years. By 10 years, 70% had returned. Of course the data is from the 80s and 90s so might not be 100% applicable to 2007. Mexicans who come in legally, are easily able to go back home. The legal migrants used to come during the picking season and then head home and see family. If you're illegal, of course, going home is risky and costly, if you ever want to get back in the country. So you wait a lot longer before going back home to see your family. Soon enough, after a bunch of years without seeing them, you eventually send for them, since you know that going back to see them will be risky. Then they have kids here, who start growing up here and, boom, now you have roots (and your workers have now become people).

I also read recently that since the 9/11 immigration clampdown, return migration has virtually been eliminated for fear that they wouldn't be able to get back in. In effect, the clampdown has forced people to stay longer which increases the likelihood that they will stick around.

So anyways, that's my perspective on people sticking around or not. Not everyone can hack it in this country and not everyone, believe it or not, yearns to give up their family, place of birth and move permanently to a foreign land, no matter how much opportunity they get. Google "Return Migration" if you want to learn more. Immigration is rarely a one way trip.

Posted by: JP on December 4, 2007 12:07 AM


Call me a girl to my face, and I'll beat your lyin' ass into the dirt!

Who the hell do you think you're fooling? You walk onto this blog and others and you play your part EXACTLY like a salesman, always running away from points and trying to offer alternatives to overcome resistence. We all know that you're just a PR flak at some anonymous firm, paid off by your corporate masters to spread your LIES all over the internet. Any real business owner knows that hiring illegals and H1-b's is wrong and is being done to undermine the citizenry. They take their money and hide their face! They don't run around and try to rationalize what they are doing on the internet with some kind of list of TALKING POINTS and SALES PITCHES, figuring that people are so stupid and gullible (like nobody here has ever heard a PR flak or salesman before!) that they will buy into it.

I feel sorry for you. You're just a paid liar. In the big game of life, instead of being someone who really makes a contribution to the world, his country, his neighbors, someone who builds and sustains a good society, you decided to be a lying sack of TRASH! For money! No wonder you hide your face with a script.

You not fooling anybody. And if all you have is the patently worthless argument that most of these deadbeats are going home, while the schools are overflowing with third-worlders on welfare who can't speak english and who can't do math or read worth a damn, you've got the limpest dick in the room.

Take your song and dance BULLSHIT somewhere else, LIAR! Your day is over. WE ARE WINNING!

Posted by: BIOH on December 4, 2007 1:15 PM

Dear BIOH:

You're an idiot. Whatever valid points you might have had are lost now because you sound like a complete idiot. Everyone talks tough on the Internet. Some of us can back it up though.

Posted by: JP on December 4, 2007 3:49 PM

Like you guy? You have been exposed! We know the game now. Deal with it.

Posted by: BIOH on December 4, 2007 4:37 PM

"[W]e can't get that labor internally (which we can't, based on virtually every economist who has spoken out on the subject)."

Still waiting for your citations... a cite... any cites.....
*tapping foot*

Posted by: CC on December 4, 2007 5:05 PM

CC, here are a few. The implications of the facts listed below are debated by only a few economists (e.g. is it a shortage? is it a problem? Is immigration the solution? etc.), but the data itself is not. Most economists are in favor of (legal) immigration to help address labor supply issues. Obviously all the quotes I've provided mention that immigration (along with other factors) will help mitigate any shortages we have, but I didn't edit out other factors, FYI, because I don't believe that immigration is the only solution, but part of the solution:

July, 2000, Vol. 123, No. 7
Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers
Arlene Dohm

As aging baby-boomers begin retiring, the effects on the overall economy and on certain occupations and industries will be substantial, creating a need for younger workers to fill the vacated jobs

Aggravating the situation is a much smaller pool of workers immediately follow-
ing the baby-boomers. Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs that the labor force will not collapse in 20 years. Recent changes to Social Security will probably cause some to delay retirement. The increased use of defined contribution pension plans, such as 401(k)s, which do not have an age or length-of-service component, may motivate some to stay in the workforce longer. A healthier older population and one that sees work as beneficial may also keep people working longer. Finally, the supply of workers may be on the upswing. Immigration, for example, is projected to continue increasing in the coming years, and the birth rate increased over the
1979–94 period, the so-called “baby-boom echo.”

