Obama on Immigration: Election Time Again

    By Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:59am |

    I guess with Obama's speech on immigration, it's officially election season, trying to win the hearts and minds of the Hispanic bloc.

    You'd think in a serious grownup universe with unemployment edging back up from 8.8% to 9.0% last month, that we'd be focusing on a jobs program - even one that helps legal Hispanics.

    Instead our priority is 1) re-election and 2) codifying existing illegals.

    A lot of hot air about how 25% of American tech companies founded by immigrants - without looking at the reality behind those immigrants - e.g. Yahoo, a French-born son of a surgeon and Sorbonne-trained academic. Intel - 1/3 immigrant - Andy Grove, coming out of Hungarian high schools where Soviet-backed math and engineering skills extremely strong. Google - 1/2 immigrant - son & grandson of Russian mathematicians. Only 1 - Jerry Yang from Taiwan as 1/2 of Yahoo - seems like a pull-up-by-own-bootstraps type beginning as a 6-year-old with a single English-teacher parent.

    To be blunt, there will likely not be a lot of high-tech startups coming out of the batch of Mexican immigrants we're discussing, certainly not the grownups. To use this as the excuse for whatever policy is disingenuous. Einstein was an immigrant, sure, but a world class physicist and mathematician out of Germany/Switzerland's best academic system brought to the US at the height of his career.

    That doesn't mean Mexican immigrants won't create good businesses in areas they work in, or that kids of any ethnic group won't study hard and become successful in their chosen careers.

    But we're ignoring basic reasons why immigration worked in different periods, and just presuming it's a success. What happens when the illegal immigrants are made legal? Why they'll start competing for jobs they couldn't compete for before. Which will then affect other legals in the same wage bracket, and lower wages and increase unemployment.

    Seems we could focus on creating a few more jobs right now, Mr. President, and save the hope for later. In fact, if you paid attention to those 9% unemployed, perhaps that could make a base for your re-election.

    Update: yuck, I didn't realize Obama referenced Rupert Murdoch as an immigrant success. Of course the 56-year-old Murdoch had been owner of Star and the New York Post for 10 years previous when he became a US citizen just so he could buy Fox. (foreigners weren't allowed to own broadcast TV stations). Yeah, the perfect example for immigration policy - perhaps we could require every immigrant to fork over $10 million for citizenship.

    Comments

    I pretty much like the plan, and others make good cases about the economic benefits of allowing paths to citizenship, but we seem to disagree on that, and all I could do is parrot others' thinking, so....

    But that it's a re-election tactic is clear, and may backfire.  The President told us that WE would need to drive the push in Congress's direction, AND told us to sign up at whitehouse.gov, which then means you get solicited for contributions. 

     Rep. Luis Gutierrez had said a day or two earlier that any reform was soooo destined to fail that he didn't even want Obama getting people's hopes up; today he is supportive, but what's he gonna say?

    With all the activism to push the DREAM Act, did the Prez help?  I can't remember that he did. 

    I read commentary, too, that while he was in one of the poorest cities in the US, he didn't mention anything about solving that, or the Maquiadora issue.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:40am

    Yeah, someone at FDL noted the maquiladora across the river having the jobs, while El Paso had 25% or so in poverty.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:55am

    To be blunt, there will likely not be a lot of high-tech startups coming out of the batch of Mexican immigrants we're discussing, certainly not the grownups. To use this as the excuse for whatever policy is disingenuous

    Why?

    My grandfather arrived here at 12 . Speaking only Portugese not Spanish but that was hardly a plus. And when he died  was chairman of the draft board (that drafted me) a director of the local bank and the operator of three small business providing employment.. One ,the start up of the town's first movie theatre. In 1930.When it was sort of high tech, and risky.

    Pretty much in line with

    That doesn't mean Mexican immigrants won't create good businesses in areas they work in, or that kids of any ethnic group won't study hard and become successful  in their chosen careers

    So what was the point of the first statement.? Should Obama have said

     I know these immigrants are going to work at shit jobs.

