In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


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

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« The Wolfe That Doesn't Prowl | Main | Elsewhere »

April 08, 2008

Fact for the Day

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

In 1980, federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 2004, about 267,000 noncitizens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities.

Source.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at April 8, 2008




Comments

Explanation of "Fact for the Day:"

Overall federal and state population more than quadrupled during that time, while the number of illegal immigrants increased, what, tenfold? In other words, illegal aliens make up less of the prison population today, proportionately and correcting for runaway prison growth. That was your point, right? ;-)

Of course, I've previously sent you via email evidence that immigrants are less likely to land in prison than natives, but you chose to ignore that. Better to find numbers you can use misleadingly, I guess.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 8, 2008 3:58 PM



What is JA talking about?

Yes, a 30-fold increase in illegal alien cons in 25 years. And that doesn't even take into account that a lot of illegal aliens aren't in prison, but arrested and released, because local authorities know the illegals have no legal status and the feds won't deport them. They only go to jail for the most serious crimes.

Besides, every single illegal alien is a crook anyway. They entered the country illegally, period. Sigh and weep for the crooks.

Posted by: BIOH on April 8, 2008 5:19 PM



Overall federal and state population more than quadrupled during that time...

That should read, "Overall federal and state prison population more than quadrupled during that time..."

Does that make more sense, BIOH.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 8, 2008 5:33 PM



JA -- My point didn't have to do with proportions, it had to do with raw numbers. In the last few decades, the number of noncitizens in U.S. jails has gone up around 30 times. That's pretty impressive. As for proportions, a big reason that the total of illegals in prison isn't higher is that many of them simply haven't been here very long. A criminal who has been around for two years is much less likely to be in an American jail than a criminal who has lived here since birth.

Posted by: MIchael Blowhard on April 8, 2008 6:18 PM



JA -- My point didn't have to do with proportions, it had to do with raw numbers.

But the raw numbers are misleading! The numbers out of context make it seem like crime by illegal immigrants is skyrocketing exponentially, when in reality the whole thing disappears when you account for the increased illegal population and the increased general incarceration rate.

You might as well post numbers that show that 50 times as many illegal immigrants frequent coffee shops today as they did in 1980. Or that 10 times as many illegal immigrants are working their asses off today than were in 1980. Except that wouldn't reflect badly on illegal immigrants, so you pick incarceration numbers.

I find that dishonest and manipulative.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 8, 2008 6:56 PM



MB,

Don't forget that many of the illegal aliens are still children or anchor babies, which will never show up in the numbers.

JA,

No.

Posted by: BIOH on April 8, 2008 6:59 PM



JA -- "Raw numbers are misleading" -- wha'? The numbers are the numbers. We have around 30 times the number of illegals in American jails today that we had in 1980. 30 times -- that's quite an increase.

There are many ways of elaborating on the fact. One example: This is indicative of one of the major social changes of our era. Another: One point that distinguishes the incarceration rate from the number of illegals patronizing Starbucks is that American taxpayers -- who generally don't want these people around in the first place -- are paying for these prisoners' room and board.

You'll elaborate away as you see fit, of course. But what's the point of attacking a simple presentation of a simple fact?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 8, 2008 8:47 PM



JA -- "Raw numbers are misleading" -- wha'? The numbers are the numbers.

Don't be disingenuous. You know the average person sees a statistic like that and thinks, "Wow, those illegal aliens are getting out of control! They're so likely to be incarcerated!"

Your point about taxpayers footing the bill is a fair one, and the number you quote is fair in that context. Without context though, and knowing the overall tone of your posts on illegal immigration, it sounds like it's evidence in favor of the hypothesis that illegals are way more likely to be criminals than everyone else, which is simply not the case. And even if it were the case, these data don't support that conclusion.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 8, 2008 11:19 PM



I will perhaps agree that illegal immigrants do commit fewer crimes and are less likely to be incarcerated. That is what one might expect with a population that is trying to keep a low profile and just make some money. My conjecture would be that illegals commit fewer crimes that are reported, but they are also victimized more often than is reported, being preyed upon by other illegals, no doubt. All I know is that there are large parts of Orange County, CA I will no longer venture into no matter the time of day. Garden Grove, Anaheim, Santa Ana, et al used to be nice middle class 'burbs. Not anymore.

