Conservative wins close Presidential election

[Bill from NYC]

It is to laugh. First, since they know that everyone will know that they are schilling for big business, they just state it up front and then weakly try to deny that's the only reason and throw in some emotional blather about 'human dignity' to further deflect the criticism. Nice try, but try and sell that schit to the tourists.

721387[/snapback]

 

Nice post Gavin, as usual. Syracuse Grads are pretty smart, or so it seems.

 

As a trade unionist (which probably qualifies me a a "bad guy" of sorts on this board), I have no friggin idea why many union leaders sanction this ongoing invasion of our country. Maybe too many of these guys are fat cats, who, like the ultra-rich businessmen, are insulated from the cost that comes with the influx of illegal aliens.

Amazing that comments are tossed in such as "brown skin" and "human dignity," is it not? It is taking a page right out of the whining, guilt trip tossing liberal book, no?

 

I would like someone....anyone to explain to me why, if we promptly nationalize 12,000,000 invaders, this will stop the next phase of the invasion. The 12 mil, when entitled to benefits, minimum wage, safety regulations, etc., will be forced out of jobs and become a permanent underclass. Of course, when they are burning down NYC and LA (much like Paris), those who can afford it can simply steer clear of those that they deep down consider to be inferior beings, meant for them to exploit and working people to finance.

They will have the luxury of waiting for police officers to quell such disturbances at the risk of life and limb, while there families lay in wait. Bunch of pu$$ies!

 

Funny thing is that I am a fan of hispanics and their culture. My wife and children are hispanic. That should say it all.

This is not a "brown skin," hispanic, nor "human dignity" issue. This is about working people being taxed to fund an invasion of the United States of America.

 

Once again, great post!

[GG]

It is to laugh. First, since they know that everyone will know that they are schilling for big business, they just state it up front and then weakly try to deny that's the only reason and throw in some emotional blather about 'human dignity' to further deflect the criticism. Nice try, but try and sell that schit to the tourists.

 

Second, play the 'Ronald Reagan Ace-In-The-Hole' card to further make conservatives ashamed to be against illegal-immigration/amnesty. They fail to mention that the 1986 Immigration plan Reagan signed was a disasterous failure. Reagan was if anything a pragmatist and would likely be rethinking his stance on illegal immigration today.

 

God forbid that WSJ would take a stand on an economic issue. (BTW, if you're going to slam them, at least get the target right. It's not big business that benefits from immigrant labor, but smaller local businesses. But don't let that tidbit get in the way of your rant.)

 

Thankfully, we have Dr. Sowell who can educate the WSJ editorial page on imigration's historical impact to USA's GDP. I'm glad that he's using clear language that everyone can understand. Maybe for extra emphasis, he can employ JP-Era's skills (just be sure he uses a lot of brown crayons for emphasis).

 

What the hell kind of a comparison does Sowell think he's using in relating illegals to 12 million US soldiers going to war? Is he saying that the current economy should mirror a full wartime economy? His solution for eliminating the economic draw to the illegals is by throwing the women and teens into the jobs curently held by illegals? Great plan, except that women and teens are probably busy doing something else. If illegals are taking jobs from Americans, why is this country at full employment? Whose jobs are they taking?

 

Or could it be that WSJ has actually taken the time to look at the data and facts on immigration and try to come up with a reasonable solution. Funny you & Bill smirk at WSJ's references to human dignity, yet Sowell does nothing more than regurgitate the scare tactics.

 

Thanks for providing the link to the CIS site. I wonder if you caught this nugget of a gross contradiction:

 

While it might be supposed that the increase in illegal immigration was caused only by the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) provisions of the 1986 amnesty, the INS report indicates that this was not the case. Figures in the report itself show that illegal immigration surged more dramatically from countries other than Mexico. Since the vast majority of those amnestied under SAW were from Mexico, the increase should have been mostly Mexican if the SAW provision had been responsible for the surge.

 

So which is it, Mexicans or someone else? If Reagan disasterously failed in his 1986 immigration plan, why aren't the illegals the spawn of the agri workers from 20 years ago? And why do people keep bringing up Mexicans, when according to your link, Mexicans really aren't the problem?

 

Could it be that the booming economy of the last 20 years has led to an overall shortage of low skilled workers? Enter Dr. Sowell again, who espouses the solution to fill the unskilled labor pool is to stock it with better skilled and educated US nationals. Great plan! I wonder where he got his MBA.