    What purpose would that have served?

    Granted unlike me you  think  Obama could have implemented more progressive policies but it's beneath you to let that result in  knee jerk derison of his every 'motherhood and god' statement..He's a politician making polical noises and employing political tactics. If you're looking for deep philosophical statements, try the Union Theological Seminary. No offence intended to that excellent institution but before a politician can change the world she has to get elected. Goes with the territory.Sort of like if a maiden wants to marry a prince first she has to kiss a lot of toads.


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:06am

    "He's a politician making polical noises and employing political tactics. If you're looking for deep philosophical statements, try the Union Theological Seminary. No offence intended to that excellent institution but before a politician can change the world she has to get elected."

    Nice.


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:13am

    Clever, but didn't Obama get elected once?

    Quite frankly, I think having a robust economy with more jobs is a clearer path to re-election than promising people some pipe-dream.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:57am

     I think having a robust economy with more jobs is a clearer path to re-election than promising people some pipe-dream.

    One doesn't exclude the other. As you know.


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:41am

    Then get the robust economy first then we'll talk about allowing more workers.

    Until then, Obama needs to stop pandering.

    Displaced American workers can vote , Illegals cant vote (or can they?)  Obama think about the LEGAL VOTERS


    by Resistance on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 7:37am

    Indeed. And then once elected, before changing the world they must ensure that nothing occurs that would endanger re-election. How could they possibly be expected to change the world while holding elected office, you silly people? They'll have to RUN AGAIN to hold it! Plebes. How did the great, wise Flavius end up surrounded by all these fools that can't see the REALITY of how to REALLY enact change?

    It's easy guys. Follow the Flavius method and we'll erase all the damage "Done by Bush" easily in just under 163 years:

    Step 1 - place your politicians political ambition above the good of the Nation

    Step 2 - promptly ignore anything that politician actually does and support their every move.

    Step 3 - explain that the politician won't be doing anything worth a shit because America has elections.

    Step 4 - ????

    Step 5 - Democrats have fixed America with teh AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wonderful. There is no possible way your formula ends in anything but failure for America.

    With the current faction holding sway, your party is simply not qualified to lead. You are doing exactly the same things to my nation as the GOP did under Bush. Exactly the same. It's not "Democrats" doing it .... it's "Democrats like you" doing it. Your faction of the Democrats is a far bigger threat to America than the GOP at the moment. You are the ones proactively setting the stage to gut social security and related social protections.

    If the liberals can't defeat you internally, we will all be living in a Tea Party nation soon - with Barack Obama at it's head. Count on it.

    [Edit: oh crap .... sorry Flavius - this was Brew ... swap where appropriate]


    by kgb999 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:46pm

    Einstein paraphrased Ockham's razor as: You should have the simplest theory that explains the data, but no simpler. Similarly, if you're seeking for "most progressive" (which itself is already ambiguous), you might say you want the most progressive politician you can elect, but not one any more progressive. Reasonable people can disagree on where that line is, but it's not unreasonable to acknowledge that the line exists.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:58pm

    Simple

    You want corn,  plant corn.

    You want progressive..... you don't plant Republican lite.


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:05pm

    My point is that if you live in Alaska, you don't plant corn.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:17pm

    Obama gives a speech on immigration. Since a speech was given on immigration, Obama will not give a speech about unemployment and jobs? Interesting premise.

    So if Obama gave a speech that emphasized jobs before he gave a speech on immigration, Desider would feel OK? There was something called the State of The Unio earlier this year. Some consider the SOTU to set the tone for the administration's agenda.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-union-2011-obama...

    It seems Obama has talked about jobs and the economy.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:35am

    Talk is cheap. Where's the legislation for a jobs program?

    Been waiting ever since the feeble initial stimulus - known to be inadequate by say Paul Krugman at the time Obama proposed it.

    Over 2 years. Oh, and fix the damn mortgage crisis as well - banks are now trying to get out of any liability for illegally foreclosing and setting people up for bad loans, and yet the government does nothing except defend the banks and make excuses.

