I believe this photo speaks for itself. We’ve gone from the inaccurate but comparatively benign myth that we’re a nation of immigrants, to this. Of course, we’re not a nation of immigrants; we’re a nation of Americans with customs that various waves of foreigners have been compelled to recognize, respect, and adopt. But now we’ve gone to being a nation of foreigners, who make no effort to conform or show their loyalty. In other words, we’ve become hardly a nation at all.
Advertisement
Subscribe To This Feed
I’ve been attending a lot of the pro-immigration rallies, talking with the organizers and marchers.
Without a doubt, the support of unrestrained immigration is considered a renewal issue for the neo-Marxist Left, who bellieve that for their brand of socialism to be politically possible America, they must destroy traditional WASP culture and the religious tradition on which it is based. Immigration is the best issue they’ve been handed in decades, and extremist leftists like Gustavo Torres of CASA of Maryland, are intrinsic the organization and planning of these marches.
The extreme left has been pushing a “politically correct” version of history, that teaches that America is a racist, imperialist culture, responsible for all of the poverty and problems of Latin America. Furthermore, it teaches that these racists white people “stole” America from the native Americans.
Which is why, when you talk to these demonstrators, they have such as sense of arrogance and outrage that they would be denied all of the benefits of citizenship. After all, according to what they have been taught by the modern Left, America IS their home, that it was stolen from their ancestors, and that they deserve the all of the standards of living of Americans, because the American Republic is illegitate upsurper of the wealth of the land.
How dare we tell them they must ask for the right of citizenship—after all, it is their home in the first place.
What’s amazing is the Cato-ite brand of so-called “libertarianism” which supports the “New World Order” of international finance capitaism and world government run for the benefit of the multi-national corporations are marching in spirit ARM-in-ARm with the radical leftists, and supporting the same sort of unrestrained immigration which the Left views as critical to the implementation of socialism in America!
The only thing that you’ve neglected in your essays on the immigration debate, Chris, is the danger of these immigrants VOTING. It’s not for no reason that one of the slogans of these pro-immigration rallies is “Today we march, tomorrow we vote”.
Given the lack of any uniform federal voting standard, and very lenient—often non-existant—state procedures for verifying qualifications for voting, I predict we’ll be seeing widespread attempts by illegals to register to vote. Indeed, the predictions by the conservative and Republican party that the Latino immigration is not going to significantly affect voting results for several decades may be another example of the same kind of wishful thinking that got America in this immigration mess in the first place.
I’m sure it warms Roach’s heart to no end to have you agreeing with him, Joe.
Yes, I’m sure some far-lefties have attempted to hijack these rallies on the deluded belief that somehow they can just import enough Marxists to enforce political change in America. Yet there are also many lefties who greatly oppose open immigration because it provides a cheap, unregulated source of labor that they argue hurts poor American workers. Overall, they cancel out.
I really doubt that you are talking to the common protester in these rallies, Joe, because the vast majority of them simply have no interest in some kind of neo-Marxist political crusade. What they want is the ability to come to America to make a living, as so many immigrants before them have done. To assume that all immigrants are socialists is just plain wrong. Just by example, consider the mass of Cuban immigrants — about the most strident group of Republicans you’ll ever meet. Despair indeed for the Marxist cause.
While I somewhat share in the position that we should not be blessing the violation of laws, I also think we restrict immigration too much — to the point that it becomes more rational for desperate workers to simply break the law rather than follow it. If people want to come here and work and aren’t a terrorist risk or criminal, our policy should be to allow entry. We should not be placing an ideological litmus test at the border — only Republicans allowed! — anymore than we should be doing it by skin color.
To address Roach’s (more reasoned) point, I think it was definitely poor form for the protesters to be carrying foreign flags during their rallies. If anything, they should have been carrying American flags if they wanted to make their point better, and there are some American flags in that picture. However, this is a PR point, not a substantive one. The real issue is one of assimilation. However, a collorary to this is the extent to which American culture changes over time. We celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, and other such “foreign” holidays without a problem. American culture is a master at incorporating other cultures and making them our own. If you really want to see it in action, consider how much of our culture today derived itself from Britain’s recent pop culture: the “British Invasion” version of rock n’ roll, “American Idol,” “American Inventor,” “The Office,” “Spamalot,” the list goes on for an arm’s length. Our borrowing is our strength, not a weakness.
What cultural conservatives don’t appear to understand is that culture in an open society isn’t static. It never was, never will be.
It’s plenty rational for these folks to immigrate illegally because there are almost no negative consequences for doing so: no jail time, no fine, no serious penalties. They can easily go home and return. Many do so for the holidays. It would be less rational for them to do so if we (a) spent real money on border security, rather than the paltry $1b we’ve spent in the last decade and (b) punished illegals and their employers more harshly when they do make into the interior. Instead we do nothing and then say the system’s not working and is unworkable.