 

What Dr. Sowell clearly misses, and WSJ does not, is the basic nature of what the USA is, and how it got this way. That is why they refer to the human dignity of being able to control your destiny and improve your lot in life, regardless of the quirk of being born in the wrong place.

 

Bill, it's great that you are proud of your wife's hispanic heritage. But, would you think differently of her had she been born on an island a few miles to the west? Would your sweep of illegals include the bars in Woodside?

 

Right now, many in the third world are paying the price for being colonized by the wrong European country. While it is not the USA's responsibility to right that historical anomaly, it is the right thing to do help them out on the right path (if they want to), and the solutions aren't open immigration, but free trade and greater economic ties. You see it as lining the pockets of the ultra rich, I see it as the way to improve the lives of ordinary Americans and foreigners.

 

But, there are always going to be people who turn the blinders on once the boat has docked on Ellis Island. It shouldn't take much fact digging to see that every single immigration wave in the US has accompanied a major economic expansion. This time it's no different.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

God forbid that WSJ would take a stand on an economic issue. (BTW, if you're going to slam them, at least get the target right.  It's not big business that benefits from immigrant labor, but smaller local businesses.  But don't let that tidbit get in the way of your rant.)

 

Big business does not necessarily mean big corporations, but can also describe an industry. The agricultural industry can be described as big business. The building industry is big business. Both industries benefit from illegal immigration. Further, what little money the illegals do have that they don't send home gets spent in places like Walmart or McDonalds or some other 'Big Business'. But likewise, don't let common sense get in the way of your splitting hairs.

 

Thankfully, we have Dr. Sowell who can educate the WSJ editorial page on imigration's historical impact to USA's GDP.  I'm glad that he's using clear language that everyone can understand.  Maybe for extra emphasis, he can employ JP-Era's skills (just be sure he uses a lot of brown crayons for emphasis). 

 

Why don't you post some links educating us on the impact to USA GDP, since the WSJ fails to do so in the editorial. Also factor in your analysis the percentage of the budget social services comprised at each 'historical impact' please. Also how about including figures on the middle class at each time. Thanks!

 

What the hell kind of a comparison does Sowell think he's using in relating illegals to 12 million US soldiers going to war?  Is he saying that the current economy should mirror a full wartime economy?  His solution for eliminating the economic draw to the illegals is by throwing the women and teens into the jobs curently held by illegals?  Great plan, except that women and teens are probably busy doing something else.  If illegals are taking jobs from Americans, why is this country at full employment?  Whose jobs are they taking?

 

From what I understand, employment figures should be taken with a grain of salt. People filing for unemployment can drop while the total number of unemployed can go up, because an x amount of people who were filing have their benefits expire and then fall off the grid.

 

Or could it be that WSJ has actually taken the time to look at the data and facts on immigration and try to come up with a reasonable solution.  Funny you & Bill smirk at WSJ's references to human dignity, yet Sowell does nothing more than regurgitate the scare tactics.

 

Again, link to the data. Should we all just accept your numbers because you say so? And I smirk at their reference's to human dignity because they're full of bull sh-- and you know it. Further, does the human dignity of the illegal immigrant automatically trump the human dignity of the taxpaying citizen? Pardon me for thinking charity starts at home. Nice ad hominem at Sowell, BTW. Exactly what are the scare tactics he is using and why are they wrong?

 

 

Thanks for providing the link to the CIS site.  I wonder if you caught this nugget of a gross contradiction:

 

While it might be supposed that the increase in illegal immigration was caused only by the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) provisions of the 1986 amnesty, the INS report indicates that this was not the case. Figures in the report itself show that illegal immigration surged more dramatically from countries other than Mexico. Since the vast majority of those amnestied under SAW were from Mexico, the increase should have been mostly Mexican if the SAW provision had been responsible for the surge.

 

One year Mexico gives us 1,000,000 illegal immigrants and let's say, Chile, gives us 75,000. 5 years later, Mexico gives us 1,500,000 illegal immigrants and Chile gives us 250,000. Who had the biggest surge as a percentage and why should I care when the vast majority come from one certain country anyway? Since you have now confirmed that the CIS cite is credible, how's about this little factoid-

 

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

So which is it, Mexicans or someone else?  If Reagan disasterously failed in his 1986 immigration plan, why aren't the illegals the spawn of the agri workers from 20 years ago?  And why do people keep bringing up Mexicans, when according to your link, Mexicans really aren't the problem?