These phenomena will help provide more workers for a dwindling labor force.

November 2005
Labor force projections to 2014: retiring boomers Employment outlook: 2004–14
Mitra Toossi

The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force.

"Immigration is very important (in addressing potential shortages), offshoring is important and productivity may increase," she said.


"I've always thought that under the conditions we now confront, we should be very carefully focused on the contriution which skilled [as well as] unskilled people from abroad can contribute to the country, as they have for generation after generation." Alan Greenspan

Posted by: JP on December 5, 2007 12:09 AM

Oh, and one more thing, for the record, even though it is mentioned in the above quote, I do not condone outsourcing to other countries for the simple fact that not only do those jobs go to another country, but also the revenue from all those workers, the rents, the building leases, the taxes, the corollary jobs and a whole host of other benefits we lose when jobs are outsourced.

Posted by: JP on December 5, 2007 12:13 AM

Please look your examples really don't say much. A labor shortage can be filled with people. Gee, really. So is that how you fill a positon in your business? First guy to climb over the fence and break into your office is hired? Well, that is the basics of our immigration system. Please, take a look at Robert Rector's work on the cost of immigration, especially the costs of those without high school diplomas. They are a drain.

It is laughable to have Alan Greenspan with a typical govt. rah rah comment on immigration. First, Greenspan should be tarred and feathered for the subprime mess. I can't state enough how absolutely lame it is that he never put the brakes on that. If not criminal, it was criminally stupid. Can we get him a trial date or do we have a full docket with the neocons who should be on trial for the Iraq fiasco. Oh yeah, no one is responsible for anything.

Good gravy, it costs 10 grand a year to educate one Mexican kid -- or should I say to babysit him in school. Do you see a lot of one kid Mexican families running around in San Diego? Oh, but Im probably a racist for using my eyeballs. Who is going to pay that? We still have family runification, so we get grandma and gramps at 60. The other night they did a touching piece on a woman becoming a citizen at 70. It's like me driving up to your house dropping off my grandma and telling you to make sure she has the best medical care available. Thanks.


Posted by: sN on December 5, 2007 4:13 AM

JP: So you've only read a few economists?

Also, "[W]e can't get" has become "help address" and "mitigate". What gives? Don't you stand by your bold factual claims or was that just BS?

More later.

Posted by: cc on December 5, 2007 8:54 AM


I think this is a complicated issue and that is why I've been throwing in my two cents on it. I believe that some people (not necessarily you) want to believe that all immigration (not illegal) is bad, when most economists will tell you that, in a free market, immigration is positive. I may have come across as overly assertive, throwing down "bold factual claims" and if I did, I most certainly do not want to give the impression that I have all the answers. But everyone is just looking at one side of the equation and I don't feel are really trying to understand the problem better.

It's just that I find that emotion is driving 90% of the discussion on most of the blogs I read both PRO and ANTI immigration (to wit, our friend BIOH). I usually keep my mouth shut because a) this is time consuming and b) its frustrating.

So yes, maybe I've come across as too assertive and I will watch how I post in the future. I still believe that immigration per se is a positive thing and so our government should make decisions that are based on what is best for the US, its economy and its people. People have been irked, annoyed and incensed about immigration since the founding of this country... It's natural to question or be suspicious of people alien to you. I just want to remind people that there is more to this discussion and that it is not as cut and dry as everyone would like to believe.