How do we define the “customs that various waves of foreigners have been compelled to recognize, respect, and adopt”? All of this reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s search for “mere” Christianity. It seems to me what we’re looking for here is “mere” Americanism. In our system, isn’t a “mere” American simply a person who is legally a citizen of the United States (unlike more traditional nations such as the English, French, etc.)? According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, becoming a citizen requires the following:
(1) a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States; (2) residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing; (3) an ability to read, write, and speak English; (4) a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government; (5) good moral character; (6) attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and (7) favorable disposition toward the United States.
Isn’t that enough? If it is, perhaps what we need is a hard and fast limitation on how long a non-citizen can stay in this country without becoming a citizen. Or do you believe that the somewhat legalistic view of nationality outlined above is insufficient and doesn’t define a real nationality at all?
I believe Roach’s position is that the bulk of the illegal immigrants are woefully lacking in numbers 3, 6 and 7.
I don’t think that you HAVE to speak English in order to be a good U.S. citizen. You’ll just have a harder time with things. And I think “attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution” is a bit much to ask for, especially since we don’t appear to demand the same from our own politicians these days. The anti-American part seems reasonable, and I think the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, are favorably disposed toward America. They might still love their home country more, but that’s not at issue. The parade of foreign flags can be interpreted as being “anti-American,” but I think it’s more a show of where people hail from so that we know how many different ethnicities make up our population (even if that point is being poorly made).
Jason and James,
You clearly believe in the “notional citizenship” beloved of so-called progressives, which assumes that there is nothing to citizenship except meeting some legalistic qualification, which can be changed by a vote, or maybe by a bureaucratic ruling.
Those who flatter themselves by calling themselves progressives hate the very idea of countries. If we must temporarily still have countries, they think, then at least let’s reduce them to the lowest common denominator. So they want to get rid of any shared history and culture, making sure that multiple languages further dilute any sense of a common identity.
Me, I like countries that are cohesive. They work better than assemblies of people who have nothing in common other than geography. Citizens who share some assumptions about life have a basis for disagreement without enmity, and for compromise. Countries with a reasonable degree of unity (not uniformity) have their own flavor and style.
You, apparently, see that as terribly retrograde. You want to abolish borders, traditions, and particularities, and replace them with abstractions. As far as you’re concerned, Americans are just people who happen to live in America. If half of them have just hot-footed it over the border, who cares? If they can’t speak English, who cares?
Well, I do. And it appears that most other Americans (in the old sense that you have such distaste for) do as well.
Mr. “Markets” sez: “I really doubt that you are talking to the common protester in these rallies, Joe, because the vast majority of them simply have no interest in some kind of neo-Marxist political crusade.”
Har har. Other then to tell your maid to take the laundry out of the washer and put it in the dryer, I doubt you have any contact with any poor immigrants. Or you wouldn’t says stupid things like that.
Mr. “Markets”: What they want is the ability to come to America to make a living, as so many immigrants before them have done.”
There you go again. I’m sure an well-to-do white urban yuppie like you is hardly in a position to know what motivates the immigrants. On the other hand, working folks like me actually live among them. And compete with them for jobs, housing and educations.
Generally, you echo the point I made about the immigration issue…where you stand on immigration is determined by whether or not you benefit from their presence.
Go back to tickling yourself with the feather of your “libertarian” economic theories…which nobody believes except for the pimps for the leisure classes over at CATO, and upper class brats like that idiot you call your President.
Mr. Markets sez: “To assume that all immigrants are socialists is just plain wrong. Just by example, consider the mass of Cuban immigrants — about the most strident group of Republicans you’ll ever meet. Despair indeed for the Marxist cause.”
Well, my my…with Socialism sweeping Latin America, thanks to the idiotic economic policies that you represent, “Marxism” is hardly dead.
Of course, you speak nonsense..and the facts prove otherwise.
First of all, the Cubans have a completely different deal then the Latin Americans, as anybody with a brain in their head understands.
Second, Exit poll data shows that the Latinos–excluding the Cubans who have their own special deals—vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Third, California stands as the ultimate proof of the idiocy you are preaching. That’s the future of the rest of America if nothing is done to stop the invasion.
Of course the Democratic Socialists of American are hardly hard core “Marxism”, but bad enough to someone like you who represents the interests of the leisure classes.
Fourth, the protests are being planned by Marxists like Gustavo Torres…if you know who he is. I doubt it.