Now then, what of the offspring of said illegals? Aren't crime stats for that demographic rather, um, shall we say, discouraging? Everything I've seen suggests that Hispanics are assimilating toward black rates of crime, as well as illegitimacy, and may in fact show even less affinity for education.

What we need (and I'm half serious here) is a return to the norms of 100 years ago, when there was some shame in getting arrested, having babies out of wedlock was a stain on the family, and we expected immigrants to learn English and fit in, or go back home.

Posted by: c.o. jones on April 9, 2008 12:09 AM




Watching the prison shows on National Geographic and other channels. The West and Southwest's prisons seem to be under control of the nortenos and surenos, Mexican prison gangs who have overwhelming numbers. Funny, even the guards call them Mexicans. These gangs have a total Mexican identity. Their tattoos seem to all have to do with Mexican heritage and Aztec crap.

I'm sure the next time Jewish Atheist gets a solicitation from the Southern Poverty Law Center they will fill him in on this menace.

Oh wait, I just blew my frijoles out my nose laughing at that one. Seriously, I have never seen anything in the media on these groups except for a smattering of Mexican Mafia stories, but if some special-ed kid scribbles a swastika on the crapper door at school-- it is good for at least three stories in my local media.

One other point: Ive heard of several cases where folks are let out on bail despite their immigration status. I saw one where they caught the guy molesting kids at a Florida hotel. He was a non-citizen from Nicaragua; the judge let him out on bail. The guy was caught at the scene, and he is out on bail. Surprise, he didnt show up for trial.

I just saw a Lou Dobbs report where Mexicans in the Tucson sector who were caught smuggling less than 500 pounds of drugs were not being prosecuted.

Folks would need a bulletproof coatings on their rose-colored glasses to ignore all the damage the immigration mess is doing to this country. Kudos to your optical service provider, JA.


sN

Posted by: sN on April 9, 2008 2:44 AM



What interests me is that illegal immigrants are imprisoned at a rate 3x higher than 1980, again according to JA. So it seems that their quality is getting worse, at least by that measure, isn't it?

I would also be interested in seeing a comparison of the rate of incarceration of illegals compared to the non-Hispanic white native-born population. Blacks are American born, and their sky-high incarceration rates no doubt inflate the non-immigrant rate massively.

And of course, if immigration were curtailed, there would be almost 300,000 fewer prisoners in America. How much money would that save, I wonder?

JA?

Posted by: PatrickH on April 9, 2008 9:42 AM



One other point: the only number that really matters is this: what are the crime rates of Hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal) and their descendants compared to the crime rates of native-born non-Hispanic white Americans? The figure is, I believe, about 3x higher for Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites. So increasing the number of Hispanics in this country by any means, immigration legal or illegal, birth in America, any means, will cause an increase in crime rates, incarceration rates, and a decline in law-abidingness, civil order and peace.

The population against which all immigrants should be judged is the native-born white population of America. Finding immigrants to be less criminal than blacks, by far the most violent, criminal and incarcerated population in America, proves nothing. Everybody's less criminal than blacks. Judge immigration by the only standard that matters: the standards of white America.

And by that standard, Mexican-Americans don't come off well at all.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 9, 2008 10:05 AM



The most relevant point in all of this is not the level of incarceration of illegals, but rather what happens to their kids, who are of course fully legal citizens of the US.

Those numbers are not encouraging. Maybe the 3rd generation will start improving, but it all seems like a really big chance to take with something as fundamental as a country's demographics and it isn't as though we don't have 100 years of data on Hispanic immigrants to examine. It doesn't make you optimistic.

It's still beyond me why it isn't possible for congress to debate how many and what type of immigrants we want and then figure out how to enforce it. At least then, even if the decision is 1 million a year of whoever can make it over the border, somebody will need to justify that decision and why that will lead to a better America today and in the future.

Nobody even really knows what the status quo is right now which makes these arguments very strange. Some people want less immigration, others want... the basic human right to live in any country one wants under any circumstances? I don't really know.

Posted by: Karl on April 9, 2008 11:30 AM



JA -- You're battling your own projections, not anything I'm actually saying. As for the numbers, they are what they are -- we have 30 times the number of illegals in prison today than we had in 1980. There are any number of things that can be made of this fact, just as there are any number of ways of putting this fact in context. But one of them is certainly "Wow, that's amazing."

