In areas of the country with few immigrants–Montana, Vermont, Mississippi–work still gets done. Lawns are mowed. Hotel beds are made. Dishes are washed. Trash is hauled. In short, every job done in places like NY and TX by immigrations gets done by someone who was born in the United States. Imagine that. Indeed, I myself have done most of these jobs: landscaping, dishwashing, short-order cook, etc.
Lawrence Auster explains why this way of thinking is psuedosophisticated and also wrong:
The rigidity of thinking of these supposed devotees of free enterprise is incredible. Donââ¬â¢t they see that societies respond to circumstances? That if an economy has available a vast pool of low-skill people, it will accommodate itself to that, by creating lots of low-skill jobs? And that if it doesnââ¬â¢t have lots of low-skill people, it will accommodate itself to that, by orienting itself toward high-skill jobs? Or by raising prices for vegetables? Or by going back to having college kids work at summer jobs? There is a widespread assumption today that if things have happened by one particular route, they could not happen by any other route. . . . From this we derive a maxim: Large-scale immigration creates the illusion of its own indispensability.
Subscribe To This Feed
Everyone has done some cleaning, lawn mowing, and so forth in their lives. The real question is: Is it economically efficient to do it that way? If my time is better spent working on a legal brief, then it is economically efficient for me to hire someone to do these other tasks cheaply. It’s not that the supply of cheap labor is “indispensable,” it’s that there are a lot of people who would have to spend a lot more time doing menial work rather than other things, and that can create a net loss for the economy.
Fair enough, but when those people doing that work have kids that need to learn English in public schools and need health care they’re not insured to receive at public hospitals, it’s clear that a significant part of the costs of these newcomers is being foisted upon others who are more productive. More important, the argument is often phrased ridiculously, as if these jobs simply would not get done at all and the whole economy would thereby suffer, which is a complete fallacy.
Well, our economy WOULD suffer because we’d be paying more than we should for those services, resulting in waste. Moreover, those children learning English and so forth usually become a seamless part of the next batch of workers.
I think the main concern is whether immigrants come here to create wealth or merely to take wealth (feed off of our services). I think the overwhelming evidence shows us that immigrants come here to work and create wealth. They create jobs either by starting businesses or offering their services for competitive prices. Some send money back to their home country, but only after we have already reaped the advantage of efficiency. Yes, they take advantage of some of our (already over-generous) social policies, but that cost is far outweighed by their efforts to make a living. People willing to uproot themselves and come here usually do so with a will to earn money, not joyride. And we should welcome that.
Since our government is so huge and draining, and since poor people take much more from government services than they pay in (including common services, like police roads etc.), why would you expect the addition of massive numbers of poor people to be a net benefit to our societcy as a whole? Because, with massive subsidies for health care, schooling, etc. they can find paying jobs? It seems to me this is an equation where one has to do the math, and because immigrants start so poor (and in the case of Hispanics often remain poor) that it is not at lesat obviously true there is net positive to the welfare of actual Americans upon these people’s arrival when everything is taken into account.
Not to mention the cultural cost, which, while not quantifiable, is incredibly important.
Don’t forget the ‘crime’ factor … actually living here in AZ over half the crimes reported are by an illegal alien. A recent study said 43% of the crime in AZ is done by illegal immigrants. We’re not just getting their poor, they’re exporting their criminals too.
Except, of course, that the fact of being illegal immigrants prevents them from having access to many of our services, such as courts and police. Unless they are in a rush to be sent back, they have to maintain a low profile. If we’re also going to assume that these people are really poor on average, then it’s plain that these aren’t the people clogging our streets with cars.
I reject the “cultural cost” argument precisely because it is so speculative and unmeasurable. America has incorporated all sorts of foreign cultures without much fuss, and there is absolutely no indication that this won’t continue.
Crime is an issue, but the vast majority of illegals aren’t here to commit crimes, and same for legal immigrants. And their overall contributions still far outweigh this cost. I’ve got no problem with deporting those foreign criminals we already catch — we already do this. But that doesn’t mean we need to consider them as guilty before they even cross the border.
Roach says:
["when those people doing that work have kids that need to learn English in public schools and need health care they're not insured to receive at public hospitals, it's clear that a significant part of the costs of these newcomers is being foisted upon others who are more productive."]
