I received another anonymous email from my frequent email commenter "Patriotic Minuteman." The email he forwarded originated from someone by the name of Dick Bucks. Bucks talked about someone by the name of Lil Dog (famous for his ugly video of his shooting a Mexican border crosser) and the Immigration Watchdog site being retired and how he and the loyal MMs needed volunteers to pick up all the stuff left by the Mountain Minutemen from the xxx location before the Sheriff and his department picked up what was left. The Mountain MMs maintained their site near Campo, CA and they were the hosts of a few National Border Watches. They have vehicles and equipment that needs to be picked up. In their heyday, the Mountain MMs were headliners in the MM cause. That was before all of the infighting occurred between Jim Gilchrist, Chris Simcox, Jeff Schwilk and all of the National MM Border watchers. These folks were the leaders of their cause. They craved National attention and they were getting it. Every day, one of them was on the national scene, either on the cable news networks or articles by some national publication. Their quotes followed the ANTI rhetoric including "Rule of Law!" or "Amnesty." The Beltway Boys saw the attention the MMs were receiving and tapped into their attention, snaring Simcox into the mix. They used and abused poor Simcox. Then abandoned him after receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions then wasting the money away. Simcox didn´t realize the Beltway Boys were merely using him for his 15 minutes of fame and to instill fear into every day Americans. Then the Beltway Boys tossed Simcox aside. Now, the MMs are in disarray. There is massive infighting. Lawsuits abound. They are splintered. They rarely or never are on cable news anymore.
Coincidentally, after I received this email message from Patrioitic Minuteman, one of my frequent (and very likable) ANTI commenters asked me to review an Immigration position paper he wrote and to provide my (humble) input (from a PRO perspective). I told him, quite frankly, the ANTI movement is ended.
I explained to my brilliant ANTI friend that his paper will not persuade anyone NEW over to his side. It will only be preaching to the ANTI choir.
I asked, "Who is your target audience?"
I explained the various groups were divided as follows:
1. The ANTIs (like alipac.us, nutzos like KKKobach, the MMs, etc.)
2. Republican party
3. Independents
4. Bi Partisan - the American Public
2. Republican party
3. Independents
4. Bi Partisan - the American Public
I said to him "For the most part, it looks like you are targetting the ANTIs. If that is your target audience, no changes for your paper are needed. Of course I think most of your argument is old, tired and used. No one is listening anymore...You need to remove all of the tired old scare tactics. You need a new approach."
I let him know he did make some good points in his paper, however, overall, he was not going to win over any new members.
I let him know he did make some good points in his paper, however, overall, he was not going to win over any new members.
I also shared with him I think I could write a paper persuading 2 - 4 (above) to the ANTI side, but I was not willing to give him the ammo.
Personally, I have the feeling, especially with the elections underway, that we are advancing into a new era.. a hopeful, positive era! I think all of us, ALL Americans, and the World, is ready for a change in Policy and a change in Leadership in America!
God Bless America!! Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!!
Update: To summarize "Why the ANTIs are Losing the Argument" - -
1. Key leaders (voices) in the ANTI movement are in disagreement. Some National groups have disbanded or splintered off.
1. Key leaders (voices) in the ANTI movement are in disagreement. Some National groups have disbanded or splintered off.
2. MSM is no longer covering the MM Movement and minimally covering Immigration issues.
3. Political parties are not discussing Immigration issues.
4. The previous lead ANTI agruments "Rule of Law" "No Amnesty" are no longer being reported and seem to be no longer effective. e.g. the scare tactics and demonizations are no longer working.
Posts
91 comments:
Dee, respectfully, I would add another group to your list: global citizens. Admitting the existence of this group might give more ammo to the Antis--alternatively, admitting the existence of people who aren't U.S. citizens (6.4 billion people, over 95% of the world's population) is simple common sense.
But this group could include U.S. citizens, too, like myself. It includes non-naturalized immigrants, ostensibly the people this whole conversation is about.
Acknowledging the existence of this group is in the best interest of U.S. citizens, as the relative power of the U.S. declines in the coming years, as it will inevitably. The question is: can Americans accept this transition peacefully and realize that global peace and prosperity is not a zero sum game, that when you act out of fear, you only bring to pass that which you feared?
I think so, but not unless the terms of the current debate change. And that includes recognizing the reality of 6.4 billion people, with all their hopes, dreams, fears, and failings.
If your going to be adding Globalist, then also add nativist, those of us who do not believe in the world as one community.
How is the power of the USA declining? China is now losing manufacturing to India due to wage increases of its workers, soon India will be the same as China was, cheap labor and manufacturing. Then India will also go the same way, on to the next cheap labor country. My question is: Why should we accept the world to come here and live and work at our own citizens expenses? I tend to agree with John Bowe: "Globalization means that soon, we, too, might be working for pennies an hour. It’s like Adam Smith in reverse: trade with people less free than you, and your own freedom is threatened."
So should the world become one community and have one over seeing Government with one minimum wage set for everybody? Are we all going to be held to the same standards for everything such as air quality restrictions, labor rights, quality of life, etc.? How do you plan to get every country in the world to agree to this? Or is it just for the USA?
You left out Democrats as well, Dee. Moderate Democrats are against "Illegal Immigration" and against "Immigration" unless it can be proven needed by the employer. It's not a single party issue as you are making it out to be. It crosses party lines in both directions.
Centrist Democrats may expand their ranks, gain more influence in Senate
Democrats are expected to gain Senate seats this election cycle, but a wider majority won’t necessarily mean a more liberal chamber.
Just as the conservative Blue Dog Coalition has forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to moderate her positions in the 110th Congress, a new band of centrist Senate Democrats could hold similar sway over Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) next year.
The nearly 50-member Blue Dog Coalition stands a chance of gaining at least nine new members next year from conservative districts.
You also seem to be under the assumption that all "Illegal Immigrants" want to come here to live, when a large portion of them only want to come here to better their economic position at home (country of origin), i.e. working here and sending money to build a house, purchase furniture, pay off family debt, etc. Many would go back home if given the opportunity to work here for a given amount of time. Most are economic refugees, not political refugees.
This is so full of lies and propaganda that this is pure tripe, dee.
The anti movement is alive and well and the majority of us are not part of any of the organizations that you are demonizing here but you just can't get that through your head. It is all wishful thinking on your part that the majority of Americans support your side. Enjoy your fantasy while you can.
Well,
let me add a different perspective.
The truth is that mass immigration of unskilled workers is a huge detriment to those citizens in the lower half of the income distribution, the lower half of the skills distribution
mass immigration of unskilled workers is generally ok with people in the top half of the income distribution here.
Most suburban soccer moms like the fact that they can hire maids and nannies so cheaply.
ending all immigration of unskilled folks would mean dramatically higher wages for american citizens who are unskilled. many of these citizens would choose to work instead of choosing a life of crime and prison. Life would be better in every way for unskilled us citizens.
but in some ways life would be worse for the skilled and higher earning americans - higher wages for maids and nannies, perhaps having to ask the kids to mow the lawn instead of hiring a gardener, more work around the house for mom, more chores around the house for dad.
My sympathies are with the lower paid citizens and thus i am strongly against unskilled immigration. But after following this debate for the past few years, i have to say that the vast majority of unskilled american citizens are just too busy earning a living or perhpas too demoralized to stand up for themselves.
if you talk to them, they are strongly in favor of the anti position. but they just generally don't assert themselves.
I am an anti, but i have to say that Dee's side will be able to declare victory.
so i don't expect anyone here to like what i have to say, but my point is that dee is despicable, dee is sacrificing the most vulnerable us citizens to a life of poverty and degradation by inviting in millions of low wage workers to push down their wages. Dee is a traitor to the US and to the people of the US.