As for my own larger points about the immigration mess, they boil down to:

1) Mexican immigration to this country is a big deal. It's in fact one of the largest migrations and one of the biggest demographic changes currently happening in the world.
2) It deserves to be more openly acknowledged and discussed than it has tended to be for the last 40 years.
3) It's possible to be a humane and decent person and still find these developments to be a matter of real concernl, despite what the PC crowd says.
4) One consequence of this huge underdiscussed migration will be a much larger U.S. population than most Americans want. Is this wise?
4) Another consequence is and will be ethnic upheavals. Is this wise? Is this wanted?
5) Another: This is all happening quite against the strong preferences of most current Americans. (Both black and white, by the way.) Result: divisiveness and resentment. Do we want more divisiveness and resentment around than we have already?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 9, 2008 1:00 PM



JA -- You're battling your own projections, not anything I'm actually saying.

I still think you're being disingenuous. What if I had come out and said that there are four times as many white people in prison today as there were in 1980, without providing any other information? I wouldn't be saying anything untrue, but the effect would still be misleading. You think your audience would have let that slide without complaint?

Regarding your other points, I agree that Mexican immigration is a big deal, should be discussed, and that humane and decent people can oppose it. However, I think that the discussion should be evenhanded, not misleading. You and I agree, I'm sure, that America is not good about talking about race, but that's no reason to propagandize in the other direction.

Here's the thing, though. I think if both sides (or all factions of both sides, really) were honest about their arguments, then the anti-immigration side would have even less success. For example, if people who believe that Mexicans are genetically less intelligent and more violent than Anglos were as honest in real life as they are on these blogs, then they would lose the immigration debate even more soundly than they do when they twist crime statistics or pretend that their chief concern is keeping out terrorists.

Pat Buchanan and others have been open about their desire to keep the country white, but the American population does not accept that desire as legitimate. So instead, we get all of these disingenuous arguments about immigration with promises that there's nothing racist about them, no sir. (Note that I'm not saying all arguments against immigration are disingenuous, just the ones that rely on misleading/false statistics or playing to the fear of terrorism.)

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 9, 2008 1:33 PM



I give JA credit for debating with his adversaries, but I suspect that for him and others of his persuasion, all the problems and disfunctions associated with mass immigration are a feature, not a bug, in the system.

I doubt this is part of their conscious thought process. Like Mencius says, no one sees himself as the bad guy - they all sincerely believe they are the giood guys.

It appears to me that at some important psychological level immigration enthusiasts like to see a stable "boring" population of self-reliant and intelligent people get drowned out by aliens. I think JA welcomes this chaos, and the empowerment it augurs for the growing Socialist Manager class.

Posted by: PA on April 9, 2008 1:56 PM



JA, you are correct that it is evasive — or disingenuous, since you seem to like that word a great deal — to pretend that open borders are a problem primarily because of a terrorist threat, or that the Mexican invasion is bad because it’s illegal (with the implication that it would be just fine if we just made all the border runners legal).

Do you want to know why people who are concerned about ethnic population replacement are afraid to come out plainly with the truth, that the mestizo population of Mexico is incompatible with American history and traditions, brings with it crime and gang warfare, and survives in this country only through the beneficence of a welfare system? Because we do not have genuine freedom of speech and thought in this culturally Marxist society. Because to speak openly of uncomfortable facts exposes people to, at best, being vilified as racists or xenophobes, and at worst to losing their livelihood.

Pat Buchanan and others have been open about their desire to keep the country white, but the American population does not accept that desire as legitimate.

I think you mean “majority white,” not “white.” And that’s a critical distinction, which you with your fussy debating moves and hair splitting might want to take on board. It seems very likely that most white Americans — still about two-thirds of the population, until next month or next year — would very much prefer to keep the United States a majority-white country if they weren’t terrified of the consequences of saying so out loud. If you think it’s awful that people should prefer to live in a society where the majority is racially like them, you must surely disapprove of the attitude of most Mexicans and blacks.