Here’s yer “significant cost being foisted upon us”:
Via FoxNews’ Tony Snow:
["Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey reports that 62 percent of illegal immigrants pay income taxes (via withholding) and 66 percent contribute to Social Security. Forbes magazine notes that Mexican illegals aren't clogging up the social-services system: only 5 percent receive food stamps or unemployment assistance; 10 percent send kids to public schools....[T]he most comprehensive survey to date of national crime data concludes, “In the small number of studies providing empirical evidence, immigrants are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups, despite the wealth of prominent criminological theories that provide good reasons why this should not be the case.”]
Roach says:
["More important, the argument is often phrased ridiculously, as if these jobs simply would not get done at all and the whole economy would thereby suffer, which is a complete fallacy."]
Agreed. But I think it’s more a case of disingenuous hyperbole/exaggeration than it is actual thinking that the work would not get done. In reality, the work would still get done, but it would just be more expensive to do it…and I think the fools who make these arguments realize that.
Wade says:
["Not to mention the cultural cost, which, while not quantifiable, is incredibly important."]
Studies show that by the 2nd or 3rd generation, immigrant familial lines are fully integrated (3rd generation offspring of immigrants typically speak no spanish, just english). Not to mention the fact that Mexican culture is, in large part, derived from their Spanish rule—which is European at heart, like our culture: Catholic/Religious, emphasis on the importance of family, etc. Cultural Conservatives should have no problem with this “culture shock”, seeing as how similar it is to their own values. So, if it’s not language, and it’s not values, what are the costs going to be, Wade? Skin color?
Evan, if you can’t acknowledge the significant differences between Latin American culture and European culture, then I don’t think I’ll waste my time talking to a brick wall. As for those studies of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, that’s some solid work with the slide rule, dude. Too bad our sieve-like borders have only been sieve-like since 1965, so we’re just starting to see the fruits of our idiotic policies as the second and third generations make their presence known. But to answer your question, the cultural cost is crime, anti-Americanism, poorly-educated residents, and the fact that there are an assload of “Little Mexicos” in our major cities, filled with angry people who interact mainly with each other and don’t like me, you, or this country.
Of course, I’m sure all this is a mirage, and what we’re really dealing with are a bunch of soon-to-be-members of their local Chamber of Commerce.
Go ahead and join the protests next to those folks with the “This land is Mexican land stolen in 1848″ banners. With a white guy like you sticking his head in the sand and getting involved, we won’t have to worry about people becoming too focused on, as you put it, “skin color.”
Ethnic enclaves have not been poisonous to the American Way Of Life. If anything, it seems like Americans like having Chinatowns around for a bit of flavor. And the people who populate those enclaves really don’t hate America (where are you getting this stuff from?); they love America and the opportunities it allows — that’s why they are here in the first place! But they also love their homeland. That’s not a danger.
I also don’t see why we should be leery of those who immigrate from non-European countries. What matters is how they contribute when they get here. Immigrants to America come expecting to work, and that’s why they open new businesses at a far greater rate than our citizens do and are willing to work cheaper jobs. Russian immigrants hail from a nation that hasn’t shared a lot of our culture, but they open more new businesses when they get here than anybody else, per capita. Aren’t those the people we should want? Aren’t they, dare I say, quintessentially American?
“Catholic/Religious, emphasis on the importance of family, etc. Cultural Conservatives should have no problem with this “culture shock”, seeing as how similar it is to their own values. So, if it’s not language, and it’s not values, what are the costs going to be, Wade? Skin color?”
This shows a remarkable triumph of ideology over empiricism. And it also shows a woeful ignornace of both American and Latin American history.
For starters, the peculiar folk Catholicism of Mexicans and the culture of both the Church and the corresponding political culture of Mexico could not be further from the American tradition. For most of the Latin and Catholic world, the Church and the State have been near enemies since the French Revolution. Conservative parties have not been the norm; extremist populists or socialist-leaning Christian Democrats are the norm. When conservatives do appear, they are often militaristic and statist–e.g., the Argentine Junta, Pinochet.
Only in the wooly climbs of frigid Northern Europe with its uniquely Protestant culture do we find things that we take for granted as Americans: a culture that condemns nepotism, praises efficiency, abhors corruption, and eschews blood ties for meritocracy.
It’s true Mexicans value families and so do American conservatives, but we do not necessarily embrace the pathological familialism of Mexican culture, where nepotism and corruption are endemic in both private and public life. This stems in part from the view these actions are not wrong but are in service of the higher value of the family. An important American value is a certain regard for society as a whole, even if it hurts one’s own family. Americans also value independence, equal opportunity for women, education, and upward mobility. The culture of Mexico–low degrees of particiption in higher education, early marriage, large families, subservient roles for women, disrespect for property rigths and limited government, a romantic and revolutionary streak–are anathema to these American cultural norms.