But at the end of the day, Dee's side has won because they are determined, they work for what they want, they don't back down. They are relentless.
This is a case in which the bad guys win the war.
How is the power of the USA declining?
I say "relative power." In 1945, the U.S. accounted for about half of global GDP. Now, about 25%. The chart on this post shows the trends (though accurately pointing out that Japan and the EU have experienced a larger relative decline in recent years). If you saw the Olympics, you might have noticed that China has a lot of money and isn't afraid to spend it. That's the consequence of two decades of double digit growth. At some point, this is going to translate into military capabilities, especially if the U.S. continues to throw money away on ill-conceived wars in far-flung places.
Globalization means that soon, we, too, might be working for pennies an hour.
Can you produce any evidence of this? While U.S. economic power relative to other countries may have declined, standard of living hasn't declined much--certainly not to developing world levels as you insinuate is imminent. True, because of GOP economic policies, the richest have done much, much better than the rest of Americans, but that doesn't mean U.S. citizens are in any danger of being forced into Nike sweatshops anytime soon.
Are we all going to be held to the same standards for everything such as air quality restrictions, labor rights, quality of life, etc.?
Currently international treaties do govern some of these issue areas. Wouldn't it be nice if China and India were held to U.S. and EU air quality standards? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if sweatshop labor were better regulated? You seem to assume everyone will be dragged down to the lowest level by agreeing on common standards. History has not shown that to be the case.
How do you plan to get every country in the world to agree to this?
There's something called "international diplomacy" and even the mighty U.S. practices it on occasion. It has resulted in Kyoto, the WTO, ILO, UN, EU, etc. You may think those organizations and treaty bodies are worthless, but that is the sort of circular argumentation that is commonly used against international governance: e.g., the UN doesn't work because nobody supports it; nobody supports the UN because it doesn't work. The John Bolton crowd is dedicated to keeping the UN ineffectual and the US free to fight wars of choice.
The truth is that mass immigration of unskilled workers is a huge detriment to those citizens in the lower half of the income distribution, the lower half of the skills distribution
Many citizens of Postville and other small midwestern towns would disagree. My uncle is a county agent in rural Utah, and based on my discussions with him, he would disagree. What about those first, second, or third generation immigrants who fall into the lower half of the income distribution that you describe--do you think they might disagree? Or don't they count because they're not white?
IMO, a town/business shouldn't exist on U.S. soil if they claim to have to survive by hiring illegal labor and circumventing our immigration and labor laws. No excuses, and no whining.
These little towns existed just fine decades ago when we were relatively illegal alien free.
Yave,
Welcome to my blog and thank you for joining this discussion. You have provided some very interesting insights. I agree with your responses to Liquid. I will wait for Liquid to respond to your most recent comments before I jump in to this part of the discussion.
(BTW I visited your website. I like it and will add it to my blogroll. I hope you add mine to yours)
Pat,
I am surprised you made this comment. The 1st half of my blog was a quote from Patriotic MMs email. The 2nd half I was openly providing feedback to an email I received from one of our frequent commenters.
patriot said...
This is so full of lies and propaganda that this is pure tripe, dee.
All,
The list I provided in this post was not meant to be all inclusive.
The list was created to ask the question and help me understand what audience the described paper was trying to reach. I knew it was meant for Americans.
Liquid, I would say the "Nativists" and the Blue Dog democrats you describe are ANTIs. It probably would have been helpful to attach the paper itself.
1. The ANTIs
2. Republican party
3. Independents
4. Bi Partisan - the American Public
The title to this post is "Why the ANTIs are losing this argument." To summarize my key points:
1. Key leaders (voices) in the ANTI movement are in disagreement. Some National groups have disbanded or splintered off.
2. MSM is no longer covering the MM Movement and minimally covering Immigration issues.
3. Political parties are not discussing Immigration issues.
4. The previous lead ANTI agruments "Rule of Law" "No Amnesty" are no longer being reported and seem to be no longer effective. e.g. the scare tactics and demonizations are no longer working.
“I say "relative power." In 1945, the U.S. accounted for about half of global GDP. Now, about 25%. The chart on this post shows the trends (though accurately pointing out that Japan and the EU have experienced a larger relative decline in recent years). If you saw the Olympics, you might have noticed that China has a lot of money and isn't afraid to spend it. That's the consequence of two decades of double digit growth. At some point, this is going to translate into military capabilities, especially if the U.S. continues to throw money away on ill-conceived wars in far-flung places.”
The relative decline of the American share of GDP since 1945 is that WWII had just gotten over. Europe was in shambles, Japan had occupied China, and the U.S. was the only option for goods and services. So, obviously America’s share in GDP would be around 50%. If it were not for a global war that would not have been the case because the rest of the world would be been producing more. So, I do not find it fair to use the percentage of GDP in 1945 in this argument.
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/globalization/?p=775
As David Barboza writes, China is branching out into high-end products, and Beijing is even trying to shift output in some parts of the country away from low-cost manufacturing. As this process picks up speed, the world will face a big question: Where to get all the low-cost toys, clothes, furniture and everything else we’ve come to rely on?
We’ll need an answer, and fast. Things move quickly in China. As I’ve said before, China seems to move through economic time at the rate of a year or two for every decade that it took the United States. Obviously, low-wage countries will be the focus. India is trying to gear up its manufacturing capacity, and it already starting to compete with China. But the challenge won’t just be to supply the United States, Europe, Japan and some middle-income countries; it will be to supply China, too.
Like I said, move on to the next country for cheap exploitable labor. While the rich get richer the poor get poorer, as cost of living increases the poor can’t keep up, ultimately there will be poorer throughout the world then there is today.
Can you produce any evidence of this? While U.S. economic power relative to other countries may have declined, standard of living hasn't declined much--certainly not to developing world levels as you insinuate is imminent. True, because of GOP economic policies, the richest have done much, much better than the rest of Americans, but that doesn't mean U.S. citizens are in any danger of being forced into Nike sweatshops anytime soon.
You provide your own evidence in what you have stated. “Standard of living hasn’t declined ‘much’”, yet it has declined and may continue to decline since as you state yet again, “the richest have done much, much better than the rest of Americans”.
“There's something called "international diplomacy" and even the mighty U.S. practices it on occasion. It has resulted in Kyoto, the WTO, ILO, UN, EU, etc. You may think those organizations and treaty bodies are worthless, but that is the sort of circular argumentation that is commonly used against international governance: e.g., the UN doesn't work because nobody supports it; nobody supports the UN because it doesn't work. The John Bolton crowd is dedicated to keeping the UN ineffectual and the US free to fight wars of choice.”
Wasn’t it the UN that allowed us into Iraq? We took the initiative and many other countries followed, all allowed by the UN.
I agree with the ILO.
I am strongly against the WTO. “The WTO rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations. For example, the US Trade Representative gets heavy input for negotiations from 17 "Industry Sector Advisory Committees." Citizen input by consumer, environmental, human rights and labor organizations is consistently ignored. Even simple requests for information are denied, and the proceedings are held in secret.”
The EU is disputable, my wife is Portuguese, and doesn’t completely agree with the EU. However there are some good points that have come about due to it for all of Europe, but not all countries agree with each other about way to many policies.
Pat,
There are said to be 12 - 15M illegal immigrants in America.
I venture to say there are, at least, 12 - 15M American citizens who have employed the illegal immigrants, whether they be Day Laborers, Lawn Workers, Roofers, Construction workers, Seamstresses, Maids, Laundry, AgJobs, Factory Workers, IT Jobs, MeatPacking, etc.
#1 shows that the movement is evolving and becoming broader.