Posted by: JP on December 5, 2007 11:19 AM

I used emotion as argument tactic specifically because paid PR guys like you, who work for immigration lawyers and corporations, won't allow those types of arguments. You can only use fallacious statistics and supposed "experts" (who are also paid-off) by the same corporate interests, but you can't win an emotional argument. So you avoid it like the plague and go back the the 3x5 card arguments and sales pitches, full of baloney economics and statistics.

Notions such as patriotism, community, national sovereignty, individual rights, and self-determination are all avoided because when they are made, you lose de facto. All you can talk about is money. That's because money is the only thing the clients who pay your salary think about.

I bet I could make a very good argument (rational, reasoned) to take away your kids and give them to someone who would be a better parent. Unless you are the best parent around (top 10%--not moneywise either), it would be pretty easy to make. The other parents could be smarter, more patient, more loving, less lazy, more involved, etc. So what if I were right? What if rationally you would make an inferior parent to somebody else? What arguments would you use to keep your kids? The same ones we are making to keep our country.

There are other forces in play, and emotional arguments are valid. Tough luck your clients can't offer any substantive rebuttal. It is you and your clients who aren't addressing the facts, and the emotional attachments are a big and valid factor.

You will continue to deny that you are a paid-off shill, even though its obvious that you guys are all over the internet after any bad press release on immigration, making sales pitches, etc. Whatever. I guess sitting around in a coffee shop and surfing blogs is preferable to other, more substantive forms of employment. The point is that its not fooling anybody anymore.

The people of the United States will not allow their country to be turned into one big corporation, with a dictatorial CEO, an interchangeable cast of the lowest cost workers, constant surveillance (except for illegal aliens), random urine tests, obsolescence at 55, and all the other odious, despicable practices of venal, money-grubbing control freaks.

I guess I'm always amazed at how corrupt people are and how many dissemble for their livelihood. Lucky me that I don't have to do that. But unless you are willing to address the emotional arguments, the cultural arguments, the social cost arguments, the race arguments, etc., instead of crying "racism!", you are finished. As a paid PR shill, you should know that emotions are the most powerful sales button to push. But I guess that doesn't matter in the end as long as the check cashes.

Good luck coming onto the blogosphere and pushing H1-b and other "legal" forms of illegal immigration to the college-degreed crowd. The chutzpah! Also, good luck trying to convert the people who are knowledgeable and conversant in economics. Ninety-five percent of the public will privately make their decisons based on emotional arguments like mine (that's why I made them, and you avoided them). It was funny to watch your complete incompetence with that. It doesn't matter though, because if you can't answer those, you just lost the game.

Posted by: BIOH on December 5, 2007 2:16 PM

BIOH: Accusations and idiocy don't accomplish anything. You are the one being paid to talk smack. It is obvious you belong to some large organization with a hidden agenda that is looking to scare people into submission and parroting empty talking points. Well it won't work. Cooler minds will prevail... maybe not the way I want it, but most certainly, never the way you will want it. I am willing to make a compromise, whereas you are not and that is why you'll never be happy. Additionally, the "angry patriot" schtick is so tired and old it is almost a cliche.

Personal attacks and accusations are a childish way to go about this conversation, even if you were right. Civility in discourse is what makes this country great. But people like you want to turn it into some sort of war. Every post you make insults the intelligence of all the other people on this blog who have actually made some interesting points. Now go bother someone else, why don't you. No one cares what you have to say.

Posted by: JP on December 5, 2007 2:54 PM


Fair enough. You're still wrong on the economics and and you're still libeling me a bit (everyone is only looking at one side?), but we're just two guys on the internet getting ignored by Tatyana so who cares right. And, to make nice, all I've been doing is picking on your statements.

So, in the interest of fair play, here's my beef. First, you ever see the movie "It's a Wonderful Life"? Remember the scene where there's a run on the bank and Harry Bailey urges people to not close their accounts but keep most of their money in the bank? He argues that their money is in each other's houses; that his S&L is a benevolent community minded institution and just needs a little leeway to survive the panic. He uses his honeymoon money to bail out his family's Savings and Loan, and keeps the S&L afloat --and presumably, keeps the townspeople from the clutches of mean old Potter. (BTW, God bless Donna Reed!)