Finally, Americans have a unique political culture. Our culture historically has not rewarded political violence; we don’t have the periodic coups, revolts, rebellions, and other disorders that plague Latin America. We have a tradition of limited government that has been steadily eroded (indeed, arguably the more socialist values of the late 19th and early 20th non-Anglo, non-Protestant, and non-Northern European, immigrants had much to do with the erosion of this earlier, distinctly Anglo-American notion of good government. Mexico, in contrast, has its own political history and notions of what is appropriate for the state to do and how it is appropriate for leaders to behave. Most of these differences would make most Americans unhappy, particularly anyone right of center.
In short, Mexicans are not Americans and Americans are not Mexicans. They show up to our country with distinct ways of life, political beliefs, and certain preexisting notions about *gringos.* It’s naive to think that their view of us and our ways is completely positive considering the highly resentful view that nationalistic Mexicans have of the US, owing to their long term status as our poorer, weaker, and less successful neighbor. While many Mexican immigrants, no doubt, realize the incredible economic opportunities of America compared to their homeland, they also no doubt realize how relatively unsuccessful most are compared to longer established and more successful whites. Most people everywhere resent the status as second tier, and this resentment is no doubt fueled by alienation among younger second-generation immigrants and also by the “kill the rich people” theme of so much Mexican history.
We can no more make Mexico the 51st State and not irredemiably alter our country and its character than we can radically transform its population and expect it to remain the same, retaining the unique mores and expectations that define its essential character.
And who is advocating making Mexico the 51st state (or simply allowing “open borders”. Nor do I assert that their immigration has/will have “no effect”. But I do cast massive doubt at your claims that this, as you call them, “subclass” will “radically transform” the basic foundations of western culture. Yes, suddenly, the good ol’ U S of A is going to have a rash of political coups. The poor will start rising up to kill the rich. And don’t even get me started about “familial loyalty over social/moral justice”.
Chris, I hear you loud and clear: Mexican culture today is different from American culture today. I don’t think anyone will disagree. What I am not convinced of is that your doomsday scenario (outlined a few blog entries below) is remotely realistic…especially in a country that is characterized by its “melting pot” label. Many of the things that you note, like the crime aspects, are endemic to illegal immigrants—because of their status, they cannot approach the police or courts to settle disputes, so they resort to more primitive methods.
I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, though there might I think that things will be different from this wave of immgrants, and it will be worse. We will resemble Mexico in more ways than we do now and I consider that, except for the cuisine, to be a major step backwards as a people, as a nation, and as a major world power.
In small and large and unpredictable ways, our established mores and traditions that are quite rare globablly and historically will be made more fragile and more threatened if mass immigration, particularly from Mexico, continues. Why? Because values and culture are a function of the people constituting a society, how they live, what they believe, what they love and hate, how the speak, etc.
Consider the experience of the earlier wave of immigrants who were said to be harmless. They formed the basis of the IWW “Wobblies.” They engaged in massive unprecedented labor writing in the infamous Pullman and Homestead strikes. The “us vs them” mentality was reinforced by their proletarian status and outlook as well as domestic born rabble-rousers. They created the major constituency of the give-away politics of both Republicans and Democrats. In short, they didn’t fit in, they changed America for the worse, and our inherited historical American values have been distorted and increasingly embattled in response to the imperfect assimilation of this earlier wave of immigrants. The damage was undone in part. The 1924-1965 hiatus did a great deal to Americanize this group and prevent them from retaining ties to Europe and un-American values, such as the popular anarchism of the turn of the 20th Century. But the permanent scar of the New Deal and the leftism it embodied remained embedded on our previous small government, pro-free-market consensus. The reason for this shift has a lot to do with demographics.
Mexico is unique not least because it is a continguous country, with historical connections to the American Southwest, with a strong nationalism of its own. Our two nations share the largest frontier of a First and Third World country anywhere on Earth. And, needless to say, today we have a welfare state and a political party bent on creating dependencies. Finally, our elites do not have the will to demand assimilation as they did during the previous wave (which, even then, was an uphill struggle against the natural tendency to resist such pressures in ethnic ghettos).