Rick Darby said: Those who flatter themselves by calling themselves progressives hate the very idea of countries. If we must temporarily still have countries, they think, then at least let’s reduce them to the lowest common denominator. So they want to get rid of any shared history and culture, making sure that multiple languages further dilute any sense of a common identity.
Sorry, it’s not only the socialists, or the “Progressives” as they sometimes like to call themselves—share identical ideas with the the libertarians.
Libertarians are, as Kevin Phillips wrote, the utopians of the right. They are as dangerous as the Marxist Leninists in their irrational devotion to a ideological formula, against which reality must be judged. It’s called laissez faire capitalism.
The proof of the fallacy of libertarian ideology is China. China is the the most dynamic capitalist economy in the world, , yet is also the most authoritarian and powerful central government in the world.
The central tenet of the libertarian religious faith that capitalism breeds political freedom is prove to be nonsense. In fact, capitalism does much better with an authoritarian central command state structure, where police power is used to suppress cooperative enterprise and voluntary fellowship of laborers.
Besides China, we have the example of America with it’s finance capitalism to see how destructive laissez faire capitalism is. America’s finance capitalism is, as everyone knows, is a insane Keynesian perpetual motion machine, made possible by massive deficit spending, with long term public debt financing sort term private consumption. Even more absurd, the entire mess is dependent on the willingness of America’s mortal enemies to continue financing the entire monstrosity.
Of course, to make sure our mortal enemies continue to go along with this, America must maintain a huge military machine, control the oil supply in the mideast. Libertarians are even wrong about capitalism leading to peace…it always leds to war and conquest.
Immigration ‘reform’ is only the latest idiocy that we are asked by the libertarians to swallow. Ultimately this immigration will destroy capitalism.
Maybe Marx was right—Capitalism always collapses into chaos of it’s own contradictions. And libertarianism as we can plainly see is full of contradictions.
Which is the last sad nail in the fantasy of libertarianism…it’s ultimate end is to prove that Karl Marx was right all along.
No, Rick, I don’t believe in replacing countries with abstractions. I think a country can put whatever requirements it wants on citizenship — that’s its perogative. That’s different from what should be done about non-citizen legal and illegal immigrants, however, and that’s the subject that concerns me. I addressed Jason’s point about citizenship because he raised it, but it’s ancillary in my view.
Joe, you spew so much drivel that it’s hard to take you seriously. You doubt that I’ve had any contact with “poor immigrants,” and yet my first job as an attorney was at a firm that largely represented 1st generation poor immigrants that were both citizen and legal alien. Har har, indeed. And the notion that Latinos “vote overwhelmingly Democratic” is just a big fat lie. As CIS learned recently: “There is no ‘Latino’ voting bloc, as such ââ¬â after controlling for party identification, income, and education, there is no difference between Latino voting and the voting pattern of non-Hispanic whites in either the Senate or gubernatorial races of 2002.” Bush got about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.
So, as usual, it’s not facts that Joe trades in — only empty platitudes.
Which is why one is left snickering while reading his nonsense about how China is the “most dynamic capitalist economy in the world,” as China still lags far, far behind in the yearly report on the world’s freest economies. Gee, China loosens its draconian holds on the economy just a little and suddenly it’s some laissez-faire paradise! Right. What Joe doesn’t get is that you CAN’T have true capitalism under an authoritarian regime because the two are, by definition, incompatible. And this bit about capitalism “always le[a]d[ing] to war and conquest” . . . yeah, those socialist, fascist, dictatorial, monarchal, feudalistic economies were all SO peaceful in comparison! Fact is, the spread of capitalism has resulted in a reduction of conflict across the world. That there still is conflict doesn’t mean that capitalism is the creator of that conflict. But Joe, with his empty slogans and complete lack of any factual basis, is blithely free to believe whatever claptrap spills from his fingertips.
It is odd for Joe to argue that the libertarian goal of more open immigration is antithetical to our belief in free markets. You’d think, with his hatred of capitalism, that he’d rush to embrace open immigration if only to destroy that evil boogeyman! Of course he knows better — a free economy is ALWAYS aided by freedom in other areas. Allowing more immigration only makes a free economy work better. This is why authoritarianism and free markets just cannot coexist. And why Joe, the ever-unpopular “populist,” is wrong as usual.
I’m actually starting to think that Joe’s a mole for the libertarians. If so, you’re doing a great job!
Mr. “Markets”: Joe, you spew so much drivel that it’s hard to take you seriously. You doubt that I’ve had any contact with “poor immigrants,” and yet my first job as an attorney was at a firm that largely represented 1st generation poor immigrants that were both citizen and legal alien. Har har, indeed.