Anyway, remember the crotchety old man in that scene? Yeah, that one. The one who said he didn't care; a deals a deal, give me my account in full in cash right now or you're full of it. He wasn't persuaded. Maybe the rest of the town thought he was being a jerk. No matter. He had a point: pay or you're full of it; pay or it's robbery; pay or I call on a higher authority.

How does this relate to immigration? All my life politicians have been saying the border is broken, but they haven't fixed it. When the economy felt good, most seemed to care less. When the economy isn't so good, more get upset.

Now more and more evidence piles up --the point of the initial post by the way, that we're in the middle of a great wave of immigration. And, what, half? of them are illegal. And more and more evidence piles up that it's not a huge boon to the economy, that there are externatities, cultural effects, etc.

Meanwhile, some keep talking about how it's great for the economy, how it's patriotic to have an open door, how real men welcome all comers. etc. etc.

But what if I want to play crotchety old man? Pay me. Stop illegal immigration. What happens?

Well, then I get variants of "aint' gonna happen," "be nice," and, my personal favorite, "we're all God's children," (like I'm impuning someone's human dignity by insisting my government enforce it's own agreed upon laws).

Quite the opposite. I think it's my dignity, as a citizen, as a voter, as someone operating under the assumption that this is a representative republic, whose dignity is getting impuned. So you'll understand if I consider some, including large parts of my government, full of it on this issue.

Posted by: CC on December 5, 2007 3:15 PM


"Even if I am right"?--that makes me chuckle. I never thought you'd own up to it. I like to throw people off their guard. Lucky for me the blog owners run the terms of the debate. Somethimes (oftentimes) I don't know why they put up with me (or PR guys like you).

I made great points that you can't answer--the ones that real people are thinking. You guys should have a staff meeting to get some game going on those.

BTW, I hear there's a lot of empty room down in Mexico these days, since according to government statistics, 1 out of every 10 Mexicans now lives in the United States. By 2010, its expected to be 1 in 5. They're all going home, aren't they?

Yep, there is no problem. Okay, there is a problem, but it will magically disappear. Hahahahahaha!

Hey, does Starbucks give free refills?

Posted by: BIOH on December 5, 2007 3:45 PM

"Notions such as patriotism, community, national sovereignty, individual rights, and self-determination are all avoided because when they are made, you lose de facto." - BIOH

Patriotism, love of and devotion to one's country, is very much like the love between members of a family or between spouses. Anyone who claims that their understanding of patriotism, family or marriage is definitively correct and true and all others are false, perhaps even treasonous, is deluded.

One can believe that our immigration system requires a dramatic overhaul without thinking that we should close the borders and deport all immigrants currently in the country illegally and still be patriotic.

Community, there are so many different scales and ways of defining community. 2Blowhards is a community; the neighborhoods in which we each live are communities; there are business communities and religious communities. We all no doubt are members of quite a few overlapping communities. I see no threat to any of the communities I consider myself a part of from the Somali Muslims who came here as refugees. One can talk about the Somali community, which is different from the Franco community, or the arts community, yet all are part of an overall local community.

Individual rights are always at risk and subject to certain limits, especially as they bump up against someone else's individual rights. If my neighbor, exercising his individual right to do what he wants with his property, dumps loads of fill, re-contours the elevations, dregs a gully, and covers the land with toxic chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers the result of this on my property may well be that I end up with a pool of toxic runoff where my organic garden used to be.

In one direction is some kind of totalitarian regime where no one has any individual rights; a small elite beyond the reach of the citizenry controls all rights. In the other direction is anarchy. The issue then is the balance between individual rights and collective needs. How many rights do we give up for what degree of security? What rights do we allow to be diminished when we are in a public place that we retain in full in our own home.