 

If you don't think Mexicans are a significant factor in the illegal immigration problem then there really isn't much then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Hell, I'm not even sure what you mean with 'spawn of the agri workers'. Is that some new movie coming out?

 

Could it be that the booming economy of the last 20 years has led to an overall shortage of low skilled workers?  Enter Dr. Sowell again, who espouses the solution to fill the unskilled labor pool is to stock it with better skilled and educated US nationals.  Great plan!  I wonder where he got his MBA.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...l/archive.shtml

 

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

 

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

 

Uhh, where did you get your MBA?

 

What Dr. Sowell clearly misses, and WSJ does not, is the basic nature of what the USA is, and how it got this way.  That is why they refer to the human dignity of being able to control your destiny and improve your lot in life, regardless of the quirk of being born in the wrong place.

 

What you and the other uber capitalists miss, as well as the WSJ, is that nothing lasts forever, nor are all the conditions the same with each passing era. You really think your growth models are set in stone? I'm all for people improving their lot in life...legally. If your really all suzy sunshine on this issue then is it reasonable to assume you're a One-Worlder? Shouldn't someone run the whole show so that no one even has the unfortunate circumstance to be born in the wrong place? Surely the United States of Earth sounds appealing, no?

 

Bill, it's great that you are proud of your wife's hispanic heritage.  But, would you think differently of her had she been born on an island a few miles to the west?  Would your sweep of illegals include the bars in Woodside?

 

Right now, many in the third world are paying the price for being colonized by the wrong European country.  While it is not the USA's responsibility to right that historical anomaly, it is the right thing to do help them out on the right path (if they want to), and the solutions aren't open immigration, but free trade and greater economic ties.  You see it as lining the pockets of the ultra rich, I see it as the way to improve the lives of ordinary Americans and foreigners.

 

But, there are always going to be people who turn the blinders on once the boat has docked on Ellis Island.  It shouldn't take much fact digging to see that every single immigration wave in the US has accompanied a major economic expansion.  This time it's no different.

722446[/snapback]

 

What's that disclaimer, 'Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Earnings'? Something like that. Are you sure that your growth model with regards to immigration, illegal and otherwise, will hold true forever and ever amen? And what do your models say about all this with regards to the middle class? More from the CIS-

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/hispanicmc/toc.html

 

Most studies do find a decline in the size of the middle class. Levy (1998) used a general income category of $30,000 to $80,000 for ages 25-54 to capture prime earning years and showed that between 1973 and 1996 white non-Hispanic middle income families decreased from 66 to 55 percent. Hispanic middle income families declined from 51 to 39 percent. At the same time, the groups in poverty and at the upper income levels increased. Overall, Levy finds that the income distribution is more spread out, the middle class is “squeezed” and that there is an increasing gap between rich and poor. An outcome of this gap is a decreasing ability to enter the homeowner market.

 

Both anecdotal and census data on incomes suggest that the upward trend in incomes and wealth may be far less certain than just two decades ago. The ingrained view that new entrants to the labor market would improve on their parent’s position may no longer be true. Newman (1994) describes the anxiety of the baby-boomers who are having more difficulty moving up the economic ladder and in turn are now concerned about whether they will be able to provide more for their children than their parents did for them. There is concern that the children of the baby boomers will have to settle for less, for poorer schools and residence in less affluent communities. Some baby boomers with good jobs and often two incomes are worrying about whether they can support the life style they grew up with.

 

Overall, the consumption package that we associate with the middle class is becoming less affordable. Housing, health care, and education are increasingly expensive (private school costs are now a significant part of the middle class life style in metropolitan areas where the public schools have declined in prestige and quality). A major part of the increased cost of the middle class package is the costs of housing. Younger households are having difficulty in entering the owner market. There has been an approximately 7 to 8 percent drop in the ownership rate, and overall the age profile of homeowners moved up during the 1970s and 1980s. Married couples entering the housing market in the 1990s are older than those who entered the market three decades ago, a further indication that it takes longer to achieve the financial security that makes ownership feasible.