This is a very serious situation for anyone that thinks America is a real nation with a real culture and people whose character is worth preserving. A Chinatown and a cosmopolitan distribution of worthy foreign newcomers has some merit. But now that we have Mexicans working in Chinese restaurants, it should give you a bit of pause. An impoverished and recently awakened group has decided to stand together and demand the right to break our laws. I have little faith in my ability to prognosticate in detail about the long-run outcome. I feel fairly confident in the outline I sketched above, however. In other words, if violent social conflict is so fanciful, why did it happen last time we had sustained mass immigration of poor people from places with alien cultures.
Roach: “In short, Mexicans are not Americans and Americans are not Mexicans. They show up to our country with distinct ways of life, political beliefs, and certain preexisting notions about *gringos.*”
Yeah, just like every other immigrant from every other nation. So? Come on, man. Our culture is so pervasively addictive that there are McDonald’s in China and Disney in France. First-generation immigrants may have their own ingrained beliefs, but their children quickly become just like their American classmates.
Is China(!) or France America even though they enjoy McDonald’s and Disney? There is more to our way of life and culture than what we consume.
Of course not. And that wasn’t my point, either. My point is that American culture is extremely vibrant and pervasive, such that we need not be so concerned about other cultures trying to muscle their way in to our home turf.
Roach, would you be willing to embrace Mexican immigration if it were pretty much a given that these immigrants would be staunch Republicans?
Even then I’d be concerned if they were, for instance, statist or militantly right-wing in orientation, like a bunch of refugees from Apartheid-era South Africa for example. But I think in general all of the historical manifestations of the American idea–the liberal ideals of Jefferson, the conservatism of Adams, the mercantile interests of Hamilton, and the populism of Jackson–are all represented on the Republican side of the ledger. Only a crude, European-import and au courant leftism seems to define the self-conciously anti-American views of the Democrats. This is not to say all Republicans are OK . . . only that the only normalcy and connection to our history in our political culture is found chiefly in intra-Republican/conservative debates.
A little context for Evan and his sociologist to chew on, courtesy of an e-mailer at Lawrence Auster’s site:
“Your recent article discussed the costs to American taxpayers if we grant amnesty. I would like to give you some personal insight about the costs of illegal immigrants today. I live in Charlotte, N.C. which has an exploding Mexican population. Voters and politicians are in a ferocious battle about the CMS (Charlotte Mecklenburg School System) and their budget request and huge bond request. To counter the protests about the exploding costs, the Board of Education, on our public access channel, presented some statistics ââ¬Ëprovingââ¬â¢ why they need large increases in their budget. Two facts on their presentation were stunning to meââ¬â80% of the Mexican children entering the CMS system are on Medicaid and Food Stamps already. There will be over 4,000 new students in the school system, and a substantial percentage (they didnââ¬â¢t give a percentage) are described as having ââ¬Ëcomplex needs.ââ¬â¢ This is PC code for non-English educational needs.
When I hear people saying these illegal immigrants are paying taxes and are not a burden, I roll my eyes. Anyone can look at the large metropolitan cities and see the impact of illegal immigrationââ¬ârapidly increasing taxes, especially property taxes to support the costs of supporting illegal immigration.”
Comment by Mr. “Markets”: Well, our economy WOULD suffer because we’d be paying more than we should for those services, resulting in waste. Moreover, those children learning English and so forth usually become a seamless part of the next batch of workers…
Roach: “….since poor people take much more from government services than they pay in (including common services, like police roads etc.), why would you expect the addition of massive numbers of poor people to be a net benefit to our societcy as a whole?
Well, Chris. Mr. “Markets” isn’t advocating free markets, he’s advocating welfare for the rich. The debate on immigration usually divides by self-interest…those who benefit from immigration, and those who actually have to live with the consequenses.
Interestingly enough, polls show that lower income and middle class folks are the ones most opposed to immigration. So the chances of a Republican Party dominated by “free market”, or interests of the Leisure classes, will go for enforcement and immigrant limits is quit doubtful.
Another side issue, that Roach doesn’t mention is the racism inherent in the pro-immigration position of Mr. “Markets”…the idea that these immigrants will work under poor, often unhealthy conditions, for slave labor and 60 hour work weeks because they are inherently inferior, or degenerate compared to well-to-do Americans or rich business men is implicit in the immigration argument.
The very idea of the “guest worker” program advocated by Mr. “Markets” and the Corporate Pimps in the Republican Party is also in conflict with any right thinking conservative. If America needs immmigrants, then these folks should come here with the idea of discarding the citizenship of their native land, assimilating into American culture, and becoming full American Citizens.
It is repressive and racist Saudi Arabia, or the Republican allies at the United Arab Republics who have guest worker programs. Chinese Communists import rural farm workers as ‘guest workers’ in slave labor factories. Europe is suffering the social unrest that years of guest worker programs have bestowed on them.