#2 the MSM is covering the economy mostly since it is the 'hot' topic right now, but that doesn't mean that "Immigration" is not reported, read the papers, watch the reports, "Immigration" is still there, just lower on the radar.
#3 not on the Federal level, but they are the majority on the state and local levels. Again, it has moved down the line.
#4 is incorrect Dee. Look to SF and the raid on 9/11 there. Look to all the raids. Read the news. Its all there, "Illegal Immigrants" are scared. Consulates report many more getting documents to go back home, large, large increases over previous years.
"I venture to say there are, at least, 12 - 15M American citizens who have employed the illegal immigrants, whether they be Day Laborers, Lawn Workers, Roofers, Construction workers, Seamstresses, Maids, Laundry, AgJobs, Factory Workers, IT Jobs, MeatPacking, etc."
That number is probably higher, but it is limited to only those that hire/hired them. The rest are not 'guilty by association'.
Then to add on, there are millions of more people, in those small towns, that have been able to grow their businesses based on the growth of business brought in by the workers. That is what Yave was talking about when he mentioned his uncle in Utah.
Liquid,
Here is my number 1.
1. Key leaders (voices) in the ANTI movement are in disagreement. Some National groups have disbanded or splintered off.
I´ve already listed my examples in this post. (e.g. National MMs disbanded-splintered-fighting, Leaders no longer on MSM, etc.)
Liquidmicro said...
#1 shows that the movement is evolving and becoming broader.
Then to add on, there are millions of more people, in those small towns, that have been able to grow their businesses based on the growth of business brought in by the workers. That is what Yave was talking about when he mentioned his uncle in Utah.
There are probably thousands more people in individual small towns, business may have increased for those running a small business, but they have not grown or become larger corporations due to it. All they have done is made the business owner more money. Where has it benefited any other person living there? Most "Immigrants" that move to these small towns open there own business to cater to the new arrivals, they hire the new arrivals not the natives, so show me where it benefits the natives. I now what Yave was saying. I didn't feel the need to respond to it. But since you want to try to discuss it...
Your argument for it is that they are losing the argument, they are not, the splinters and disbanding is different beliefs in how things should be handled. Even the PRO side is the same, splintered, cause and effect.
Liquid,
When I 1st started my blog last year, I completed google news searches and literally hundreds of new articles or new stories appeared when I searched "immigration" or "illegal Immigration." The MMs, Gilchrist, Simcox and crews were in many of the headlines. Now, zip! Most are about the failure to pass some type of Federal Immigration reform and more and more from the PRO persepective.
Liquidmicro said...
#2 the MSM is covering the economy mostly since it is the 'hot' topic right now, but that doesn't mean that "Immigration" is not reported, read the papers, watch the reports, "Immigration" is still there, just lower on the radar.
Liquid,
3. Political parties are not discussing Immigration issues.
You are right, but I see more PRO opposition, going head to head vs the ANTI candidates. ex. look at the Arpaio race.
Liquidmicro said...
#3 not on the Federal level, but they are the majority on the state and local levels. Again, it has moved down the line.
Your only focused on the few names, your so called leaders. Leaders change, but the movement evolves. Look to the laws being enacted in the states by state governments. All your so called leaders had done was bring tit to the attention of the nation by doing something, they got the ball rolling. As with everything, all leaders fade away, 15 minutes of limelight is all that is allowed, there 15 minutes are up.
You are right, but I see more PRO opposition, going head to head vs the ANTI candidates. ex. look at the Arpaio race.
Arpaio has been challenged before and won. Look to Pearce, he just won. Look to Barletta he is winning, and so on.
Liquid,
"4. The previous lead ANTI agruments "Rule of Law" "No Amnesty" are no longer being reported and seem to be no longer effective."
While it is true that ICE Raids and Arpaios Racial profiling tactics are scaring people, what I said was the "rule of law" and the "no amnesty" talking points are not working or scaring people anymore.
I think the ICE Raids are an ANTI appeasement to calm your side down until after the election.
Arpaios tactics are more of a "rallying cry" for our side and hopefully will get out the vote and get him out of office once and for all!
Liquidmicro said...
#4 is incorrect Dee. Look to SF and the raid on 9/11 there. Look to all the raids. Read the news. Its all there, "Illegal Immigrants" are scared. Consulates report many more getting documents to go back home, large, large increases over previous years.
Again, dee in reply to your numbered remarks.
1. The majority of Americans who don't want anmesty and want enforcement of our immigration laws (anti's) are not members of the organized groups you mentioned. Yet you act like like they are.
2. and 3. So what that the media isn't covering the MM organization anymore? What has that to do with anything. Congress is not discussing illegal immigration at this time because right now the economy is on the front burner.
4.See number 2. and 3.
PRO opposition?? ACLU, MALDEF, LULAC, they are doing nothing but challenging laws, they win few but lose many. Look to California and the denial of in-state tuition to "Illegal Immigrants" that just came out of the courts. Look to the SF controversy.
dee, there are more like 20-30 million illegal aliens in our country. The businesses and other Americans who hire them are hiring more than one illegal alien, so your claim that there is an equal number of Americans hiring them to the number that are here is laughable to say the least.
Doesn't matter anyway, those Americans who are hiring them are not loyal Americans and are breaking the law.
That's just it, raids are part of the 'Rule of Law'. Look at all the "Illegals" that stayed in hiding after the raids at Agriprocessors, Howard, Tyson, etc. They wouldn't even go back to work, most moved to areas of the country with less laws to prohibit them from doing what they want, working "Illegally".
As for "No Amnesty" being talked about, there's no need for it to be, since the "Rule of Law" is being enforced.
"Many citizens of Postville and other small midwestern towns would disagree. My uncle is a county agent in rural Utah, and based on my discussions with him, he would disagree. What about those first, second, or third generation immigrants who fall into the lower half of the income distribution that you describe--do you think they might disagree? Or don't they count because they're not white?"
Your not trying to play the race card are you??
Besides we are not talking about down the road, we are talking about now. Those "Immigrants" that are in the lower income distribution are just fine, they chose to move to these small towns where life moves much slower, as for "Illegal Immigrants" in these areas, you are trying to use an intellectually dishonest argument, as they have less chance to be caught up in the politics of larger cities. Rents are cheaper, services are more affordable, law enforcement is less likely to apprehend them just for being Illegal, etc.
Pat,
Here is what you are missing. I didnt say they hire them for a LIFEtime! I said AT LEAST 12 - 15M people have had them work for them in some capacity, whether it be for a day (roof, yard, etc) or by extension (agjobs, meatpacking) and they have benefitted in the community from their increased revenues and their work.
patriot said...
dee, there are more like 20-30 million illegal aliens in our country. The businesses and other Americans who hire them are hiring more than one illegal alien, so your claim that there is an equal number of Americans hiring them to the number that are here is laughable to say the least.
Arizonian,
Yes! You got it! What I am saying is the "Rule of Law" and "No Amnesty" arguments no longer work for the white paper nor does it work to solicit more believers for the ANTI cause!!
My whole point was, you have to change the argument, rewrite the paper, if your objective is to sell your viewpoint and solicit new members to your cause.
Arizonian,
As you can see, Liquid, Pat and the frequent commenter are not understanding that the old arguments no longer work. IF their point is to win new members to their cause, they need to regroup and develop a new strategy. Their old one is NOT WORKING ANYMORE!! (it did for a while and that was one of the reasons the MMs were flying high)
They will continue on and on with this argument and tell me why their argument is valid and all of America agrees, and excuse after excuse of why the MMs splintered, the MSM doesnt report and why the politicians arent talking about it.
That is ok.
I think I could help them regroup and energize their argument so they can win new members, but I dont believe in their side so I am not going to do this.