 

It is in this context of a squeeze on middle incomes that we are experiencing the largest immigration flows since the turn of the last century and that we are about to assimilate the newest and largest wave of immigrants since that time. But that assimilation will occur in a very different social milieu than even three decades ago. While the American myth of hard work and successful outcomes, rising with merit from humble beginnings is still a central part of the American ethos, the emphasis on individualism and the move to less government has created a changed political and social climate. The rise in inequality, reduced welfare benefits and less social support services will undoubtedly influence the process of assimilation, but in just what way is not at all clear. In addition, the last wave of immigrants was assimilated over a three-decade period of expanding social intervention. The context is different at the beginning of the 21st century.

 

Historically, wealth concentration has never been good for a nation and has almost always led to social breakdown and tyranny. I'm not saying we're in danger of that happening here in short term necessarily, but that if we don't start thinking about things in the long term then we could in trouble. If we disagree so be it, you vote your way and I mine.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Historically, wealth concentration has never been good for a nation and has almost always led to social breakdown and tyranny. I'm not saying we're in danger of that happening here in short term necessarily, but that if we don't start thinking about things in the long term then we could in trouble. If we disagree so be it, you vote your way and I mine.

722575[/snapback]

 

I can tell you've been to college recently. So tell me, Herr Marx, what is the solution? Shall we tax the "rich" at 75% to fund the "poor"?

[Gavin in Va Beach]

I can tell you've been to college recently. So tell me, Herr Marx, what is the solution? Shall we tax the "rich" at 75% to fund the "poor"?

722589[/snapback]

 

Why do you have to assume it has to be one extreme or the other? There's no frickin' way I want government to be in control of income redistribution. I didn't let my marxist professor get away with any of his wildass assertions unchallenged. His argument usually devolved into something along the lines of 'well, pure marxism has never really been tried'... Duh, that's because it's impossible.

 

I'm not fighting for the poor, I'm fighting for the middle class!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Why do you have to assume it has to be one extreme or the other? There's no frickin' way I want government to be in control of income redistribution. I didn't let my marxist professor get away with any of his wildass assertions unchallenged. His argument usually devolved into something along the lines of 'well, pure marxism has never really been tried'...   Duh, that's because it's impossible.

 

I'm not fighting for the poor, I'm fighting for the middle class! 

722616[/snapback]

 

Same difference. We COULD operate on the Euro model of lifetime health-care, guaranteed unemployment benefits, massive work holidays, etc..etc.. but then we'd be...Euros.

 

That's waht it sounds like you're advocating. But always remember...discouraging excellence breeds malaise and mediocrity.

[GG]

Big business does not necessarily mean big corporations, but can also describe an industry. The agricultural industry can be described as big business. The building industry is big business. Both industries benefit from illegal immigration. Further, what little money the illegals do have that they don't send home gets spent in places like Walmart or McDonalds or some other 'Big Business'. But likewise, don't let common sense get in the way of your splitting hairs.

Nice to see more rising protectors of the middle class (whatever that means).

 

Nice shifting definitions btw. Instead of the usual arguments against lining the pockets of the fat corporate cats, we're now railing against lining the pockets of the little or medium cats, who combined make one big fat corporate cat. m'kay.

 

It never dawned on me that immigrants spending money in the local economies was bad for America. I'll need to revisit my finance books. Thanks for the lesson. I'll also have to revisit how America has been hurt by the industries that you mention over the past decade. Maybe if they falter, rlflutie will get his wish of a market crash. hat will learn everyone.

 

Why don't you post some links educating us on the impact to USA GDP, since the WSJ fails to do so in the editorial. Also factor in your analysis the percentage of the budget social services comprised at each 'historical impact' please. Also how about including figures on the middle class at each time. Thanks!

 

There's that defense of the middle class. From WSJ a few days ago:

The major worry of most workers today is, of course, that their take-home pay isn't keeping pace with the cost of college tuition, health care or filling up the gas tank. However, even here there is some good news. Wages rose 4.6% in this year's second quarter, the fastest quarterly pace since 1997. Wages tend to grow faster in the mature stages of an expansion when the labor market gets tight and employers are willing to spend more to retain scarce talent. Business profits and productivity have both been growing smartly, and historically those have also anticipated wage gains.

 

The slow pace of wage growth has been used in some quarters to describe this expansion as the poor cousin of the go-go 1990s. But that also isn't accurate, according to a new analysis of compensation trends by the Treasury Department. As the nearby table shows, wages after inflation rose by 0.7% in the 62 months from the peak of the last business expansion in March 2001 through this May. But that is still better than the 1.5% decline in real wages over a comparable 62-month period in the first half of 1990s.