That sort of thing may be allright for Communist or Feudal authoritarians, as well as pimps for the leisure classes like Mr. “Markets. But not for America, the land of the Free
“Another side issue, that Roach doesn’t mention is the racism inherent in the pro-immigration position of Mr. [Markels]…the idea that these immigrants will work under poor, often unhealthy conditions, for slave labor and 60 hour work weeks because they are inherently inferior, or degenerate compared to well-to-do Americans or rich business men is implicit in the immigration argument.”
The hell? How is it racist to point out that an unskilled laborer might choose to compete with more skilled labor on the basis of wages or willingness to labor for additional hours? And who is calling immigrants inferiors or degenerates? Didn’t you just argue that they have the work ethic to labor for 60 hours at reduced wages?
Mr. “Markets”: The hell? How is it racist to point out that an unskilled laborer might choose to compete with more skilled labor on the basis of wages or willingness to labor for additional hours? And who is calling immigrants inferiors or degenerates? Didn’t you just argue that they have the work ethic to labor for 60 hours at reduced wages?
Morally, you’re the equivalent of Mr. Potter in A Wonderful Life…arguing for removing the social safety net because it creates a ‘thrifty working class”, when everyone knows that Mr. Potter was a selfish sick old man, whose real attitude toward others was that they were “riff-raff” and “garlic eaters”.
Implicit in the arguments of Corporate pimps, such as yourself, is the notion that you think it’s justified for people beneath you to work for slave wages under slave working conditions and hours.
If you didn’t have this derogatory—and even racist— attitude, you’d be concerned that ANYONE would work under conditions such as you are advocating.
In other words, advocating the wage conditions for immigrants is the same as saying that you believe that they deserve less then full human dignity.
Of course, both you and I know that the social consequenses of the economics that you advocate are borne by the public. Corporations make profits, and the public pays. Idiots like you call this, the “free market”.
Indeed, people working in conditions as desperate as you condone, end up behaving in anti-social ways, for which hypocrites like you, living in your gated communities, don’t have to experience.
What we really need to do in this country is TAX people like you out of business. If you want to employ slave labor—YOU PAY for the problems that YOU cause with extra payroll taxes. Unscrupulous cheats like yourself should not be allowed to profit from the misery of others.
We’ve got your number, Mr. <snicker< “Markets”. Whenever you say “free markets” everyone from now on will hear “I’m a racist elitist hypocrite liar who does deserve to live in decent society”.
Hey you miserable piece of flotsom–why don’t you just leave OUR country if you think it’s so awful, and got to some ‘free market, capitalist country like Communist China, or Mexico, where the elite is rewarded for anti-social attudes like yours.
In fact, America would be better off with out you MBA/CEO types, along with the slave labor that you employ to sustain yourself.
Wow. Tell me more about this cross of gold . . . .
Mr.James L Markets: “Come on, man. Our culture is so pervasively addictive that there are McDonald’s in China and Disney in France. First-generation immigrants may have their own ingrained beliefs, but their children quickly become just like their American classmates.”
Actually, it’s not our culture that is addictive, it’s that the system of international finance capitalism, or as it’s more popularly known “welfare for Corporations” that is so pervasive. The Export Import Bank–read the public—arranges financing and capital that local economies can’t muster. Aided of course, by the other government agencies designed to protect the rich from the consequenses of their behavior–the WTO and the World Bank!
As for “Disney”…shees, you dummy. “Disney” and Hollywood in general is owned by Japanese investors, so how damned “American” do you think it is?
Disney in particular is failing, as the rules of Corporations prevent CEO’s from actually having to pay the consequenses of their own bad management. The defination these days of a “Hollywood” movie is lots of meaningless sex & violence, coupled with lots of expensive special effects, and usually NO plot or creative direction.
My my…selling sex and violence at the expense of public morals—what a perfectly CAPITALIST idea!!!
According to free market fundamentalists, Corporations like Disney are called “private enterprize”…”private” only as far as the rules benefits the insiders at the expense of the actual owners. On the other hand, it’s hardly an ‘enterprise’, since most American businesses like Disney are running on empty, or on the brink of failing apart.
Lief: “Wow. Tell me more about this cross of gold . . . .”
My, my, what an amazingly intellectual you have…Mr. Potter.
Obviously, I’m right on the mark with you.