You agree that Mexican immigration is a big thing, and should be discussed? Great! But it’s hard to discuss it with people like you, who believe that opposing Mexican colonization is “propagandizing,” and pointing out the crime wave that (for instance) Los Angeles is enjoying thanks to its status as Mexico City North is “twisting crime statistics.” Or bending over backwards to pretend that having a 30-fold increase in non-citizens incarcerated is meaningless because it’s just “raw numbers.” Raw numbers are not the same as rates, true, but they tell their own story. If the house or apartment you live in suddenly had 40 more people living there, that would just be raw numbers, but I think you’d agree it’s a hell of a problem. For you, although maybe not for the additional 40 people if they were Mexicans.

Thanks for acknowledging that humane and decent people can oppose Mexican mass immigration. You may be humane and decent as well, but I do not find your arguments “even-handed”; I just read them as apologetics for race replacement.

Posted by: Rick Darby on April 9, 2008 4:07 PM



Oy vey,
I told myself I would stay away from these kinds of debates, but yet I keep getting drawn in. Suffice to say, I'm going to just extrapolate on what's troubling me.

I don't like illegal immigration much. Hell, I don't even like legal migration of non-skilled workers all that much either, but I'm willing to tolerate a certain level of it.

Still, I find it creepy when people link immigration to keeping a "white" character to the nation. I mean, is citizenism so dead? Is the ability to conceive that even 60 years ago there were distinct regional cultures in America that were all proudly American but would be offended by there being told that a certain region's culture was more authentically American? Is the culture of America the stolid New Hampshire farmer? The rangy Texas rancher? The blue-blooded Boston Brahmin? The Lutefisk making Minnesotan? The wandering Delta bluesman?

Really, if we want to be honest with ourselves here, a Tejano from El Paso who's been rooted in the States since Texas joined up is by essence more part of the national character and history of the Union than a white English immigrant fresh from Heathrow.

Now, I'm not saying race ain't important. It's hella important. It should be talked about honestly. In fact I think that racial relations are better when race is a given factor in a culture. I come from a place that was a no-majority place for years and we didn't end up tearing each other apart. Once people are honest about what's different about each other, then they can be honest about what's the same. I think that multi-cult types are simply being dishonest about the differences, but to err in the other direction and say that since something is different in some aspect it cannot share a common ground in others is fallacious and destructive as its converse.

Culture is always going to change. The best we can do is to keep it healthy for society at large and the individual. Rampant immigration is unhealthy, but so is purposely setting yourself up for Balkanization.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 9, 2008 4:56 PM



Rampant immigration will lead to Balkanization. Large increases in America's Hispanic population will lead to a larger underclass, more high school dropouts, a higher crime rate, massive pressure on government services, a concomitant decline in the quality of said services, increased agitation for bilingual government, increased competition for a place at the ethnic grievances trough, a massive ratcheting upward of said ethnic grievances, a rapid decline in already deteriorating levels of public trust and sense of citizenship, an unprecedented assault on the American treasury, and a general decrease in the welfare and happiness of the America we leave to our children and grandchildren.

The preservation of "white" America is the preservation of the many values that white America has created, and which will be destroyed when America ceases to be white. It's not the non-whiteness of immigrants that will destroy America--East Asian and some Indian sub-continental groups are generally an asset to this country--but rather, immigration from some spots of the Earth that are not really great places to live. And which also happen not to be white. Among those places: Latin America.


Posted by: PatrickH on April 9, 2008 7:53 PM



Seems JA is seein' things in the inkblot. It's a question of infrastructure, isn't it? Incarcerating people is expensive. It matters when public policy in one area affects infrastructure in another. That's got nothing to do with race or citizenship.

I thought this was an eye-opening piece as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120760093089595927.html

To solve a serious problem of prison overcrowding, Italy freed about a third of its inmates. "Within months, bank robberies jumped by 20%. Kidnappings and fraud also rose, as did computer crime, arson and purse-snatchings . . ."

Posted by: Kirsten on April 9, 2008 7:58 PM



PatrickH:

I'm speaking in terms of solutions to problems. While it's possible and politically feasible to tighten up the borders and punish those who hire illegals, mass deportation is most unfeasible. It would be a public-relations fiasco.