 

The same analysis finds a 7.4% gain in total worker compensation (wages and benefits) after inflation in the current expansion, much higher than the 2% gain over the same stage of the business cycle in the 1990s. Gains in median household net worth have also been higher, largely because of increased housing values.

 

As to the impact on immigration on GDP, the best proxy you can use is the rate of growth of US economy and GDP/capita. It's nice that the CIS folks compile the data on the cost of immigration, without accounting for the benefits. So let's have a finance lesson.

 

US has a huge lead among peer developed countries in GDP/capita by at least 30% ($40k/capita vs $28k/capita). While you can't (and shouldn't) draw a direct parallel between immigration & US GDP, they are related to the major trend of USA's fabric to embrace capitalism and let the market decide the best allocation of the resources.

 

Since your recent rhetoric espouses adopting a European model of protecting the middle class, you should also be prepared for the consequences of slowing down the economic growth here to mirror the social protections of Europe. (I know that you probably will want your cake of having the high GDP while utilizing European protection systems, but you can't have that, because the European model does not allow for the growth, and capital will quickly flee causing a not so mild recession.)

 

Equating our GDP to Europe should lead to the reduction of our GDP by a mere $3.7 trillion. That number happens to be higher than the GDP of every other nation, except for Japan. That's a $670 billion ANNUAL hit to the treasury. How do you think the middle class would fare in that case?

 

CIS & Sowells of the world like to ignore capital markets from the fear campaigns, because they know that it would undermine their reasoning. The US economy and capital markets already feed the world, and any cries about the demise of the middle class are greatly eggagerated (more below)

 

From what I understand, employment figures should be taken with a grain of salt. People filing for unemployment can drop while the total number of unemployed can go up, because an x amount of people who were filing have their benefits expire and then fall off the grid.

That argument can be used in a short term. However, when you have a persistent 4.5% unemployment rate, it's not because people are not qualifying for benefits anymore, it's because the market is absorbing them. The unemployment stats also don't count the large number of people who choose to work for themselves and never show up in the figures.

 

Again, link to the data. Should we all just accept your numbers because you say so? And I smirk at their reference's to human dignity because they're full of bull sh-- and you know it. Further, does the human dignity of the illegal immigrant automatically trump the human dignity of the taxpaying citizen? Pardon me for thinking charity starts at home. Nice ad hominem at Sowell, BTW. Exactly what are the scare tactics he is using and why are they wrong?

The brown reference was to the opposition to the brown immigrants, since no one has an issue with non-brown immigrants. Even you used an example of Chile, instead of China, which probably accounts for a very high illegal population.

 

Uhh, where did you get your MBA?

Embarrasingly, same place as Sowell, although apparently I paid more attention in finance class.

 

What you and the other uber capitalists miss, as well as the WSJ, is that nothing lasts forever, nor are all the conditions the same with each passing era. You really think your growth models are set in stone? I'm all for people improving their lot in life...legally. If your really all suzy sunshine on this issue then is it reasonable to assume you're a One-Worlder? Shouldn't someone run the whole show so that no one even has the unfortunate circumstance to be born in the wrong place? Surely the United States of Earth sounds appealing, no?

 

What's that disclaimer, 'Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Earnings'? Something like that. Are you sure that your growth model with regards to immigration, illegal and otherwise, will hold true forever and ever amen? And what do your models say about all this with regards to the middle class?

 

Yeah, the US of E sounds good in theory, but it will be a while until it's in place, and there's a hell of a lot of growth left in the balance. You sound like the director of the patent office in 1900, "What do we need more patents for? Everything that could be invented, already has been."

 

"Our" growth models are set in stone solely because capitalism is a destructive force, and growth in one area inevitably picks up the losses in a dying area. So far, capitalism has managed to outlast the other pet theories of the 19th century, and has seen the US standard of living climb over the period.

 

And yes, those growth models have held up pretty well in the German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Japanese, Chinese and the various Latino immigrations to date. Every sign of the apocalypse predicted by the opponents has been shattered by the successive generation of the immigrants' children. I don't imagine that CIS or Sowell mention that over 60% of winners of major high school science & math competitions are immigrants or children of immigrants? LINKY

 

And the models don't specify which class benefits, because everyone benefits. Naturally, populists like you will still have a beef, because not all classes benefit equally. But, I could have sworn that you also said in this thread that you don't believe in income redistribution, so I'm left scratching my head at the dichotomy. I'm also puzzled in how you intend to solve the middle class crisis by pushing people into low paid unskilled work?