My my…what a hypocrite you are. You argue for unrestrained immigration, because you make your living representing immigrants. Hmmm…of course attorney don’t fear their jobs being filled by illegals or H1B/L1 Visa indentured servants, because Attorneys have rules that exclude competition.
Free markets? What a farce your personal life proves you to be.
Mr. “Markets”: “As CIS learned recently: “There is no ‘Latino’ voting bloc, as such ââ¬â after controlling for party identification, income, and education, there is no difference between Latino voting and the voting pattern of non-Hispanic whites in either the Senate or gubernatorial races of 2002.” Bush got about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.”
The CIR didn’t learn any such thing…you’re twisting the facts to support your own selfish position on immigration. You benefit so it’s good; if you had to COMPETE with illegals for jobs, housing and education, you’d perhaps understand why the most recent Zogby poll
As for your 40% of Latinos voted for Bush number…NO that’s wrong. Another cheap LAWYER twisting of the facts! First of all, exclude from the “Hispanic” mix, the European Spanish, and the Cubans, the overwhelming majority of Latinos vote Democrat. Secondly, up til now, most Latinos don’t vote; that’s going to change. The slogan of the immigrant marches was “Today we march, tomorrow we vote”. Look to see the Left/Democrats massively registering illegals…after all, thanks to lack of a uniform federal voting standard, most states do not require more then a driver’s license or even proof of residency, such as a telephone or utility bill.
Then we’ll have the REAL test of the ridiculous lies that you preach on behalf of the leisure classes. Calfornication of America…here it comes, thanks to selfish, lying lawyers like yourself.
Mr. Markets: “China is the “most dynamic capitalist economy in the world,” as China still lags far, far behind in the yearly report on the world’s freest economies. Gee, China loosens its draconian holds on the economy just a little and suddenly it’s some laissez-faire paradise!”
Oh shut up. I mean you weenie libertarians go all lunatic when any disputes their holy writ.
China’s economy is growing at 1O% or more. And membership in the Communist Party is extended to “entreprenuers”. Most of China’s biggest companies, like Haier, are privately owned. Fact is that the only model of capitalism that works is STATE Capitalism. As the US economy proves, finance capitalism always results in war and depression.
Let’s not even discuss your quoting the figures from that big GOVERNMENT outfit, the WTO, about what countries are “free” or not. If China isn’t “free”, then your premise that socialism precludes economic progress is dead in the water.
No, Mr. “Markets”, scratch everything you say, and the right thinking observer has only a single conclusion: you are wrong as can be, and a devious twister of the facts.
In other words, a “libertarian”.
Mr. “Markets”: “It is odd for Joe to argue that the libertarian goal of more open immigration is antithetical to our belief in free markets. You’d think, with his hatred of capitalism, that he’d rush to embrace open immigration if only to destroy that evil boogeyman! Of course he knows better — a free economy is ALWAYS aided by freedom in other areas. Allowing more immigration only makes a free economy work better. This is why authoritarianism and free markets just cannot coexist.”
Hmmm…who said I hated Capitalism? Or private property? Or freedom?
In fact, you have much more in common with MARXISM then I do, what with your utopian fantasies of a perfect society where the state withers away. Proof of this is your rigid black and white formula so that anyone who contradicts your facts is a “Marxist”.
Like Marxists, you insist that reality be interpreted by rigid ideological formulas. To Marxists anyone who disagrees is a “reactionary”, a “anti-social element”.
Likewise, to you, anyone who disputes the logic of the unrestrained anarchy of finance capitalism is a communist. Even unions are a step in the direction of socialism according your authoritarian ideolgy.
And like Marxism, “Libertarian” ideas result in constant war and economic dislocation and misery, as well as authoritarian central governments.
The shining fallacy in your argument that freedom and capitalism are intertwined is CHINA, growing at 10% or more, and it’s got the most repressive and authoritarian government in the world.
China IS capitalist…despite your protests to the contrary. Denial of these facts just prove my contention that your ideology is rigid and oppressive. Perhaps China the so-called free market capitalism you fantasize about. But that sort of “capitalism” is a fantasy that doesn’t exist. It’s a figment of your imagination. A made up lie to support special interests for their own selfish gain.
Unless restrained by democracy, Capitalists REQUIRE big government to repress cooperative enterprise that may interfere with corporate profits. Laissez Faire Capitalism (Capitalism without Democratic institutions) requires repressive government to crush worker cooperation, and outlaw collective bargaining. Capitalism requires a huge military industrial complex, and strong military to protect it’s markets and it’s monetary intanglements, as we see in US foreign policy.
For what is Bush’s plan for “Democracy” in the Mideast? Something to be forced on their culture by force of arms. Capitalism by force of arms? Go figure.