    So fine. Barry gave a speech. Color me again unimpressed.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:00am

    Talk is cheap. Where's the legislation for a jobs program?

    It seemed that the point of this post was to complain about the talk, though. There's been more legislation dealing with jobs programs then with immigration, after all.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:03am

    Where's the beef? Where's the weekly jobs speech to get it through Congress? No, I'm none too thrilled about turning illegals into legals when there's already 9% unemployment holding steady.

    We got a tax break for the rich, but we can't get a job stimulus bill passed over 2 years after we realized the initial stimulus was insufficient. Priorities.

    Stump speech, "If you re-elect me, i promise to do my job this time". Quite the winner.

     


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:14am

    No, I'm none too thrilled about turning illegals into legals when there's already 9% unemployment holding steady.

    Talk is cheap. Where's the beef? I've seen no illegals turned into legals.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:20am

    Gallup Poll from November 2010:

    given the choice, the best approach for Congress to improve the economy:

    39% reduce the deficit

    31% increase taxes on the rich

    23% cut taxes

    5% increase stimulus spending

    Among Democrats, stimulus spending got 9%. Apparently, your priorities aren't exactly aligned with most of your fellow Americans. 

    And one can look at this and guess pretty accurately which of these four approaches won't get the time of day in D.C. these days.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:28am

    The key word here is legislation.  If you are thinking that Obama or Democratic president could get any kind of jobs program, esp one that was big enough to make a dent in the unemployment, through the Republican controlled House, then you don't understand the current dynamics in D.C.  Now one can go back and critique how the House and Senate Dems along with Obama didn't do enough in 2009 and 2010.  But at this point, Obama's hands are tied in terms of using the expand the government approach to creating jobs.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:17am

    Granted. But it would be nice if he didn't celebrate all the budget cuts as *victories*. It would be nice for him to stand up for a jobs program, to show that there is a difference between his vision of an affirmative economic policy and the GOP's vision.  Right now the difference is only that he wants "some" cuts, and the GOP want something in the region of "more". Obama is not willing to draw any strong contrast between himself and the GOP. He prefers declaring whatever happens a "victory". Which is problematic in a number of ways.


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:51am

    And before it was always too early for me to complain, and now I find it's too late?!!?!


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:56am

    Absolutely. The proper time for complaing was 12:37 on December 8th, 2010. The notice for this "was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopared'".

    But seriously, how did you get that it's too late to complain out of what Obey said?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:17am

    I didn't - Obey and I are arguing the same side of the argument. From Obama fans, it was always "he's not in office yet, he just got in office give him time, it's only been 100 days, hasn't been mid-terms yet...."

    Meanwhile the House majority went away, and we're supposed to sit here and suck eggs because he couldn't figure out his health care approach was pissing people off, and lack of jobs was pissing other people off.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:38am

    I'm still waiting for you and Obey to tell us where the votes in favor of a bigger stimulus and a better health care bill were going to come form in the summer/fall of 2009.  As I recall, the Republicans were united in opposition, and the Democrats threatening to kill both bills weren't doing so because they weren't progressive enough.

    And don't tell me that he just needs to give more speeches.  All of the available data shows that the ability of a president to sway opinion through speeches is negligible at best.

     


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:04pm

    I'd say the place to start was the original stimulus. Obviously too small. And they were the ones saying - "hey, we'll just top it up later...". Hm, that didn't work out so well. And now YOU'RE turning that around and asking US where the votes were?! Hilarious!

    Other than that, how about that wonderful 2010 deal? and the 2011 deal? So he gives the GOP an 80 bn tax cut for the rich during the lame duck session. And calls it a victory. Yippiee!! And doesn't even ask for a '11 budget deal in return. No, he has to leave that out of the deal. So the GOP can come back and get 70 bn in spending cuts. So the net stimulus value of the tax cuts and spending cuts: NIL.

    Awesome negotiating.

