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. http://www.borjas.com/.

“[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.)) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html]

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."” http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2454772/18694544

"[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!

Read this sentence carefully and get it through your head--OUR LAWS AND IMMIGRATION POLICIES DON'T EXIST FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUSINESS OWNERS--THEY EXIST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND WE DON'T WANT ANYMORE, GET IT! Ninety percent of us are SICK OF IT!

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

JP,

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:

FROM BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS:
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.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW (BLS PUB)
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.

ONE LAST QUOTE FROM ALAN GREENSPAN:

"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

JP,
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.

NO 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

CC:

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

JP,

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

JP,

"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?

Yes.

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

PA,

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

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?