You have failed to comprehend my points, Dee. AZ has said nothing more than what any of us have said, its just worded differently. Easier for you to understand I guess.
As for arguments, you have yet to refute or rebut any of them.
Nor did I say they hired them for a lifetime either, dee. Where do you come up with your numbers of Americans hiring illegal aliens and why would it be relevant anyway? There are 300 million people in this country. That means that the number of dishonest Americans hiring illegal aliens is among the minority. Not sure what kind of bizarre point you are trying to make with your numbers game.
The anti movement doesn't need to recruit new members, dee. We are on the side of the law and you are either a loyal American who believes in that concept or you don't. Once they are impacted by the negativity of illegal immigration any holdouts will authomatically stand up for the rule of law and join our side. We are already the majority in this country so we aren't worried about getting new recruits.
I do not find it fair to use the percentage of GDP in 1945 in this argument.
Fair enough. China's GDP will surpass ours sometime in the next 20-30 years (I don't remember when exactly).
the world will face a big question: Where to get all the low-cost toys, clothes, furniture and everything else we’ve come to rely on?
I take it you're just fine with people working 12 hour days for peanuts in other countries so we can have our cheap products. What if we decided that we cared enough about our fellow human beings not to let that happen?
Ok, back to the real world ... there is still not a chance that U.S. workers will be forced into Nike-style sweatshop labor. This is the kind of apocalyptic fantasy I grew up hearing in Sunday School--not a chance.
Wasn’t it the UN that allowed us into Iraq? We took the initiative and many other countries followed, all allowed by the UN.
No. Couldn't be wronger.
business may have increased for those running a small business, but they have not grown or become larger corporations due to it. All they have done is made the business owner more money. Where has it benefited any other person living there?
Here is one example: this study (pdf) in Maryland showed that for every H-2B worker in the crab industry lost, 2.5 citizen jobs were lost.
As far as my uncle goes, he works closely with farmers like my grandfather. Agriculture relies heavily on immigrant labor. That is why Larry Craig of Idaho was set to co-sponsor AgJobs before all the foot-tapping business put an end to that.
AZ, if the country is falling apart into lawlessness as you say, then why are crime rates across the country sharply down since the 80s and 90s?
As far as "rule of law" in the immigration context, there's a lot more to it than "illegal means illegal." From the laws that were disregarded when the U.S. invaded Mexico, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc., to the clear dependence on immigration levels and restrictions on political climate (e.g. Palmer raids, 1924 quotas passed because people got scared of all the Italians coming through Ellis Island), to the constitutional violations commonly perpetrated by ICE, to the absence of a way for unskilled workers to legally immigrate while the government does little to prevent employers from continuing to hire them.
In short, the "rule of law" argument is a red herring. More on that here and here.
Az,
Perhaps you and Liquid should take a deep breath and try to understand.
With this post, we are discussing Immigration and the ANTI perspective due to a White Paper someone sent in to me.
We are talking about the use of the "rule of law" argument.
I believe it is no longer an effective argument in the immigration debates.
When you said rule of law was no longer relevant, I agreed.
When you went on your tangent saying "This is symptomatic of the shift in ideology in the US." I ignored this part because it wasnt relevant to the discussion and is purely your opinion.
Are you both caught up now?
AZ,
I love this response of yours.
Now you are sounding like Liquid. Reports that dispute your opinion are wrong because the reports are wrong and your opinion is right.
The Arizonian said...
Yave said:
AZ, if the country is falling apart into lawlessness as you say, then why are crime rates across the country sharply down since the 80s and 90s?
Crime rates are determined by police reports.
There is simply less reporting. I SEE EVIDENCE of this everyday.
AZ,
Your comment reminds me of the "rule of law" arguments I read were used by those supporting the Jim Crow laws back in the fifties sixties.
The Arizonian said...
Besides, the law is the law. We cannot simply overlook the law because we don't like the law. If you don't like the law, then fight to have it changed.
"I take it you're just fine with people working 12 hour days for peanuts in other countries so we can have our cheap products. What if we decided that we cared enough about our fellow human beings not to let that happen?"
Don't take an article and pick out what you want to argue, You are making a lot of assumptions by doing so. Besides you have taken the picked part out of context.
"Ok, back to the real world ... there is still not a chance that U.S. workers will be forced into Nike-style sweatshop labor. This is the kind of apocalyptic fantasy I grew up hearing in Sunday School--not a chance."
This has already happened in the US and is happening. Look to Bianco Industries, the Houston factory raided not long ago, or here: http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/state/story/428032.html.
Better yet, type in Garment factory raid in a search engine over 16,000 hits.
"Wasn’t it the UN that allowed us into Iraq? We took the initiative and many other countries followed, all allowed by the UN.
No. Couldn't be wronger. "
I would like to hear your version of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war
"Here is one example: this study (pdf) in Maryland showed that for every H-2B worker in the crab industry lost, 2.5 citizen jobs were lost."
This is under the assumption that native workers don't fill these jobs (from your own link:If we assume that H-2B visa workers can not be replaced by domestic workers, the industry will lose total production that H-2B workers provide.) I see you still cherry pick your information and spin it to fit what you want to show. Besides, again you are addressing 'Legal Immigrants" which does nothing for the discussion of "Illegal Immigrants".
"As far as my uncle goes, he works closely with farmers like my grandfather. Agriculture relies heavily on immigrant labor. That is why Larry Craig of Idaho was set to co-sponsor AgJobs before all the foot-tapping business put an end to that."
They are also required to use the H-2A visa, for which there is an unlimited supply of, yet due to the requirements, the farmers don't want to be responsible for them. How about the subsidies for farmers meant to help cover the H-2A visa costs, nothing like farmers making money 2 fold, huh? Ag jobs, would have gotten rid of the mandates required of the farmer protecting the worker on the visa, seems you are the one who is just fine with people working 12 hour days for peanuts in our country so you can have cheap produce.
Az,
Looks like the Book of Lies is No. 2 in Hardcover Fiction and Nonfiction!
Az,
EXACTLY!!
And that is EXACTLY what we are doing now! We will accomplish the change with CIR!
The Arizonian said...
And people didn't like the Jim Crowe laws, and had them changed.
"China's GDP will surpass ours sometime in the next 20-30 years (I don't remember when exactly)."
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/09/20/chinas-tiny-economy/
We noted, for example, a few months ago, a column by Mark Helprin in which he waxes concerned about the emerging power of China’s $6.5 trillion PPP economy. No doubt about it, as we have noted several times, China is an emergent economic power. A $6.5 trillion economy sounds pretty big compared to the US’s $11 trillion economy. And it’s not just Helprin. The CIA Factbook, often nicely politically correct, also uses the $6.5 trillion figure.
But China’s economy is really a lot smaller than these numbers suggest. Measured in the traditional way, China’s GDP is maybe $1.8 trillion today (State Dept. estimate). Further, the economic hypergrowth in China is extremely concentrated. For example, according to the Peoples’ Daily, GDP per capita in Shandong Province (#2 in growth) is $2000, while, based on Economist data, GDP per capita in rural provinces may be 10-20% of this (and the Northeast is depressed). Hence, the Chinese economy is pretty small still — 35% of Japan, for example, with 7x the people — and seriously unbalanced.
Moreover, as we noted previously, the banking system is a mess, wherein irrational loans to government companies or favored industries go bad, but are bailed out by the country’s huge forex reserves (over $600 billion(!!) today); Economist, on last year’s bank crisis, soon to be followed by this year’s bank crisis:
This latest scheme undoubtedly looks neat. By pumping $45 billion of its massive $400 billion of accumulated foreign-exchange reserves into the banks, China seems to be making effective use of a ready pool of funds, currently parked in relatively low-yielding assets. Yet repeated capital injections, even clever ones, are not themselves a genuine solution to China’s banking problems. Since 1998, China has spent roughly $200 billion in recapitalising its banks and writing off bad loans, to little avail. Politically directed lending to favoured industries has continued as before, and the old, written-off bad loans were soon replaced by new ones. Today, some independent estimates put the level of bad loans at around $420 billion, or nearly 40% of gross domestic product.