While no one has any problems with dumping MS-13 gangbangers back in El Salvador, even if a handful of hard-working Jose Delgados who successfully founded their own landscaping companies get swept up and publically speak up about it, the people will be touched. It's even more problematic when you think about what's going to happen with visa-overstayers from other nations. I'm pretty sure Canada will be rightfully pissed if several thousand Canadians were shipped back after living in the states for decades because their papers weren't in order (no exaggeration there, they number in the thousands). Then there's folks from countries wear relations are strained. China could really fuck up the dollar value if we went wholesale shipping back garment workers from San Fran and New York. Mass repatriation doesn't help countries much. Hence my thing about the Balkans.

I'm talking about realistic solutions to problems. Close up the loopholes and a good chunk of the problem repatriates itself. No work, why stay here? The current economic downturn is doing some of that for us. However, some will stay, and having a seething mass of people who feel like they have no ability to be considered fully American by reason of their very existence is a problem.

I'm speaking in terms of restoring the idea of the American citizen as someone who willing identifies themself as a member of the nation. I probably have broader definitions of what constitutes an American. It's an artifact of my upbringing and home. Hawaii hasn't turned into a pestiferous anti-democratic shithole, and whites have been a minority here since... well, they've never been the majority, but we still got the American political system and basic values and all that jazz. Hence, I think a major problem has been conceptualization of the ideal. Multiculturalism helped wreck it beyond belief, but what I'm seeing isn't a reaction to bring it back. No, what I'm seeing is simply it's converse in identity politics. "Our ancestors created this nation and by reason of your ancestry and ethnicity, you cannot ever participate in this system!"

Some may say that biologically, races are not the same, hence such ideas are justified. Whoop-de-freaking doo. I'm pretty convinced of it, but I think it has little to do with the situation on hand. Deriving as social *ought* from a biological *is* is a pretty lunk-headed thing to do. We're better than animals because we can recognize that aspect of ourselves and work with it rationally. Instinctive and reactive tribalism is a step back in human society. Particularly when the actions derived from that mindset create a worse situation than the one already on hand.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 9, 2008 9:32 PM



Spike -- Read a bit about "Operation Wetback." Getting tough about enforcing the law on a large scale worked fine in 1950. I suppose you could argue something's different today, but you'd have to come up with what that is. As for your dismay with those protesting the current immigration regime -- I'm surprised you're taking out your ire on them. They didn't create the situation; they're protesting it. Why aren't you taking your ire out on the people who created this situation? Beating up on the people who feel hurt and assaulted by these developments is a little like beating up on someone who has gotten mugged, isn't it? Why not sympathize with the muggee instead of scolding him for being a touch irrational about what has happened to him? The mugger is the one to blame here, no? And it's understandable that the victim of the assault should feel hurt and p.o.'d, no? Remember: This unpleasant situation wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for the people who made it happen.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 9, 2008 11:38 PM



MB:

You're being a bit disengenuious, yes, it's *very* different. First off, the scale is much, much, much larger, and the target is much wider. You simply can't just sweep cabbage fields in Texas and California to get them all. Secondly, Operation Wetback succeeded in a more media-blind time. Native Californios got shipped to Mexico despite never actually having been there in their life. Their crime was simply to be in the same place and same time with a bunch of illegals. In this day and age, if something like that happened, the pro-immigrant forces would be on that like white on rice, and hell, they'd be right in a way. If an American citizen gets swept up in a clusterfuck like that, they've got a right to be pissed. I'd be pissed.

Also, I said I'm disturbed by immigration, but I'm even more disturbed by the anti-immigration rhetoric. Why? Simple. I'm not white. That's the big one there. I don't like the implications when people talk about the values of the "white" founders of the nation. They were all white, for sure, but their words and ideals aren't just for white citizens of the nation. They're for all the willing citizens of the nation, whatever their skin color or last name. I'd like to be considered the equal of a citizen whose ancestors stepped off the Mayflower, and I would consider those who immigrated legally and went through the process of citizenship and pledged alliegence to the flag and nation to be my equal as a citizen as well. I often get the feeling that even if I am considered an American by many of the loud voices against immigration, I'm considered a lesser sort than they are. Certainly there are those here who explicitly *don't* consider me an American. I can review the old comments list to prove it.