You can go on ranting about the “free market” all you want…but to any right thinking observer, the falling incomes of American workers, the endless quagmire in the Mideast, and the rise in poverty in the third world all prove you wrong.
As for your support of unrestrained immigration…well you’ve already proven that your ideas reflect your personal self-interest. You BENEFIT from immigration personally, and are PROTECTED from competition with immigrants because the legal profession is a closed trade union.
In other words, besides being a irrational ideologue, you’re personally a hypocrite as well.
Joe: “You argue for unrestrained immigration, because you make your living representing immigrants.”
I never argued for “unrestrained immigration.” Also, how advocating for more immigration while representing the interests of immigrants makes me a “hypocrite” is anybody’s guess. Do you actually know what “hypocrite” means, Joe? Or is it just a word you like to throw around when reality is against you?
Joe: “The CIR didn’t learn any such thing…”
It’s CI_S_, idiot. And I quoted directly from their report.
Joe: “You benefit so it’s good; if you had to COMPETE with illegals for jobs, housing and education, you’d perhaps understand why the most recent Zogby poll[.]”
Polls have ALWAYS showed that Americans are generally skeptical of immigrants…while the same polls always show that as far as past immigrants are concerned, why, they’re just dandy. Besides, it’s not all about “competition” to determine whether someone likes immigration or not. See Roach, a fellow lawyer, for example.
Joe: “As for your 40% of Latinos voted for Bush number…NO that’s wrong. Another cheap LAWYER twisting of the facts! First of all, exclude…”
Look, YOU said, “Exit poll data shows that the Latinos–excluding the Cubans who have their own special deals—vote overwhelmingly Democrat.” YOU didn’t “exclude” anybody! Now when I mention what the ACTUAL Latino vote was, suddenly, oooh!, gotta change that! Now who is really “twisting the facts,” eh? As usual, you don’t have any numbers to back you up one way or the other. You just say stuff and pretend like it’s the truth, only to scatter like a cockroach from the light when actual facts are presented. You’re just wasting our bandwidth.
Joe: “China’s economy is growing at 1O% or more. And membership in the Communist Party is extended to ‘entreprenuers’. Most of China’s biggest companies, like Haier, are privately owned.”
Wow, THIS is your evidence that China is “capitalist?” Hey, we actually let some companies be private…we must be capitalists! Not to mention the illogical argument that just because China’s economy is growing fast must somehow mean that they are a capitalist economy. I suppose that is a compliment to capitalism for capitalism and economic growth to be so linked in Joe’s mind that the former must always be begat by the latter, but it’s just not true. China just ain’t capitalist. At best, it’s grudgingly relaxed a few of its tight controls over the economy.
Joe: “Fact is that the only model of capitalism that works is STATE Capitalism. As the US economy proves, finance capitalism always results in war and depression.”
What the hell is “STATE Capitalism?” Further, where’s the evidence that U.S. capitalism “always results in war and depression?” We haven’t had a real depression for roughly 80 years. And that America has fought wars doesn’t mean its economy is the reason for it. Maybe you should look into the actual reasons we went to war and come up with some hard data on this one. You know, FACTS. But as usual, it’s just more drivel from the unpopular “populist.”
Joe: “Let’s not even discuss your quoting the figures from that big GOVERNMENT outfit, the WTO, about what countries are ‘free’ or not.”
The WTO doesn’t put out the report, idiot. Look it up. “Economic Freedom of the World.” Try doing some actual research for once in your life.
Joe: “If China isn’t ‘free’, then your premise that socialism precludes economic progress is dead in the water.”
I never said that a socialist economy could never grow under any circumstances. But I will say that a socialist economy is doomed to fail in the long run, and will consistently underperform compared to a freer economy.
Joe: “In fact, you have much more in common with MARXISM then I do, what with your utopian fantasies of a perfect society where the state withers away. Proof of this is your rigid black and white formula so that anyone who contradicts your facts is a ‘Marxist’.”
Odd, I haven’t called ANYONE a “Marxist.” That’s all YOU do! Further, libertarianism never promises a “perfect society” (reference previous threads herein), and has very little in common with Marxism at all, had you actually bothered to read up on what Marxism believes rather than just using the word as an empty catchall epithet when you have nothing better to say.
Joe: “And like Marxism, ‘Libertarian’ ideas result in constant war and economic dislocation and misery, as well as authoritarian central governments.”
Wow. You don’t even know what “libertarianism” entails either, do you?
Joe: “China IS capitalist…despite your protests to the contrary.”
Based on WHAT evidence? Economic growth, allowance of “entrepreneurs” to join the Party, and that a few “big” corporations are allowed to be private? As I’ve already discussed, these are not proof of a capitalist economy. Capitalism requires far more than this. But hey, capitalism is just your boogeyman anyway. It’s scarier as a figment of your imagination rather than as a defined quantity.