China certainly has the forex resources to bail itself out of whatever financial crises its industrialization and banking system generate. But those who forecast unbroken strings of near double-digit growth have not paid enough attention to the history of industrializations.
The per capita statistics
This today from the Peoples’ Daily:
Statistics from the United Nations Development Program show that China’s Gini Coefficient is 0.45 and the income or consumption of the poorest, who take up 20 percent of the gross population, accounts for only 4.7 percent of the total, while the share by the 20-percent richest is as high as 50 percent.
Let’s take a look at what these statistics mean when we boil them down. Assuming 1.4 billion people in China, 20% of the population is about 280 million people, which, conveniently for comparison, is about the size of the USA. The report says that 50% of GDP is concentrated in this 20% of the population. If we assume China’s 2005 GDP is about $1.8 trillion, as opposed to $12 trillion or so for the USA, you see that the richest 20% of China have per capita GDP of — shockingly — $3,214.28 per year, as opposed to about $40,000 on average for the United States. Let’s repeat this again: the average American makes 12 times more than the richest Chinese.
For the record, we’ll do the calculation for the poorest 20% or 280 million Chinese people. Their slice of the GDP is about $85 billion, which translates to a pathetic $302.14 annual income per head. Here is where Purchasing Power Parity plays perhaps a useful role, for while these country people can’t buy a Lexus or even a Yugo, the basic staples of life are quite cheap, so their life situation is better than the numbers portray. Still, they are dirt poor.
Our point in performing these calculations is not to mock or belittle the accomplishments of the Chinese people, who have worked hard and smart to get a lot more prosperous than they were under a Marxist economic system. It is rather to emphasize just how limited a group has middle class incomes in the export-led growth of China. A meaningful blip in China’s growth will, in our view, likely have a disproportionate impact on the consumption patterns of those made newly prosperous by the explosion in China’s exports.
Now you wouldn't just be reading headlines and making assumptions, would you?
Don't start again with the equating of the Civil Rights Era ala the Jim Crowe Laws that were discriminatory against Black and other minority CITIZENS in this country with illegal aliens, dee. It is utter BS to compare citizens to illegal aliens or their rights and non-rights in this country. It shoud be insulting to every American citizen to do so.
Dee said...
AZ,
I love this response of yours.
Now you are sounding like Liquid. Reports that dispute your opinion are wrong because the reports are wrong and your opinion is right.
You do know what a report is, right, Dee? It is nothing more then the person(s) writing it opinion(s) and interpretation of information. For every report saying this is good, I can show one saying the opposite. Yave linked to a report in Maryland, spun what the report stated and I simply showed that his own report isn't saying what he stated, even the report says it is 'assuming', or did you not read the report?
Or are you talking about the Texas Comptroller report, the one your side quit using a loooooong time ago, even the GAO came out, using the Texas report stating the same thing I stated to you about it. So which report is it you would like to discuss?
Arizonian, just curious as to what kind of CIR do you want passed and if you think it would be in the best interest of this country now and in the future and why?
"Their quotes followed the ANTI rhetoric including "Rule of Law!" or "Amnesty."
So does that mean, from your derisive tone, that you do not believe in the rule of law the foundation of all civilized societies and that you favor mass legalization of all aliens, or mass amnesty by the common understanding of that term. Now to use your term, that is very "sad".
"so i don't expect anyone here to like what i have to say, but my point is that dee is despicable, dee is sacrificing the most vulnerable us citizens to a life of poverty and degradation by inviting in millions of low wage workers to push down their wages. Dee is a traitor to the US and to the people of the US."
Couldn't have said it better myself. And the worst thing about it, this otherwise intelligent woman doesn't even understand the damage she and her ilk are doing to this country. They have no interest in what is in the national interest. Her ethnocentricity has blinded her to the need for strong measures to preserve the America even she tends to appreciate from time to time. But I have never encountered anyone who is as wrong as Dee is on this subject. Unfortunately, she may not live long enough to realize the extent of her error as it plays out over the rest of this century.
"admitting the existence of people who aren't U.S. citizens (6.4 billion people, over 95% of the world's population) is simple common sense."
yave, you are spouting nonsense if you think we americans don't know the extent of the overpopulation in the rest of the world. Global citizens are a figment of your immagination. The loyalties of many follow the hierarchy of family, friends, country and then very distantly the world. Many are so pressed to scatch out a living and fill their bellies that they have little time for anything else, they are like birds -- constantly seeking the sustenance needed by their families.
The outcome of what you suggest would simply be a new equilibrium between our standard of living and that of the third world, something no one would like even you. Global prosperity is a zero sum game as that equilibrium would quickly demonstrate.
We acknowledge the existence of the rest of the world's population but they are not global citizens
To not act out of fear is appeasement. I do not choose to appease any global citizen or any citizen or noncitizen who evidences disloyalty or ignorance of the rule of law.
Recognizing the hopes, dreams, fears, and failings of the 6.4 billion people is easy. What is difficult is to see that sacrificing the best interests of this country for all those other people will essentially defeat your purpose because there will be no longer an America worthy of the name. We would have sacrificed everything to achieve nothing.
Kudos to liquid for an able response.
"that doesn't mean U.S. citizens are in any danger of being forced into Nike sweatshops anytime soon."
Maybe not soon, but that is the problem with this discussion, it continues to focus on the relative near term and not on the long term.
Global citizens and bleeding heart liberals want to move us down the road to that equilibrium I mentioned above. As that happens, we will move closer and closer to the sweat shop economy. After all we have been there and done that once already in our history. More immigrants, declining natural resources, and the shipment abroad to China and the Middle East of our treasure, will also hasten that day.
The problem is that those who worry so much about the global community do not worry enough about our community and the standard of living and quality of life we enjoy.
"You seem to assume everyone will be dragged down to the lowest level by agreeing on common standards. History has not shown that to be the case."
Citation??
What do you think the impact would be on the price of many of the things Americans buy if China, India, and all the other sources of cheap goods would suddenly begin to pay their workers at the American middle class scale. It is laughable to think that some feel this would have not impact on our economy and on our people.
"that is the sort of circular argumentation that is commonly used against international governance: e.g., the UN doesn't work because nobody supports it; nobody supports the UN because it doesn't work. The John Bolton crowd is dedicated to keeping the UN ineffectual and the US free to fight wars of choice."
At last you begin to show your true colors. There is no circular reasoning regarding the UN. It is in fact ineffectual. Had it been otherwise there would have been no Iraqi war under auspices other than those of the UN. Where have you been? How many UN resolutions were ignored by Hussein before the U.S. stepped in? If that's not ineffectual then I don't know that word.
"My uncle is a county agent in rural Utah, and based on my discussions with him, he would disagree. "
What was the nature of those discussions? What kind of an agent was your uncle? Was he trained to make these observations and draw conclusions? Utah is the last place on earth where I would expect to hear such sentiments.
"Agriculture relies heavily on immigrant labor."
This must be considered a betrayal of the principles on which the beehive state was built. Don't tell me those large Mormon families are now shunning hard work and self-sufficiency.
"And that is EXACTLY what we are doing now! We will accomplish the change with CIR"
Of course, we all want CIR but the question is whose CIR mine, yours, Dee's, Pat's. CIR means different things to different people. It should begin with the question, "What is the objective?" If the answer is,effective control of our borders. If the answer is more immigrants, easier citizenship, aimplified and accelerated immigration procedures, amnesty,etc. that is quite another kettle of fish, the older it gets, the worse it smells and the worse it bodes for the future of America.