Secondly, rhetoric does matter. Why do you think little 'ole non-white me is so wigged out by it? You want people to take anti-immigration seriously, then don't let the ranters and mouth-frothers define the debate. Let me put it this way. The other side will drag out Jose Delgado who came from Sonora with two pesos in his pocket and built a chain of resturants. They've got an illegal kid who somehow managed to get into Harvard. Besides these actual heartwarming stories (hey, you can't deny folks like that their good turn), they got legions of paid schills and spin. What does the other side have? When the best you can put forward is a red-faced and blustery Lou Dobbs, you got serious image problems. You want to get traction? Shove the white seperatists and supremacists into the closet, like the MSM has done with the Azatlan groups. Get sob stories of neighborhoods destroyed by immigration. Make sure some of those crying about it have colored faces. Hell, I could even find you local Mex-Ams from L.A. who will gladly spend hours bitching about the illegals. Then start talking about what it means to be a citizen again.

I have an idea. Put me forward to lead the movement. I speak (passable) Spanish, I'm young and look ethnic. I'll gladly do it too. So, what say y'all?

Also, if I'm chiding the muggee, instead of the mugger, then to extend the metaphore, I'm doing so because the muggee is saying that everyone who vaguely looks like the one guy that mugged him was in on it from the start while ignoring that his city council is what's driving his town to shit in the first place. The guys who are really fucking him over ain't the new folks in the hood. It's the wonks in the good part of town speaking the same language as he is.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 10, 2008 2:40 AM



One of the more curious facts about the immigration debate: how often the word "disingenuous" comes up. Bizarre.

Spike -- You say it can't be done. I point out that it has been done. You decide that it can't be done today. Sigh ...

You recall welfare reform, right? You're using the rhetoric and strategies of the people who opposed it. Yet it was done. It takes will and pressure. Interestingly enough, there are very few issues that everyday Americans care more about than immigration reform.

In any case, a huge program doesn't even need to be created. Simply patrolling the border effectively and prosecuting employers vigorously would almost certainly send millions of illegals skedaddling back to Mexico.

I have an idea. Put me forward to lead the movement. I speak (passable) Spanish, I'm young and look ethnic. I'll gladly do it too. So, what say y'all?

Sounds good to me. But you're making an elementary mistake, which is assuming that any of us -- here and now -- have any control over any of this. I'm not in a position to put anyone in charge of anything, and no one else visiting this blog is either. As far as I can see, all that's in my power to do is promote a freer and more open discussion of the issue than it usually gets. Which I'm doing.

if I'm chiding the muggee, instead of the mugger, then to extend the metaphore, I'm doing so because the muggee is saying that everyone who vaguely looks like the one guy that mugged him was in on it from the start ...

Once again you're getting mad at the person who has been hurt for swearing and making irrational noises. That's what people do when they get hurt. If your, I dunno, Mom accidentally hammers her thumb and says "motherfucker" a few times, do you scold her for that? General life-tip: You have to let people have their reactions. Try to take that from them and they'll get twice as crazed. So let 'em express their frustrations and rage. Once that's out, then semi-rationality can (perhaps) be returned to.

while ignoring that his city council is what's driving his town to shit in the first place. The guys who are really fucking him over ain't the new folks in the hood. It's the wonks in the good part of town speaking the same language as he is.

Agreed totally.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 10, 2008 9:38 AM



Forget Spike Gomes. Let's put Lou Dobbs in blackface and have him utter some goddamned Spanish to give our side (how do you say MSM legitimacy in Spanish?). Playing footsie with the "rules," which is what Spike's plan amounts to, is just worthless. Joe Martin is no good; Jose Martinez is muy bueno. F-it, we're defending our country, and the only way we are going to win is to say take your little racial game and shove it. We may lose doing it this way, but we will go down fighting. And it would be a damn good precedent for cutting the crap of this system of lies.

sN

Posted by: sN on April 10, 2008 1:06 PM



MB:

I say disingenuous simply because trying to do an Operation Wetback now is infeasible given the scale of the problem, nor is it really desirable, as the original was fraught with grave errors against American citizens. I'm all for tightening the borders and even more for prosecuting employers. That's a feasible solution. Round-ups and forced mass deportations, well, history hasn't had a good track record on those, yet you see people seriously arguing for it.