Joe: “Laissez Faire Capitalism (Capitalism without Democratic institutions)…”
See, right there, you completely get it wrong. Laissez-faire capitalism is NOT incompatible with democratic institutions! The point of laissez-faire capitalism is for the government to act only in an enforcement-of-rights context. It’s not an economic system of anarchy like you seem to believe.
You know, maybe your arguments wouldn’t be so laughable, Joe, if you actually spent some effort to learn about the terms you throw around with such wild abandon.
One more before I retire for the weekend…
Joe: “As for your support of unrestrained immigration…well you’ve already proven that your ideas reflect your personal self-interest. You BENEFIT from immigration personally, and are PROTECTED from competition with immigrants because the legal profession is a closed trade union.”
We ALL benefit from immigration personally! All the reports show that immigration is a boon to our economy. That aside, I no longer work for that firm (I now do insurance defense), so I don’t represent immigrants anymore. And your argument is bunk anyway because I was for more immigration long before I became a lawyer. I didn’t require any self-interest or self-protection to come to my ideological conclusion. So, nice try, so sad, but you strike out again.
And again, this “hypocrite” nonsense. A hypocrite says, “Don’t do X,” and then does X. Get it? So for me to be a hypocrite would require that I advocate for more immigration and then take action to kick immigrants out of the country, or something to that effect. Do you get it now? I could refer you to a dictionary, if you’d like. Maybe something with pretty pictures you could color in.
Whew, it’s getting hot in here.
Joe Populist: I agree that libertarians and Marxists are kissin’ cousins. They are both obsessed with economics, contemptuous of practically every other value. They want to “rationalize” individuals and nations out of existence: one by making them subject to the great God Market, the other by substituting the International Dictatorship of the Workers. Neither seems to me a humane philosophy that leaves any room for spiritual and qualitative aspects of life.
James, I’m sorry but you are exactly illustrating my point. You don’t want to deal with quality of life issues or the value of common traditions in discussing immigration. It’s all intellectual abstractions with you: whether immigrants are more likely to vote Republican or Democrat; whether it’s a boon to the economy.
I don’t give a toss whether tens of millions of immigrants will vote for the Tweedle-dee Party or the Tweedle-dum Party. I don’t even care whether they are a “boon” to the economy (although I can refer you to someone who makes a good case that they’re not).
They are helping to make the country a non-country, a balkanized territory of ethnic groups squabbling over who gets the most benefits. They are contributing to overpopulation, crowding, sprawl. They have high crime rates. Their young men live by a code of machismo and prove it by driving while blind drunk. They have already killed quite a few innocent people that way. And so much more.
None of this seems to register on your radar — the unraveling of a national culture and decline of a civil society just isn’t relevant to your world view. And while I don’t know your personal circumstances, I would bet that you are pretty well off, so that you can insulate yourself generally from the negative fallout of mass immigration; and I suspect that you live in an urban area that is already so screwed up from identity politics that you just take that as a norm.
Darby sed: James, I’m sorry but you are exactly illustrating my point….None of this seems to register on your radar — the unraveling of a national culture and decline of a civil society just isn’t relevant to your world view. And while I don’t know your personal circumstances, I would bet that you are pretty well off, so that you can insulate yourself generally from the negative fallout of mass immigration; and I suspect that you live in an urban area that is already so screwed up from identity politics that you just take that as a norm.”
Darby, you’ve got Mr. “Markets” down to a “T”. It’s hard to be civil to someone like Mr. “Markets”, who would sell out his fellow Americans for a pot of gold.
Ironically, all Mr. Market’s posts just prove the points I’m making that unrestrained immigration is an elitist attack on the working folk that built America.
It’s the biggest big government liberal social engineering project by the rich on the working classes since forced busing and affirmative action. And it just proves how vulnerable the so-called “conservative” coalition is—Wall Street and Main Street are at odds on most issues. It could break apart at any moment..it IS breaking up.
I predict a lot of people who have been voting Republican are going to stay home on election day.
Mr. “Markets”: “I never argued for “unrestrained immigration.”
Oh, I was under the immpression you support the guest worker program. Have you changed your views on that.
Mr. Markets: “…how is advocating for more immigration while representing the interests of immigrants makes me a “hypocrite” is anybody’s guess.”
It’s plain for anyone to see. It’s really hard to be civil to a person like you who sells his fellow Americans out for a pot-of-gold!
Mr. Markets: “Polls have ALWAYS showed that Americans are generally skeptical of immigrants… it’s not all about “competition” to determine whether someone likes immigration or not. See Roach, a fellow lawyer, for example.”