"1. Key leaders (voices) in the ANTI movement are in disagreement. Some National groups have disbanded or splintered off. "
These may be those who have the highest profile and are the most visible because of their activities but they are the few and we are the many. I have never sought agreement with the MM or been tempted to participate in their ineffectual activities. The problem cannot be solved by a few activists at the border especially if they do not have the intellectual underpinnings for their ideas and activities. I admire their willingness to spend their time on the MM project. Most people can't do that.
"Liquid, I would say the "Nativists" and the Blue Dog democrats you describe are ANTIs. It probably would have been helpful to attach the paper itself. "
Actually, there is no mystery about this. It was a work in progress with the hope that positive input would be received that would enhance its appeal to a bi-partisan audience of American citizens from all walks of life. It did have many ideas that have been expressed numerous times before but are just as valid today as they were when they were first written. It may well be that no one will be moved by these old arguments. However,there are also some new arguments that apparently were overlooked. I am the author of this mystery paper and would welcome the imputs anyone may wish to make if I can find another separate blogsite or URL where I can post it for all to see.
In some sense it is a response to the question, "If you wanted to have effective control of the borders, what would be the necessary elements and tools needed to achieve that objective?" This is under the assumption that no amount of new border infrastructure and staffing can accomplish that without a defense in depth based on vigorous and continuous internal enforcement. I will post the URL later if I can get one set up before everyone loses interest.
For anyone who is interested here is a link to my paper on An Immigration Platform for America which is heavily plagerized from the Republican and Democrat immigration planks and supplemented with my own views. I believe this link will permit you to add any comments or insertions you might wish to contribute. I hope they will all be constructive and civil.
I realize that what is proposed here will be distasteful to some but it is my view that nothing less is needed to secure America's future as one we will recognize and be comfortable with regardless of our backgrounds or personal biases. I do not believe half measures or taking our eye off the target will do. This is similar in many respects to the energy crisis which most feel should be addressed in a comprehensive fashion not by putting all our eggs in one basket -- nuclear, oil, coal,wind, or solar -- but by addressing all potential sources of energy will equal alacrity and enthusiasm.
It isn't working Ultima.
You haven't cut and run have you Yave? It was just getting interesting.
To answer your #1 AZ.
A migrant farm worker wanting to enter the USA on a H-2A visa (Farm Worker), all one has to do is go to the US Embassy in the country of origin and apply. The problem is that they have to prove they intend to return when the visa expires. Also, an American Farmer has to apply and show need for an H-2A worker. If the Farmers do not apply or show need, then the Government assumes no H-2A visas are available and the worker then gets denied.
So, blame the farmer for not using the system that is provided, and then get the worker applying to prove that he/she intends to return to their home country at the end of the visa, which is actually the farmers responsibility to insure.
Ulty,
I am glad you shared your paper and that you are the author.
As you said, it has some of the same arguments your side has pushed for so long and some new arguments. I believe the ANTIs will support it. I don´t think you will win over anyone from the 2 - 4 groups. (especially when we honestly want to discuss it and you give us this type of feedback.)
ultima said...
..And the worst thing about it, this otherwise intelligent woman doesn't even understand the damage she and her ILK are doing to this country. They have no interest in what is in the national interest.
ultima said...
yave, you are SPOUTING NONSENSE if you think we americans don't know the extent of the overpopulation in the rest of the world. Global citizens are a figment of your immagination.
You haven't cut and run have you Yave?
I thought that phrase had fallen out of favor after Bush stopped using it. Guess it still holds appeal for some.
It takes too much time and energy to get caught up in a 70 comment thread with me and Dee on one side and 5 or 6 people on the other. That's basically why I gave up commenting frequently over at LatinaLista--the returns for effort expended weren't worth it. Chalk that up as a success for the antis, I guess--though a dubious one, in my opinion. Though I will say the debate process does cause you to look at the weak points in your arguments and sharpen your thoughts. And this thread has been generally more respectful than I would have thought possible with such trenchant differences of opinion. Kudos to Dee for providing a forum where people are trading barbs, true, but are at least on speaking terms with one another.
But I don't see much persuasion going on on either side--if anything, we're solidifying previously-held views. The starting places are too far apart--the assumptions we are working from are drastically different. I'd say my starting assumptions are probably pretty different even from Dee's.
So that's a long way of saying I don't anticipate getting into too much back and forth in comments. Though I've recently had a lot more time on my hands, so who knows.
This must be considered a betrayal of the principles on which the beehive state was built. Don't tell me those large Mormon families are now shunning hard work and self-sufficiency.
Mormons have a long history with migration, as I outlined here (ignore the detour into metaphysics--I probably should have broken that out into another post). That's why I think it's unfortunate when people like Chris Cannon, who I probably disagreed with on every topic other than immigration, lose ground to immigration extremists who I believe are forgetting their not-so-distant roots.
AZ, you and I actually agree on more things than I realized. There are some things I think we would probably never agree on, but I think your ideas could form the basis for the kind of compromise deal that could make CIR work.
I'm curious as to the "migrant worker permits" you refer to in your point #1. Do you mean H-2A visas, TN visas, or something else? It is very cumbersome for many businesses in the U.S. to do what is required on their side to secure migrant workers--I am most familiar with the non-agricultural setting since I worked in NYC until recently. It is nearly impossible for uneducated workers from Mexico and Central America to arrange to enter legally. That is just the way the system works--or doesn't work--now.
I'm impressed, you have stayed up with the topic and are willing to discuss.
As I see it, the entire discussion on the Blogosphere is pretty much all the same, to far apart and too many differences. There are many things we all do agree upon, however it is the path taken to get to that point. The biggest problem is when some project to purport the thoughts of others, the assumptions made.
Ultima, in response to your comments on U.S. standards of living being dragged down by globalization, again, I say history has not supported that view. The increased integration of NAFTA didn't work out so great for poor Mexican farmers, but it certainly didn't cause the kind of economic disaster in the U.S. that Ross Perot was predicting. That great sucking sound never quite materialized--as I recall, the years after 1994 under Clinton were pretty good for the U.S. economy.
Looking at the best test tube of increased integration and a gradual softening of borders--the EU--the standard of living in the rich countries hasn't plummeted when poorer Eastern and Southern European countries entered the Union, as I expect your theory would predict. When Spain and Portugal entered decades ago after long subjugation and economic mismanagement by dictators, people didn't really know what would happen. Now they are much richer--Spain especially--and the economies of the wealthy countries didn't do so bad either. Contrary to your assertion, the global economy is not a zero sum game, as any competent economist will tell you.
As far as the events leading to the Iraq War, I had thought that the Bush administration's version of things had been pretty thoroughly discredited by now, but I guess that's not the case if you only get your news from Fox, talk radio, and Michelle Malkin. If you take my advice, you'll stick to immigration--defending the Iraq War is not going to be a winner. At least not in the reality based world.
"As far as the events leading to the Iraq War, I had thought that the Bush administration's version of things had been pretty thoroughly discredited by now, but I guess that's not the case if you only get your news from Fox, talk radio, and Michelle Malkin. If you take my advice, you'll stick to immigration--defending the Iraq War is not going to be a winner. At least not in the reality based world."
There's that purported assumption thing again. Why do you become so defensive and make these ignorant statements? Your version of reality is the only true one?? You don't really believe that due you?