Joe, in the galactic or geologic sense, I am certain that a reputable scientist would conclude that you are on “the mark.” After all, space is near infinite, and human presence on the planet is but a tiny fraction of a percent of the lithographic history. So you’ve got that going for you.
Once again, though, as the red curtain of Marxist rage descends over your stunted, distorted vision of American and global culture and politics, you have been reduced to hurling slurs and ridiculously unsupported charges, including ad hominem attacks against hominids you can’t even identify or classify. I rather enjoy watching you stand by as the substantive debate rushes past you, your chest thundering silverbackly under the impotent, preening rage of your beating fists, impressing the other economic and historic illiterates you seem to think make up a mass of the American populace, little realizing that the small coiterie of hangers-on whose adoration you so mightily seek are but an amusing sideshow to American politics, American debate, and American life. (I, for instance, had no idea that Know-Nothings still existed, much less that their philosophy had evolved from crude nativism into crypto-Socialist volk worship, but your presence in Roach’s comments reminds me how far even such a goofy group as they can fall – from holding seats in the U.S. Congress to prissing about the Internet under the face-saving shield of a deluded, self-aggrandizing pseudonym.)
Keep entertaining the kiddie table with your preposterous, thumbnail sketches of the world – a world where the Japanese-controlled Disney Corporation imports illegal foreign labor through the guise of front contracting schemes to prop up its failing, multi-billion-dollar shell long enough to sell sex and violence to Americans who don’t want it but somehow can’t stop buying it long enough to realize that their culture is under assault by a massive conspiracy of the Republican CEO class and its allies at the World Bank and the Cato Institute. The adults are busy discussing the real world. And remember, The Little Golden Book of Revolution Against the Expropriation of the Fruits of the Proletariat’s Labor is due back at by Tuesday, and the capitalist dogs running the library system will fine you six cents for every day past.
We’re done here.
James,
The behavior of the students ditching school to claim entitlement to additional government benefits the last couple of weeks seems strong anecdotal evidence opposed to your theory – at least as far as the children of illegals are concerned.
Mr. “Markets”: Once again, though, as the red curtain of Marxist rage descends over your stunted, distorted vision of American and global culture and politics, you have been reduced to hurling slurs and ridiculously unsupported charges, including ad hominem attacks against hominids you can’t even identify or classify…
Snore…of course, when you can’t argue monetary economics, and you can’t argue with the facts…so look who is making the ad hominem attacks now?
Of course we see what happens when the utopian free-market-eers at the CATO Ivory Tower do when they are confronted with the fact that free markets aren’t perfect? Or that libertarianism is a barely disquised apologetic for the sins of the Leisure classes? What is the response to anyone who begs to differ from Free Market Fundamentalism of the CEO classes?
You must be a MARXIST …!
Now whose making the ad hominem accusations?
Jesus Christ, Joe, can you at least summon enough brain-power to respond according to who ACTUALLY writes things? You quote Leif and yet attribute it to me repeatedly. Dumbass.
As for free markets = racism, only a true dolt — and by that I mean someone who insists on being ignorant rather than merely being mistaken — could make such a preposterous argument. In case you’re actually reading for content rather than just dreaming up some more neo-Marxist blather to vomit up, realize that most people have no problem with immigration — so long as we’re talking about smart, educated folk. But when it comes to poor, uneducated immigrants, well, even ideological constipated folk like Joe can stand with the David Dukes of this world in solidarity. And who are those immigrants? White Europeans? Heck no. And yet, irony of ironies, it’s Joe pointing the racism finger.
Yeah, somehow it’s racist to allow minorities to go where they want to go to improve their own lives. (Remember, of course, that nobody goes through the time and effort of emigrating to another country to work if that means having a worse job than in your own country.) That’s me, guilty as charged. And when the comfortable fog of stupidity finally lifts from Joe’s soggy brain, perhaps he’ll appreciate the humor of his own position.
Not to mention that to call low-income immigrant labor “corporate welfare” is pretty wilfully ignorant as well. Corporations aren’t hiring illegal immigrants. Only small-scale businesses that can manage under-the-table dealings are doing it. Once you get to real “Corporate America,” whatever that qualifies as, there’s just too much paperwork, too many records, too much regulation to allow it. Illegal immigrants aren’t working at McDonald’s, they are working on farms and in nail salons. Sure, you can call it “small business and individual welfare,” still false, but at least closer to the truth.
But hey, you seem so fixated on me, seems like it doesn’t really matter what is said here. Fine by me. Go on being the perfect example for why self-described “populists” invariably wind up being the least popular folks.