Mr. Roach didn’t make a living representing immigrants and enabling undocumented workers—you did. It’s call HYPOCRISY! And you’re clearly guilty of it.
Mr. Markets: “Now when I mention what the ACTUAL Latino vote (without differentiating between the LATINO Indians and the CUBAN Europeans) was, suddenly, oooh!, gotta change that! Now who is really “twisting the facts,” eh? As usual, you don’t have any numbers to back you up one way or the other.
No, I’ve got the EXIT poll data. It’s very simple for an objective person to understand the difference between the Cuban HISPANICS—middle class and upper class fleeing communism—and the Mexican LATINOS—desperately poor, ethnically Indian, and uneducated, fleeing capitalism.
Mr. Markets: “Economic growth, allowance of “entrepreneurs” to join the Party, and that a few “big” corporations are allowed to be private? As I’ve already discussed, these are not proof of a capitalist economy. Capitalism requires far more than this.”
A capitalist economy is an economy where the means of production are privately owned and managed. Whether or not freedom exists is irrelevant.
As I said before, you are FANTASIZING again…it’s a lot of Ayn Rand bull-toss. I really doubt that you believe in this nonsense, you’re just arguing for the position that butters your bread.
tbc…
Mr. Markets: “We ALL benefit from immigration personally! All the reports show that immigration is a boon to our economy.”
No…Krugman and Sammuelson—top economic issues journalists—both agree that immigration from MEXICO is hurting us. They argue that only immigration of highly educated, talented people benefit us. Or immigrants that bring a lot of money to invest.
I’m not sure you understand what we are talking about.
Mr. “Markets”: That aside, I no longer work for that firm (I now do insurance defense), so I don’t represent immigrants anymore. And your argument is bunk anyway because I was for more immigration long before I became a lawyer. I didn’t require any self-interest or self-protection to come to my ideological conclusion. So, nice try, so sad, but you strike out again.”
Oh great. You’ve went from making your pot of gold defending undocumented workers that undercut the American economy to helping insurance companies cheat their clients out of their benefits.
Mr. “Markets”, your admission certainly makes it clear that whatever “Libertarian” position you take, must actually put money in your pocket.
It’s hard to take anyone like you seriously, when you’re personally benefiting from any position you’re arguing from.
What you need to recognize is that the vast majority of WORKING folks have the same right as you do to protect their economic situations. We are the majority, and without the white working class, the Republican Party isn’t a majority party.
Ignore us at your peril.
Mr. Markets: “A hypocrite says, “Don’t do X,” and then does X.”
Hypocrite is defined as a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
You argue for the “rights” of immigrants to come here and work—to the detriment of the people who actually live here—when all along immigration is putting money in your pocket.
Clearly, the more the more you post, the more evidence you provide that you are guilty of hypocrisy.
Darby: “James, I’m sorry but you are exactly illustrating my point. You don’t want to deal with quality of life issues or the value of common traditions in discussing immigration. It’s all intellectual abstractions with you: whether immigrants are more likely to vote Republican or Democrat; whether it’s a boon to the economy.”
Actually, how immigrants vote is precisely what I have said DOESN’T matter. But that aside, improving the economy is not an “abstraction.” It’s money in people’s pockets. Don’t tell me that an economic depression is an “abstraction.” You want the economy doing well. The rising tide does indeed lift all boats. Trying to measure a “spiritual” improvement is far more speculative, and doesn’t put any food on anyone’s table. In fact, “quality of life” IS the economy, for the most part. Don’t pretend it isn’t.
As for “common traditions” and “American culture” and the like, I certainly have not avoided those issues. Refer back to my May 3 post. Specifically: “What cultural conservatives don’t appear to understand is that culture in an open society isn’t static. It never was, never will be.” So far, nobody has been able to refute this. And of course, no one can, because it’s true. We don’t have the same culture today that the Founding Fathers had. Our culture has changed constantly over our history. Technology has changed it, immigration has changed it, wars have changed it, and so forth. If you really want to peg immigration as the big cause of negative changes, you’re going to have to describe them and then prove that these changes are harmful to society. You can’t just say that change is bad, because it obviously is not.
Darby: “They are helping to make the country a non-country, a balkanized territory of ethnic groups squabbling over who gets the most benefits. They are contributing to overpopulation, crowding, sprawl. They have high crime rates. Their young men live by a code of machismo and prove it by driving while blind drunk. They have already killed quite a few innocent people that way. And so much more.”
So you’re proposing that we kick out all of the African-Americans while we’re at it? These are the exact same complaints conservatives have had toward African-Americans, after all. (Not to mention that I find it humorous for conservatives to be criticizing “machismo” when they have revered the “Manly President” Bush and always deride “girly men” and homosexuals.)