Also, call me on my youthful brashness, but I tend to believe that words, when used correctly, have power. You get enough people to see things from your perspective, and you get a critical mass going, you eventually get someone with some power to address you. What I'm hearing in regards to this is divisive. The open borders folks say "These are these people, and this is what they say, and prima facie, they are racists." So when the anti-immigration folks meet those expectations, it gives those in power a pass to shut their ears. So whaddya do then? Instead of charging that roadblock head-on, you go around it. Hell, I can speak more openly about it than others since there's no way in God's green earth that a "racist" smear can apply to me. I got it easy, but there's go arounds for everyone. The other side is getting pretty lazy, so a little shuck and jive won't hurt.

Heh, when I was helping my Mom move recently, I cut my hand on her cupboard and swore reactively from the pain. She said (for the umpteenth million time in my life) "Hey, I raised you better than that!" Seriously, she says "Oh Sugars!" when something like that happens to herself. I'm a bit perplexed by the idea of letting anger out reactively as good thing. It may be okay for some people who only get angry in certain ways and have their anger dissipate, but since childhood, my anger reaction is to silently beat the shit out of something till the rage is gone. Let's say I value emotional control for good reasons and have a disdainful reaction to those who let it out without regarding collateral damage because of that.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 10, 2008 2:10 PM



MB:

Looking at sN need I say more? Oh sN, FWIW, Lou Dobb's wife is a Mex-Am, so he's a traitor too by your estimation. I think he'd be more amenable to my approach than yours. Frankly, destroying your home because you can't have it 100% your way is childish, like tossing a temper tantrum when Mommy can't buy you an ice cream cone because Baskin-Robbins is already closed. Also, the correct way of saying it would be "Jose Martinez es mas bien", but then I suppose some of the pride in being a Know-Nothing is knowing nothing, eh?

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 11, 2008 4:23 PM




Come on, Gomes, you tell me that we need a Spanish speaking darker (than whites) guy to fight the immigration fight to give us that oh so valuable media credibiility, and I'm the racist?

You also ruled out Lou Dobbs for having old white guy traits, red faced and blustery -- further proof of your covert racism. I watch Dobbs; he is reasonable and allows the other side on whenever they want. Yet, he is also called a racist.

I have no doubt that he would be closer to you on the issue than me. So What. (By the way, I dont know how you get me calling someone who marries a Mex-Am a traitor?)

Im on this blog to speak the truth. A few postings before this someone mentioned places in Garden Grove, Santa Ana and elsewhere that used to be nice places, now they are no-go illegal alien shitholes that can cost a person his life for visiting. I see it all around me. Forgive me for caring.
Hell, I'm just tired of the whole media game. Give me an old blustery guy. Give me angry people. Screw that "if we could only get some piece of corrupt garbage like Linda Chavez (right last name, right slight accent) to argue our case for us ---then we'd win hearts and minds."

You are just one short step from that Bill O'Reilly thing where he has this weird stable of blondes that come on to discuss the issues. I say forget it. Let's give our finger to the media, image and the other crap. Let's get a little punk rock attitude here. Let's start this revolution rolling. Their system is corrupt and their own statistics tell us it is going to fall. Not mine, their own statistics. Yeah, we're ugly, beautiful, blustery and pissed, but do me a big favor and tell me where we are wrong. You didnt even do that when you asked MB to condemn me. I agree, we all cannot or should not be like me, but I got a feeling we will get nowhere without a contingent of me's.

I say that we need people like me who can argue unapologetically about this. I say if there are 10,000 illegal gang members in L.A., it is war. I say if 20 million people have invaded your home it is war. Im not advocating violence, but you damn well better realize that the current system IS ADVOCATING VIOLENCE TOWARD ME, MY CULTURE AND MY WAY OF LIFE.

sN

Posted by: sN on April 11, 2008 11:52 PM



Did I call Dobbs racist? On the contrary, I said he was the best guy that's the public face of the anti-immigration movement, which isn't saying much. He's hella better than guys who have links to the same sort of militia folks Tim McVeigh came out of, or those who talk of Rahowa when they think no one is looking.

Hey, if you want a punk rock revolution, go for it. If I recall, the first punk rock revolution ended somewhere between Sid Vicious ODing with a needle in his arm and former punkers with fluffy hairdos singing "I Ran" with synthesizers on MTV.

I suppose every good cop needs a bad cop to work, however.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 12, 2008 2:24 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?