    And why did they leave the GOP with two ace cards - the '11 budget, and the debt ceiling? Because THE DEM LEADERSHIP WANTED TO GIVE THE GOP THOSE CARDS. Cue Ezra Klein (yes, I'll drop this link again, because y'all keep up the same 'political impossibility' talking points):

    When I asked Democrats about this at the time, they kept telling me that Republicans needed to learn the awful and awesome responsibility that was governing. “Let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt. They’re going to have a majority in the House,” said Harry Reid. “I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:16pm

    If you're arguing that the Democrats muffed a great opportunity to re-balance the American economy after the 2008 election, you'll get no argument from me.  But I fail to see how the refusal of the Senate to move a more progressive agenda forward becomes the exclusive failing of Obama, or how his pounding the bully pulpit will get the Nelsons and Liebermans to come around.

    I don't see how this comment relates to your earlier ones, I guess.  How does Obama pass legislation without the necessary votes in Congress?   


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:06pm

    I don't think anyone said it his exclusively his fault. Everyone agrees the GOP are even worse.

    How this relates? You asked a question about how the Dems could have done any better on the stimulus/jobs front than they have. And I tried to answer that. I put the dots together and I get a picture of a president who runs a moderate policy by choice, not by necessity. You put the dots together and get a different picture.


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:16pm

    Whether someone said it was too early doesn't impact the reality that a jobs program of the magnitude needed to impact unemployment is DOA in D.C. right now.  So complaining that Obama isn't doing it is just screaming into the wind if nothing else.

    And whereas Obama talking about immigration is just words, him proposing legislation that has no chance of passing and sets him for political attacks is expressing a vision, which seems to be very important to do.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:19am

    Right now the sentiment out there amongst the People that (1) the deficit is a big, big problem and (2) the government is spending too much money.  To stand up for a jobs program, which is basically standing up for a new stimulus package would be viewed many people as not a smart way to address the problems we face.  Even among Democrats, the majority see spending cuts as the primary means to deal with the deficit.  So in this sense they are victories. 

    Now one can state that Obama needs to stand up and say the deficit isn't that big of deal, and that we can increase program spending as part of a job (stimulus) program.  But one has to admit that he would be flying into the wind at this time, and could be accused to "not listening" to the American people.   Some might call this leadership.  Others tone deaf. 

    But until there is some radical shift in the views of the American people on the deficit, I don't see much changing in Obama's approach.

    I don't like where a lot of the cuts are coming in the budget right now.  Decreasing the military budget (which includes the wars) is my preference.  But personally I haven't been convinced that we don't need to take the deficit into consideration.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:12am

    I think you've got it backwards. Obama is an opinion leader - people believe there is a deficit problem because ... he said there is a deficit problem, because he made HCR from day one all about bending the deficit curve, because he set up a deficit commission, because he hired all the Clinton deficit hawks who all think this is 1994 all over again. It's moronic. He's got a bad economic policy, and you can't go blaming that on his deference to popular opinion. Popular opinion is what it is partly thanks to the stands he's taken, the actions he's taken, and his framing of the actions he's taken.

    And now you seem to be flipping from "a jobs program is politically impossible" to "a jobs program is economically inadvisable". Very different propositions. Very different arguments.


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:32am

    I'm in no way saying that a jobs program is economically inadvisable.  What I am saying is that continuing to run up the deficit is economically inadvisable.  Something has to give somewhere in the budget, even if we raise taxes on the wealthy.  And the growing deficit is a problem, it's just not The Problem.  As such, we should take actions at times to deal with the deficit, which means that we should in part frame why we do we do with the notion that the deficit does need to be considered. 

    One can spend an infinite amount of time discussing what percentage should be applied to Obama in his role for sustain and enhancing the deficit meme issue.  As you say he is partly to thank for it, but hardly the only one.  Looking at what happened in Greece and elsewhere has been one the latest prime drivers for upping the intensity about dealing with the deficit. And as far back as I can remember, there have been folks talking about the deficit being a problem.  The meme existed long before Obama came onto the scene and made his speech at the Democratic National Convention. 