Darby: “None of this seems to register on your radar — the unraveling of a national culture and decline of a civil society just isn’t relevant to your world view. And while I don’t know your personal circumstances, I would bet that you are pretty well off, so that you can insulate yourself generally from the negative fallout of mass immigration; and I suspect that you live in an urban area that is already so screwed up from identity politics that you just take that as a norm.”
WHAT “negative fallout” from “mass immigration?” You still have provided nothing there but empty (and speculative) platitudes about “spiritual” and “cultural” stuff that evades any kind of actual scrutiny. Further, I see the effect that immigration has had on our civil society and culture over the history of our country, and it unquestionably has helped us get to be the sole superpower on Earth. You know who frets about “national culture?” The French. They even have a ministry whose job it is to protect the French language. THIS is the sign of a healthy culture? Rather, it is the sign of desperation, of the realization that their culture doesn’t stand up well to competition. Ours does. We incorporate the strengths of a multitude of cultures and make them into our own. That has made us stronger. Why you would want to weaken us by turning us into xenophobes like the French is beyond me.
Joe: “…unrestrained immigration is an elitist attack on the working folk that built America.”
You mean like the immigrant Chinese who built the transnational railroad lines? The imported African slaves that built most of the South? Apparently, in Joe’s world, only Christian white males built anything in America. What a crock.
Joe: “Oh, I was under the immpression you support the guest worker program. Have you changed your views on that.”
No, I haven’t. Apparently, you don’t really know what “unrestrained immigration” entails. Guest worker programs would restrain immigration.
Joe: “Mr. Roach didn’t make a living representing immigrants and enabling undocumented workers—you did. It’s call HYPOCRISY! And you’re clearly guilty of it.”
Again…how? Do you know what a hypocrite is yet? Apparently not, because when you say, “You argue for the ‘rights’ of immigrants to come here and work—to the detriment of the people who actually live here—when all along immigration is putting money in your pocket,” you think that equals hypocrisy. BZZT. First off, immigrants working here aren’t to our detriment, as the increase to our economy proves and you cannot refute. Second, a “false appearance of virtue or religion” is to claim that you have a particular virtue or religious belief and then act in opposition to that. I have not acted in opposition to anything I have stood for. I say that immigration is good, and I have helped immigrants with their legal problems. No contradiction there. But yet, it seems like Joe has mastered only one arrow in his rhetorical quiver, and to give that up would be tantamount to him sitting silent. Better to hurl the epithet rather than be accurate, isn’t it, Joe?
Joe: “I’ve got the EXIT poll data. It’s very simple for an objective person to understand the difference between the Cuban HISPANICS—middle class and upper class fleeing communism—and the Mexican LATINOS…”
Except you did not distinguish in your original statement, and I addressed that statement. You are playing revisionist history. Go back and read your own writing, fool. Further, you seem to be arguing that exit poll data is more meaningful than ACTUAL VOTING RESULTS when it comes to seeing how Latinos vote. Are you serious? You can’t be this dumb.
Joe: “A capitalist economy is an economy where the means of production are privately owned and managed. Whether or not freedom exists is irrelevant.”
Wait, nevermind. You are this dumb. How can you have private management without freedom? If there is no freedom, private actors cannot act as they choose and they have to instead act only as public actors, else they get thrown in jail. At least read a little on what capitalism entails: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Joe: “No…Krugman and Sammuelson—top economic issues journalists—both agree that immigration from MEXICO is hurting us. They argue that only immigration of highly educated, talented people benefit us. Or immigrants that bring a lot of money to invest.”
Except that the economic reports all show that they are wrong. I have already provided one such report above. This is getting tiresome.
Joe: “It’s hard to take anyone like you seriously, when you’re personally benefiting from any position you’re arguing from.”
It’s hard to take anyone like you seriously when you don’t have the foggiest idea about what it is you’re saying, and haven’t spent ten seconds to do any actual research on anything in your life. That said, you’re just trying to avoid the merits of my argument, as usual. Drug legalization wouldn’t personally benefit me, but I have (qualified) support for it. Opposing smoking bans doesn’t affect me in the slightest, since I don’t smoke, but I oppose them anyway. Advocating that we protect speech that offends me, or political speech that I think is absolutely wrong, or all sorts of other things, doesn’t benefit me. But I do it anyway.
Joe: “What you need to recognize is that the vast majority of WORKING folks have the same right as you do to protect their economic situations. We are the majority, and without the white working class, the Republican Party isn’t a majority party.”
What do you mean “we,” white man? How about you go protect your economic situation by being competitive? Stop blaming me for your problems.