Self determination is essentially an individual right. So, again, it can never be an absolute.
"unless you are willing to address the emotional arguments, the cultural arguments, the social cost arguments, the race arguments, etc., instead of crying "racism!", you are finished." - BIOH

When someone states that "brown people" are inferior due to their race they have absolutely met the practical definition of being a racist. If the emotional, cultural, social cost and race arguments being offered are no more nuanced than endlessly yelling about wanting their white, Christian, English speaking country back the why they think it once was, that also meets the definition of racism. It is difficult if not impossible to 'address' these issues when any comment is met with nothing more nuanced than a nativist diatribe.

Posted by: Chris White on December 5, 2007 3:59 PM

CC: I agree with you on one thing... we need to fix the immigration system. I also agree that our leaders have done nothing to address it (ok, so two things). I think where we disagree is HOW to fix it. Some argue for a complete shutdown of immigration altogether and kick everyone out. Others argue let's just open the borders and see what happens. I happen to disagree with both of those POVs. It is a complicated issue and I think an orderly, well-managed system of immigration is due.

Posted by: JP on December 5, 2007 6:59 PM

You know Chris, one can believe a lot of things, but the vast majority of your fellow citizens actually do believe in shutting down the borders and deporting Illegals. They also want an end to H1-b and all the so-called chain immigration. You should talk to people outside of your far left-wing circles to find that out, or read an honest poll.

Brown people, white people, black people--sigh. Why do we need labels? Isn't Utopia here yet?

For all your open-mindedness, you seem quite tolerant of all the anti-white racialism in other groups, and never address it. It comes from a long history of backing down to non-white racialists to look agreeable and moral, all the while handing over what isn't yours to keep a fine opinion of yourself. And you live far away from the problems your philosophy has caused. Those of us who disagree with the white-flag philosophy have noted the trends.

I'll share with you a little secret--I put on a bit of a persona when I post here. I do it intentionally to try to represent a voice that is rare in such places of intellectual discussion, but in my experience, represents the vast majority of people. We don't want to be overrun with other people who are not like us. We are racially aware and cohesive, and we know that the immigrants are also racially aware and cohesive. We are realists, not idealists. We aren't waiting for Utopia, and we don't pretend its a real place, nor will it ever be. People may be pure in the next life, but not this one.

I'm sorry that this reality is a continual let-down to the moldy idealism of your 60's youth, but it isn't going to change. Behind the everyday amity that you see, there is real division and friction that is starting to strongly assert itself.

Its only a matter of time before our economy blows out and the artificial props of this multi-cultural illusion cannot be sustained any longer. I would wish for a positive outcome, but my instincts and human history paint a very different story. Pardon me for seeing things clearly.

I know you must find it extremely disconcerting that simply stating pie-in-the-sky idealism is not guaranteed to win arguments with other people anymore, that uncomfortable facts are now openly discussed and not dismissed due to political correctness or politeness. But if you want to actually understand the upwelling in our country these days, you can't ignore it. The dike is giving way.

As an aside, the natural inclination of men through all of history has been to secure and defend their territory, property, women, and children to foreign invaders. I cannot for the life of me figure out what has come over today's men in just the last 50 years to browbeat that strong, healthy instinct from their hearts and minds. Vanity and moral superiority are strong lures indeed. Luckily most now are resisting their call.

Oh well, we can't get too emotional, can we? We must stay logical, calm, and otherwise entertained whilst we are overrun. That's the thing. Be polite and understanding, and go about our business as usual.

Yes, business as usual.

Posted by: BIOH on December 5, 2007 7:50 PM

A simple test for any white person who fancies himself non-racist: would you accept your daughter having children with a dark-skinned non-white man?

If you can honestly say Yes, then go ahead, call everybody else racist. But if not, then knock it off. That word is meaningless anyway.