 

More from the CIS-

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/hispanicmc/toc.html

Most studies do find a decline in the size of the middle class. Levy (1998) used a general income category of $30,000 to $80,000 for ages 25-54 to capture prime earning years and showed that between 1973 and 1996 white non-Hispanic middle income families decreased from 66 to 55 percent. Hispanic middle income families declined from 51 to 39 percent. At the same time, the groups in poverty and at the upper income levels increased. Overall, Levy finds that the income distribution is more spread out, the middle class is “squeezed” and that there is an increasing gap between rich and poor. An outcome of this gap is a decreasing ability to enter the homeowner market.

Of course, a large influx of immigrants over this period would sway the data in a major way, because immigrants are usually at or below the poverty line. I don't suppose Levy did a study detailing the income migration of the people and their children who were at the poverty level in the periods he cited.

 

The rest of the article is nothing but humorous. To slam home ownership by the middle class, he reverts to the '70s and '80s stats? And what exactly were mortgage rates back then? Who the hell has been responsible for the housing price run up in the last 6 years? The corporate fat cats?

 

Oh, I know, the middle class is being squeezed out of the housing market now. No sh sherlock, everyone is getting squeezed out of the housing market now, after the crazy run up.

 

But this one really got me:

There is concern that the children of the baby boomers will have to settle for less, for poorer schools and residence in less affluent communities. Some baby boomers with good jobs and often two incomes are worrying about whether they can support the life style they grew up with. 

 

Overall, the consumption package that we associate with the middle class is becoming less affordable. Housing, health care, and education are increasingly expensive (private school costs are now a significant part of the middle class life style in metropolitan areas where the public schools have declined in prestige and quality).

WTF kind of a definition of middle class is this? In what parallel universe does middle class equate to private schools and affluent neighborhoods? Only in America do you redefine middle class, and then rail that the middle class is being squeezed out of the upper class. If Levy defines middle class as $30K to $80K, tell me what kind of private school that would buy now, or even 30 years ago?

 

It is in this context of a squeeze on middle incomes that we are experiencing the largest immigration flows since the turn of the last century and that we are about to assimilate the newest and largest wave of immigrants since that time. But that assimilation will occur in a very different social milieu than even three decades ago. While the American myth of hard work and successful outcomes, rising with merit from humble beginnings is still a central part of the American ethos, the emphasis on individualism and the move to less government has created a changed political and social climate. The rise in inequality, reduced welfare benefits and less social support services will undoubtedly influence the process of assimilation, but in just what way is not at all clear. In addition, the last wave of immigrants was assimilated over a three-decade period of expanding social intervention. The context is different at the beginning of the 21st century. 

So we're in for the same framework as the huge wave of immigrants who successfully assimilated at the turn of the last century. Although past performance is no indication of future results, it provides the best basis to forecast the future outcome.

 

Historically, wealth concentration has never been good for a nation and has almost always led to social breakdown and tyranny. I'm not saying we're in danger of that happening here in short term necessarily, but that if we don't start thinking about things in the long term then we could in trouble. If we disagree so be it, you vote your way and I mine.

Hey let's throw in another Marxist soundbite. What wealth concentration? The one that shows that top 10% owns 70% of private wealth? High number indeed. But since you're worried about trends, compare that to the stats 50-100 years ago and see where the numbers were.

[Bill from NYC]

Bill, it's great that you are proud of your wife's hispanic heritage.  But, would you think differently of her had she been born on an island a few miles to the west?  Would your sweep of illegals include the bars in Woodside?

722446[/snapback]

 

>>>>>Bill, it's great that you are proud of your wife's hispanic heritage.<<<<

 

Thanks. Seriously.

 

>>>>>But, would you think differently of her had she been born on an island a few miles to the west?<<<<<

 

Gerry, imo you are a really good and smart person. It was a great pleasure to meet you at RWS. This is why I don't think that you see the very racism/predujice that seems to be inherent in this question that you seem to imply that I in fact hold.

Do you think that I married my wife because I was excited by her culture? My friend, I think that both of us know that this makes no sense. She was (and still is after 3 kids) 5'9"/128. She is also smart, kind, and has countless other attributes.

If your wife happens to be Italian, could you imagine me asking you if you would have loved her if she was say Croatian. I would never think to ask a question like that Bro.