I have read the Bush Doctrine, I have read the UN laws, you, being a graduate from law school, should know that laws are about interpretation of what is written. The UN has done nothing to the US in way of sanctions or any penalties. That would show compliance in my book, would it not?
http://update.unu.edu/archive/issue30_2.htm
The United Nations is not congenitally anti-American. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, it strongly supported the war to eject the Iraqis.
Last year the crisis was seen to be the result of US belligerence, not Iraqi aggression. If the Security Council had authorised war, it would have been seen to have caved in to American threats and bribes. People look to the UN to stop war, not wage one.
Sometimes war will be necessary. The will to wage war will weaken if force is used recklessly, unwisely and prematurely.
The Iraq war ruptured US relations with traditional allies and friends of long standing and proven reliability; damaged the three great institutions of the last half-century - the European Union, NATO and the UN - to have overseen peace and prosperity; squandered the spontaneous and universal goodwill for the US after September 11, incited fanatical hatred of US policy in parts of the world instead; and reintroduced deep domestic divisions.
Legitimacy is the conceptual rod that connects power to authority. On Iraq, the US and the UN provoked a legitimacy crisis about each other: of American power and UN authority.
The certainty of moral clarity put the Administration on a course that seriously eroded its moral authority for the exercise of US power in the world. The lack of a sense of moral clarity diminished the UN's moral authority.
The UN is the arena for collective action, not a forum where nations that are unable to do anything individually get together to decide that nothing can be done collectively.
The UN and the US share an interest in isolating and defeating terrorism, not each other; in containing the threat of weapons of mass destruction; and in promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iraq, the Middle East and the world.
It would be tough for the UN to penalize the U.S. when the U.S. is one of the five countries with veto power of any sanctions with teeth. By tough, I mean impossible.
As far as the Iraq War goes, I do believe my version of reality is the only true one--that is kind of what "reality" means. I opposed the war from the start and it took awhile, but most Americans have come to agree with my position. Lord knows how long we'll be there, or how long we'll be in Afghanistan, which the public has not yet turned against but will after a few more years of casualties and stalled progress. Call me a defeatist, but I just don't think people like having their countries invaded very much.
My read of the article you cited is that it supports my view more than the Bush administration's. Also, it was written in 2004, and I wonder what the author thinks now in 2008. The UN, in my view, has come out looking a lot better on the Iraq War than the U.S. since 2004.
"I opposed the war from the start and it took awhile, but most Americans have come to agree with my position. Lord knows how long we'll be there, or how long we'll be in Afghanistan, which the public has not yet turned against but will after a few more years of casualties and stalled progress. Call me a defeatist, but I just don't think people like having their countries invaded very much."
You see, we agree, I, too, opposed the war in the beginning, however I have accepted the fact that we are there and need to finish Iraq before leaving, meaning working with the Iraqi Government and being assured they are able to accept the responsibility of their people. I believe we will always be there, meaning we will have troops stationed there such as we have had throughout Europe and Asia. Afghanistan has been a diplomatic attempt and has yet to return much in results.
I am a former soldier, was in GW1 and understand what this is about. Your right about my article, but the part I printed made my point, "The lack of a sense of moral clarity diminished the UN's moral authority." The tangent to the Iraq War was my way of showing that even though you believe 'International Diplomacy' will work to any degree, is farcical.
It shouldn't say to "any degree", It should have said "to the degree you are wanting, One World, One Nation." There will always be countries that don't agree with the collective and will do as the US has done, its own thing with little to no penalties. There's always that other side of the coin, heads vs. tails.
"I just don't think people like having their countries invaded very much."
I suspect there were a few people who didn't like having the WTC and the USS Cole blown up either.
"I just don't think people like having their countries invaded very much."
I suspect there were a few people who didn't like having the WTC and the USS Cole blown up either.
"Contrary to your assertion, the global economy is not a zero sum game, as any competent economist will tell you."
Are you one of them. Who cares what the purveyors of the dismal quasi-science have to offer. They are wrong more often than they are right.
If you watched the Olympics opening ceremony, you would have taken note of the huge expenditure China was able to make because of all the money it has drained from the U.S. Treasury and the vast amount of our debt China owns. That's strong evidence of the zero sum game. Perhaps the game is imperfect but certainly the idea of making something out of nothing is not very credible.
In some cases I can see a flaw in the zero sum game concept. For example, the government cannot give to the people what it does not first take from them. And there is serious leakage in the process as high paid bureaucrats take a slice of the pie before they give it back to the people.
"Looking at the best test tube of increased integration and a gradual softening of borders--the EU--the standard of living in the rich countries hasn't plummeted when poorer Eastern and Southern European countries entered the Union, as I expect your theory would predict. When Spain and Portugal entered decades ago after long subjugation and economic mismanagement by dictators, people didn't really know what would happen. Now they are much richer--Spain especially--and the economies of the wealthy countries didn't do so bad either. "
Who is to say that the progress in Spain and Portugal has anyhting to do with its entry into the EU? Perhaps, as you suggest, it was simply the elimination of the excessive control by dictators and a move more toward a Republican form of government. And certainly the resurgence of the world economy in the last 60 years as it recovered from a devastating war has to be considered a major factor as well.
I also take note of the fact that France and perhaps other countries have deported a number of people from the Eastern European countries who easily entered the country under the auspices of the EU rules.
Although one can readily admit the need for cheap labor in all countries, this cheap labor must ultimately adulterate the economies of these countries as more and more of these immigrants from poor countries arrive to dilute the culture and technological achievements of the receiving country.
How many Nobel prizes for chemistry, physics or medicine have been won by Latin Americans, Bangladeshis, or Turks. Culturally they are attuned to the investments and learning necessary to do so hence the dilutive effect and the huge importance of assimilation as opposed to the retention of the old ways and the old cultures of nonachievement. .
"especially when we honestly want to discuss it and you give us this type of feedback.)"
Of course, the availability of the paper post-dates the feedback. I admit the myopia of some folks and their odd concept of loyalty to America stirs strong feelings in me, especially when they have been unable to defend their point of view. More often they simply ignore the questions raised by others because, as Al Gore,they represent "an inconvenient truth".
I have frequently posted the pre-calculus idea of a limit (-- the limit of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero.) No one has refuted that truth nor suggested how far we should go down that road. I have advanced other arguments as well: the environment, the failures of assimilation, the changes in America that undermine assimilation, the trends in places like bankrupt California that support the notion of Mexico Norte, Official English, the rule of law, etc.
None of these have been adequately addressed by the pro-illegals nor have they even justified their name. Perhaps they like members of La Raza are finding that name a little uncomfortable because it implies an ethnocentric loyalty that is totally different than that of most Americans. Again, an inconvenient truth.
I said the following and I believe it. I am not omniscient but the signs are there for any analyst of current events and trends to see. To me their import is undeniable. If you don't accept this judgment, tell me why.
"..And the worst thing about it, this otherwise intelligent woman doesn't even understand the damage she and her ILK are doing to this country. They have no interest in what is in the national interest."
I said...
"yave, you are SPOUTING NONSENSE if you think we americans don't know the extent of the overpopulation in the rest of the world. Global citizens are a figment of your immagination."
While yave is also clearly very bright and has made some very interesting posts, he should know that implying that Americans do not know about the size and character of the others on this planet, he is patronizing us. Although there may be some global citizens, perhaps like himself, that group must very small and have ulterior motives regarding U.S. immigration and economic policies.
We all have harsh words for each other from time to time. Hopefully these were more indicative of heartfelt beliefs rather than gratuitous slurs. I respect you and other pro-illegals but do not understand your position which to me is clearly not in the national interest. I have indicated many times the reasons why I think that. They may be tired old arguments but until they are laid to rest by reasoned discourse they will remain just as valid as the day they were first written.