Posted by: PA on December 5, 2007 8:13 PM

I have friends and acquaintances that have different skin colors than mine, different religious beliefs, different countries of birth ... and even different political views. My daughter has had relationships with guys who are white Americans whose family trees extend back in the U.S. for generations whom I would have been VERY unhappy to see her marry. She's had some male friends with complexions notably darker than mine that I would have been extremely happy to welcome as a son-in-law. You can accept this or not, I don't care. My way of dealing with people is to deal with them as individuals, not as stand-ins for a set of ethnic stereotypes.

Given that racially motivated attacks continue to be part of life, even in suburban New England, the issue of racism remains an important one; being a racist is not meaningless. And, yes, I've known black racists and Jewish racists and so on. I'm not limiting the term to white men only. While I am not so foolish as to stand up in a bar filled with skinheads and tell them they're being racists, nor call a black gang member racist when they insult the clerk with racial epithets when I'm behind them at the convenience store, that is just self preservation. I WILL continue to call them on it when I see it on a blog or write a letter to the editor about the issue when it makes sense to do so.

You may not believe me, but I do not insulate myself in some mythic circle of far left idealists. I'm well aware of the diverse opinions regarding immigration. I do not see an overwhelming call for closing the borders and deporting everyone currently in the country illegally. Most of the people I've talked to about this have far more nuanced views of the situation. Most want to see far tighter borders combined with a reasonable way of dealing with those already here fairly, on a case-by-case basis. Some should be deported, some should be granted guest worker status and some should be able to become citizens.

It is getting tiresome to be bombarded by idiots from both sides shouting idiotic absolutes at each other.

Posted by: Chris White on December 6, 2007 2:32 PM

Chris, I appreciate you acknowledging my question, but I don't think you've answered it. I think you dodged it.

Posted by: PA on December 6, 2007 7:38 PM

would you accept your daughter having children with a dark-skinned non-white man?


Are there caveats?

Yes. I'd want them to be honest, to love my daughter, to be the sort of man who who would love and protect those children. I'm interested in their character, not their skin color.

Is that any better?

Posted by: Chris White on December 6, 2007 10:07 PM


You should have asked Chris not if he would accept it (as if he had a choice), but if he would prefer it. All things being equal between two suitors, except race, which would you prefer Chris, and why? Don't beg out of it either.

Posted by: BIOH on December 6, 2007 11:06 PM

Yep, just keep rephrasing the question until you get an answer you can twist to "prove" that I, too, have prejudices. Once you "prove" that, you can smugly dismiss my criticism of racially motivated views on national immigration policy.

I do give BIOH credit for phrasing the question in a manner that, however it is answered, gives the racially aware nativists the easiest target. If I answer I'd prefer a suitor of the same race,,. why, I'm also a racist and shouldn't throw stones. If I answer I'd prefer a black or brown or red or yellow suitor to marry my daughter... why, I'm a self-hating buffoon and my comments can be ridiculed and ignored. If I fail to answer ... why, I'm 'begging out' of the question.

All things being equal except for race, yes, I'd prefer she marry the man whose skin color matches hers. No parent wants to see their child subjected to the kind of racist taunts and prejudice they'd face as half of a mixed race couple. Most parents want their children to be happy and to have a smooth road through life, being in a mixed race marriage would add problems that, as a parent, I, like most parents, would wish they could avoid.

So, because I am aware of the racial prejudice my daughter would encounter as part of a mixed race couple, does that make my arguments about the role of racial prejudice in the immigration debate moot?

How about we move on?

Posted by: Chris White on December 7, 2007 7:23 AM

While it's obvious that I am a realist rather than an idealist in the matters of "diversity" I still think it was pretty big of Chris to respond.

Any questions that deal with family are touchy by their very nature, so my original question was meant to be answered privately by people who purport themselves to be liberal in this matter.

Posted by: PA on December 7, 2007 7:51 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?