Now, I DO like the culture, but I was a young, single cop in Midtown Manhattan. Forgive me if I boast, but please believe that my choices were really far from limited.

 

>>>>>Would your sweep of illegals include the bars in Woodside?<<<<<

 

Yes, of course. I don't 100% understand why you even ask me this. Do you think that I am a racist? Or a white supremicist? I simply want what is best for my family. I am against paying taxes to support those who invade us. This is a simple concept. It has nothing to do with hate, predjudice, etc. I want more for my children. They are great kids, and I want to give all I can to them, rather than pay for anchor babies.

 

C'mon Brother!

[GG]

Gerry, imo you are a really good and smart person. It was a great pleasure to meet you at RWS. This is why I don't think that you see the very racism/predujice that seems to be inherent in this question that you seem to imply that I in fact hold.

Do you think that I married my wife because I was excited by her culture? My friend, I think that both of us know that this makes no sense.    She was (and still is after 3 kids) 5'9"/128. She is also smart, kind, and has countless other attributes.

If your wife happens to be Italian, could you imagine me asking you if you would have loved her if she was say Croatian. I would never think to ask a question like that Bro.

Now, I DO like the culture, but I was a young, single cop in Midtown Manhattan. Forgive me if I boast, but please believe that my choices were really far from limited. 

 

I think you misunderstood my point. It's great that you embrace the latino in your wife. I believe you mentioned that your wife is Puerto Rican, right? My point is that her family could move to NYC without any problems, because it's a US territory.

 

Now compare her to a long lost cousin who may have happened to have been born in the Dominican Rep or even Mexico. Suddenly, the situation is drastically different for the two families.

 

But to me, there's not much difference in what they would want out of life, except it's easier for one because one family can get an easy ticket to the US, the other one can not. That's the human dignity that I'm talking about. There's no easy fix, but I also believe that it's something that we should try to fix.

 

Yes, of course. I don't 100% understand why you even ask me this. Do you think that I am a racist? Or a white supremicist? I simply want what is best for my family. I am against paying taxes to support those who invade us. This is a simple concept. It has nothing to do with hate, predjudice, etc. I want more for my children. They are great kids, and I want to give all I can to them, rather than pay for anchor babies.

 

722806[/snapback]

 

I don't think you're a racist, but you seem to fall for the rhetoric that strikes directly at Mexican fearmongering. While there probably are instances of women crossing the country to have babies here, you can rest assured that the vast majority of the 11 million or so illegals do not come here to give birth, nor are a net drain on the economy or your taxes.

[Orton's Arm]

The WSJ rhetoric may seem persuasive to anyone who hasn't thought deeply about the issue of immigration. As is generally the case with those who write for the WSJ, the author of that particular article apparently understood little beyond the field of economics. More specifically, the author understood very little even about economics, except the things which fit into his Milton Friedman-inspired framework. To someone wholly indoctrinated by this way of thinking, every problem is caused by needless government intervention, and every solution involves letting the market decide.

 

Certainly, there have been many problems created by needless government interventions. But if one's framework allows one to only see this category of problem, it will be impossible to perceive problems or solutions that fail to fit this framework.

 

The root cause of the immigration crisis is the Third World population boom. This population boom has caused many to be born into poverty, it's caused rainforests and other habitats to be destroyed, it's caused people to live in polluted and dingy cities. It's also responsible for the tidal wave of Third World immigrants flooding this country.

 

The WSJ article suggests no solution to this problem because the author can't even see that there is a problem! The Third World population boom wasn't caused by misguided government regulation, so it's not the type of problem a Friedman-inspired author would see. Blind to the root cause of the immigration tidal wave, the author unwittingly suggests measures which would make it easier for Third World nations to continue to have high birthrates. Any nation foolish enough to implement a WSJ-inspired immigration policy would find itself overwhelmed by Third World immigrants, and would quickly become part of the Third World.

 

It's imperative the U.S. do four things:

1. Make an actual effort at border security

2. Begin the long, slow process of deporting the illegals already here

3. Reform its immigration policy in light of the fact this country is no longer in a position to benefit from raw population growth

4. Provide Third World nations with birth control measures to help them deal with their population crisis.

 

By implementing these four steps, we'd be protecting our own country from becoming a Third World nation, while at the same time we'd be helping Third World nations become wealthier, less polluted, and more pleasant places in which to live. As an added bonus, we'd be helping to save the planet from ecological catastrophe.