    The problem is that there are those one end who want to make the deficit the issue of issues, the one criteria by which we judge financial decisions.  It is just as off the mark as means to counter those folks to say the deficit is not an issue and shouldn't be included within our decision making parameters. Obama is doing what I think should be done: treating the deficit as one issue among many.  At times he may give it more weight than it should, but then again he is more conservative than I am.

    It seems at times, the argument is that since the American people aren't able to be nuanced about the issue, we need to decide whether we ignore it completely or make it the issue of issues.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:59am

    Okay - so we seem to agree on this

    "One can spend an infinite amount of time discussing what percentage should be applied to Obama in his role for sustain and enhancing the deficit meme issue.  As you say he is partly to thank for it, but hardly the only one."

    All I said was that would be nice if he were part of the solution, not part of the problem. No one is saying he is solely responsible for this.

    As for whether the deficit is a problem I disagree. As I've said elsewhere there simply is no structural deficit (if the PPACA medicare savings stay in place). And when the economy is running with a 15% output gap, the problem is not the deficit but rather insufficient deficit spending. Instead of looking at Greece, everyone should be looking at the UK. They've just double-dipped, as will the US with the present bi-partisan austerity consensus.


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:07pm

    The sentiment that the deficit is a big deal is because both parties (save for a few visionary and realistic Dems and the Socialist Sanders,  accompanied by the corporate media are receiving no counter arguments from the President, especially.  He would not have to say, not would he have to believe, that it's not a big deal.  He could say:

    Yes; in the long run we have to pare down the debt in order to spare future generations that anchor.  But I have consulted the smartest economists, and looked at the history of recessions and depressions, and it's clear to me that one of the wisest things we could do to get the economy going for more than Wall Street is to put America back to work. 

    Many Americans have run out their unemployment benefits; almost 18% of us are unemployed or underemployed; these people's futures are bleak.  But in the economic scheme, it's bad, too.  If we create jobs, these same people can pay taxes, and acquire health care benefits, and pay into Social Security again, and most of all they can regain hope, which is no small matter now.

    Now the same big banks and corporations we bailed out are making massive profits, and yet are sitting on piles of cash, not reinvesting in their own companies or our country.  This country needs a lot, in terms of infrastructure, sustainable energy, and efficient transportation.  We need to make things again in this country, and toward that end...

    Oh.  Yeah.  I forgot.  This President only fights for what he believes is worth fighting for.

    You often remind us about the way Wasington works, Trope.  Can we remind you of how leadership and passion can change opinion?  Hope and strength can spread like wildfire.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:59am

    Wat is this "Wasington" of which you speak? Is it the pessimistic backward version of the optimistic forward-looking "Willington" we all wis would take it''s place...?


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:09pm

    LOL!  gads; I can even look at the Preview and not see the typos.  Or should I say, "No, no!  I meant Was-not-ington!"

    Stardust:  "Hey, lightning!  Over here!"  Or, "Mr. Trashman; got room in your compactor for me?"  Even that row of turkey vultures I'd sworn last week were here expressly to dispatch my dusty carcass turned out to be here for a dead doe; almost disappointed me...      ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:25pm

    "Can we remind you of how leadership and passion can change opinion?"

    Evidence, please.  And, by now, you've wanted Obama to "fight" how many battles with official Washington?  Ten?  Fifteen?  How many favored causes of yours do you want him to put 100% effort into at any given time?


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:15pm

    Evidence?  Wanna link?  How about Presidentsandbullypulpits.org  or Readyournation'shistory.net

    Good grief brew; many Presidents have juggled all kinds of issues at once, and won on many legislative fronts.  I'd counter with: How many battles have you provided cover for him for not even suiting up for?  But no; I don't have fifteen. And that's 'Wahington', by the by....


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:29pm

    I agree we should do more like the recent 2 billion dollars Obama threw at light rail. I personally am all for a jobs program so it is not about trying to convince me.

    The key here I think that even you would have him say "Yes; in the long run we have to pare down the debt in order to spare future generations that anchor."  So the question becomes not whether we should deal with it, but when. Which also leads to the question, just how big do we allow it to grow before we finally start to pare down the debt.  And the fact is that even with the Republican cuts we would be still increasing the overall deficit.