I welcome comments on the idea of a limit and the impact on the environment of another doubling of our population. I welcome comments on why a nondiverse immigrant flow is a good idea rather than an idea that is counter to all the preachings about diversity.
ariz indicated his viewpoint on migrant workers, amnesty, the wall, and policy toward Mexico.
Most would have no difficulty with true migrants and work permits for them. The difficulty arises if they are not really migrants that leave when the job is done or when their permits expire and instead produce anchor babies and through them create a chain of immigrations.
Although as a general policy I believe many of the illegals must be deported to reinforce the measures taken at the border. The borders cannot be secured without a defense in depth based on vigorous internal enforcement. Having said that, I agree those who have been here for ten years deserve some special consideration, especially if they can show evidence of their assimilation and knowledge of English. I do have some concerns about whether these 10 year illegals should be rewarded and whether their jobs could be done by citizens if a living wage and a hiring preference was offered to them. Perhaps there is a role for local labor unions to play in deciding whether an illegal should be allowed to stay. The answer might be, "yes, if he joins the union -- otherwise no."
As I indicated above the wall and other improvements in infrastructure and staffing at the border will be ineffectual unless they are backed up a strong internal apprehension program with penalties for both employers and illegal employees. The absence of a policy that required the return of East Germans crossing the Berlin Wall is one of the main incentives that caused some to brave mine field and guard towers to escape to the West. The return or deportation of illegals therefore is essential to an effective secure borders effort.
I once thought that populist Obrador would have been a better choice for president of Mexico. This is an area where one has to be careful what he wishes for. We may want to get rid of the Oligarchs like Carlos Slim but we don't want a Hugo Chavez-like character running Mexico. We thought Castro was the real deal in Cuba when he defeated the despot Batista but that turned out differently than we expected. Still it would have been interesting if Bush had met with Obrador to discuss expectations for relations between the countries if Obrador was elected.
Yave,
Thank you! And I hope you stay with us. I like brilliant people!!
I also give kudos to the very intelligent and thoughtful ANTIs who do want to debate and continue to be respectful and honor my rules of civility. Because they do I am able to keep an unmoderated forum and people can post real time. That is why we have so many lively debates. I am in hopes that some day we will develop some solutions to all of our country´s Immigration issues.
I think most of us would be friends except for this issue. (Even me and Pat)
Yave said....
Kudos to Dee for providing a forum where people are trading barbs, true, but are at least on speaking terms with one another.
Yave,
You are right. I am very moderate in my views yet the ANTIs see me as an extremist.
When my consulting company supported another group, I used to rate the people in this discussion, 1 - 10. with "1" being the most Open Borders, Reconquista PROs and "10" being the most extreme KKK ANTIs. I always scored myself and those American Latinos like me as "3"s.
Here is how I rate others:
Ultima: 7 (a scholar)
Liquid: 7 (business owner)
Pat: 8
I think you are more open borders than my view so perhaps a 2 - 3 for you.
Yave said..
I don't see much persuasion going on on either side--if anything, we're solidifying previously-held views. The starting places are too far apart--the assumptions we are working from are drastically different. I'd say my starting assumptions are probably pretty different even from Dee's.
Ulty,
My gosh!
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11!!
ultima said...
I suspect there were a few people who didn't like having the WTC and the USS Cole blown up either.
Ulty,
You forgot to add the words "to your liking" to the end of your last sentence.
As I have shared on countless occassions, I speak from my heart. My heart goes out to all those that come here from their war torn, ravaged countries seeking a better life for their children. They are often solicited, hired and exploited by egregious employers. 40% came here legally. Many have been here +5 years, hard working and non felonious. Many served our country admirably. Ethnicities are not only Latino but Asian, European, African and Middle Eastern.
I agree with secure borders, but our lack of enforcement and exploitation of workers for so much of our history weighs in on the equation.
I shared with you that your arguments will be endorsed by many Antis like yourself, but they will not fly for the rest of us loyal Americans. Until you change your argument and attempt to understand our point of view, you will not be gaining new members. In fact, they are dwindling.
IF you want to persuade anyone new, perhaps you should listen to my recommendations, but first, tell me the audiences you are attempting to reach then loosen up your mind set to hear the ideas I am sharing.
ultima said...
"especially when we honestly want to discuss it and you give us this type of feedback.)"
Of course, the availability of the paper post-dates the feedback. I admit the myopia of some folks and their odd concept of loyalty to America stirs strong feelings in me, especially when they have been unable to defend their point of view.
FYI dee, Mexico isn't a war torn country and yet 80% of those who came here and never had papers to do so, are Mexicans! Nice try, but no cigar. And another FYI, loyal Americans are not those sympathizing with these illegal aliens and complaining about the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Az,
People tend to apply their own interpretations when they read a blog. You are free to do so.
Read my last reply to Ultima. That is my perspective. I am concerned for ALL caught up in the Raids and the crony owned Detention Centers and I believe they are wrong regardless which ethnicities are caught up in them.
Obviously you must like the discussion here, that´s why you keep coming back. I do like your participation here because you do remain civil and maybe someday I may change your mind on a few things.
Az said....
I can not speak for others here, but when you make every bust or immigration law out to be a race issue, I do feel as though you are being an extremist.
One wonders why one would be concerned about illegal aliens of any ethnicity being caught up in the raids. They have violated our immigration laws and the penalty for that is to be sought out and deported. Why would any loyal American have a problem with that? The employers are also caught up in those raids and when found to have knowlingly hired these illegal aliens are also subject to the penalties for that and should be.
It is mainly Hispanic citizens who are complaining about the raids. We aren't so stupid as to think that it has nothing to do with the fact that most illegal aliens are also Hispanics. They are lying through their teeth if they are trying to claim otherwise.
Dee, I also research immigration and use google and I see absolutely no evidence to support your "losing" assumptions. In fact, quite the contrary.
"Pessimism spreads among Hispanics, survey finds"
http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig19-2008sep19,0,1001572.story
Although this deals more with how their mood effects the elections, more and more emphasis in the press and internet blogs and articles are emphasising and reporting the horrible increases in crimes committed by illegals and less in blowing our horns.
Just read the comments. (anywhere) We are alive and well.
Gilcrest again? Please.
Dintn,
My post primarily deals with two items:
1. The demise of the National MM movement (which no one disputes)
2. Responding to my ANTI friend´s survey and how he is not winning any new members.
I don´t disagree with you that the hard and true ANTIs are still out there and they maintain their arguments. You and Ultima and Pat are living proof. Liquid is more on your side than mine. AZ likes to debate and again is more on your side than mine, but fun to talk to as are all the ANTIs on here.
You also have lost the attention of the national media AND both candidates do not support your position. They both support Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
My point here however is the National MM movement is over and you are not winning over anyone knew with your current arguments. Thats all.
The MM organization is still alive and well. They have split up as different groups since its founding, but so what? The MM are only a small part of the anti movement across this country anyway.
The MM and the immigration issue have less media attention now only because this is an election year and our economy is going down the tubes. Also there is nothing go on in congress now dealing with illegal immigration.
We will see what happens with illegal immigraton when our new president takes office. They wouldn't be the first two politians to make empty promises to gain votes and they won't be the last. Right now they are merely pandering for votes. They don't have the power to make those kinds of decisons anyway only congress does. Right there, anyone with half a brain can see that they are both lying. Bush made the same promise but did he get it? NO!
Even if the MM organization goes totally defunct, it won't mean a thing. As I said, they are only a small activist movement. There are only a few hundred of them and millions more of us who want the same thing that they do but we go about it in a different way. No need to win anyone over. People with brains think and the stats are all out there and their lives are being impacted negatively. That is all they need to know to pick what side they will be on for the few fence sitters that are out there. We already have enough on our side to stop this insanity.
Post a Comment