    The added part to what Obama would have to say is "I want to create more government jobs.  I want to continue to increase the deficit in order to expand the federal payroll.  And for it to be meaningful it won't be this one year, but for a number of years."  It is that expanded government approach which is so difficult to get passed Americans. 

    I don't think Obama is handling it perfectly.  And I grant that Obama could modify a certain amount of public opinion on this and that topic or issue if it was passionate enough and sustained enough. But my personal assessment of public, and I could be wrong, is that it would be ultimately not effective in this matter of expanding the government, such that he would see a reflection in the behavior of Congress. And that is the goal - to get Congress to do another jobs bill.  In the mean time, his political position would be further weakened, which means the greater likelihood of someone far worse than Obama taking over in the short run.  Yes that is political, but as we have seen in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, etc. that can have disasterous effect.  I know elsewhere you have taken the position of letting things get worse so people will wake up stance.  I don't hold that view. 

    I'm not expecting Obama to become a flaming liberal tomorrow.  Would it be nice. Yes.  And I guess I could spend my time criticizing him for not being one.  But it just feels a lot like criticizing the last Die Hard movie for focusing on the action sequences and not character development.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:32pm

    Yup; I had meant to say in that bit of imagined dialogue that he wouldn't say deficits don't matter, but that they don't matter now nearly as much as massive unemployment does.  I'd think if some bright people put their heads together, they could govt. money to start up green industries, for instance, that could be bought a bit at a time by employees, or other coalitions.  Things like that.

    It's just that he has conceded the fact; that's what depresses some of us, while the best economic brains in the country are jumping up and down about how NOW isn't the time...unless you want to end the wars, make large cuts to the MIC, including the 1200 bases or whatever around the world. 

    But no; he is not a flaming liberal, not much of a liberal, IMO.  He IS of the neoliberal economic persuasion, though, and we can see via the Arab Spring and the counter-revolutions in the Gulf States how well that's gonna work out for us peopns long-term.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:47pm

    Desider:

    Either immigration is an important issue or it isn't.  Your post seems to suggest what I've understand you to believe from previous comments, i.e. that immigration is an important issue.  And as an important issue, I'd rather have the president address it, even if he is politically motivated (shocking!).

    A couple of thoughts on your post:

    1.  I think you conflate the issue of encouraging more Einsteins to come here with immigration issues relating to documented and undocumented immigrants, particularly Mexicans.  I think the two can and should be addressed differently.

    2.  I don't know whether 9 percent unemployment can be fairly correlated to documented and undocumented Mexican immigration.  

    3.  Perhaps more importantly, I don't believe that there is any evidence whatsoever that the issue of underemployment can be fairly correlated to the level of immigration, documented or undocumented, or skilled or unskilled; and

    4.  I believe that it is also important to distinguish between the issue of controlling the borders in a humane and rational way, and dealing with people who are already here and are not properly documented.  

    Finally, we are and have always been a nation of immigrants.  I think we and our neighbor and friend up north should continue to be proud of that relatively unique aspect of our respective histories.  Indeed, I might even say that that part of our history truly is. . .exceptional.

    Bruce 


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:19am

    Sorry, I knew there was one other point that I wanted to make, and that is that one thing I believe everyone should agree on is that increased enforcement of existing state and federal labor laws will decrease the incentive on employers to recruit undocumented workers.  And that will also improve standards for certain job classifications and will make them more attractive to citizens and documented workers from other countries.  


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:25am

    1) Obama conflated the issue, I just commented.

    2) So Obama's "11 million undocumented" workers can't be correlated to high unemployment? Well that seems pretty dreamy.

    3) Underemployment can't be correlated to immigration at all? Whoo buddy, what in this lovely world can be correlated then? 

    4) This is the Cuban-touch-land, slide into first base scenario. If you make it, you're set, even if illegal. Whether this amnesty or next. Now, dealing with people already here humanely does make sense. But considering Mexican Americans have 3.1 kids per women, while in Mexico they're down to 2.0 kid per women, we're supporting an immigrant baby boom in the US that doesn't exist in the old country. Should our future be that of Mexico of 30 years ago? 


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:36pm

    No Desider, I absolutely do not believe that you have shown any evidence that high under-employment is the product of the number of immigrants in this country, documented or undocumented.  I could be wrong, but I don't think your response suggests that I'm wrong at all.  Indeed, for example, I don't think that folks who have left the manufacturing sector have been replaced by undocumented aliens.  As to  unemployment, I'm really not sure, and neither are you beyond your conclusory snippy comeback, but what I did suggest was that better enforcement of existing state and federal labor laws would: (1) decrease the incentive of employers to recruit undocumented workers; and (2) raise the standards for such jobs so that they become more attractive and liveable for American workers and immigrants who are here legally.

    On issue number 4, sounds to be like another slipperly slope, parade of horribles argument that I did not make.  And "Cuba-touch-land, slide into first base" is not what the president proposed as far as I can tell.  And neither do I propose that.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:50pm

    Jobs program? . Obama  just needs to reverse the flow of the Mississippi so he'd eliminate floods in Memphis and the water dhortage in the Imperial Valley. Slightly more likely than asking this Congress to pass a jobs program.

    Seems to me that those who encouraged  progressives to boycott last November's election aren't the best ones to describe  the resulting  reactionary congress as evidence of Obama's incompetence.

    Banks ?  I agree with you.


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:59am

    Maybe we could use the 20 million illegals and redirect the Mississippi to run a parallel course and run tributaries/Canals to go West

    Recharge the aqufiers of Kansas.  

    Texas could sure use the water, Arizona could hire more green card carrying temporary Ag workers

    Maybe some of the water could be sent to Mexico taking the stress off of the Colorado?

    Make canals first, before we waste the money on high speed rail.

    FIX OUR PLUMBING

    Hire temporary workers, and when the job is done 


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:59am

    Excuse me, but  see you and others often talking about progressives who convinced others to boycott the midterms.  I wonder if you could tell me who did that?  I had thought it was more enuii than any movement discouranging Dem participation, and a huge drive from conservative quarters that gave the R's such a large majority in the House.

    (edited for typo (which I just retyped 'typuo'))


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:00pm

    you and others often talking about progressives who convinced others to boycott the midterms.  I wonder if you could tell me who did that? 

    Yes. Anti Obama contributors here .It's after the mid terms now but Dan K will have that effect as presumably he intends.. In explaining why he won't vote with the democrats how can he do other than influence others  to do the same thing.The more eloquently, the more likely. .

    I am not advocating that anyone should censor his or her  remark ,just to be clear about the likely effect.And perhaps, having successfully defeated the democrats,  ease up on the complaints  about the Presidents inability to take actions that require a democatic majority.

    Which side are you on boys, which side are you on?


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:17pm

    Well a few at dagblog may have offered that opinion, but say if six folks sat out the midterms, how likely is that what defeated Dems at the polls?  Come on, really.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:50pm

    I went door to door for a candidate who lost by fewer tban  300 votes. Out of 80,000. Put another way, if  150 voters switched from him to the Republican that caused him to lose .BTW  that  loss caused control of the state senate to revert to the Republicans.

    If FDL and Kos and Glen Greenwald had aleady caused 140 others to switch, I think the steady stream of anti Obama comments here probably caused 10 more to follow them.

    Am I saying not to criticize him. Nope. Just saying, words have consequences.If one is to saddle him with a Republican House have the good grace to refrain from bitching about this result of your success. 


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:38pm

    At the risk of misrepresenting stardust, I think losing the House in the short term might be considered to be a long term advantage if it ends up allowing more progressive Democrats to take control in the future. I just don't put much money on that long term future coming to pass.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:43pm

    You either didn't read my post and comments thoroughly or are just lying.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:58pm

    Yeah, keep the illegal immigrants working their below-minimum wage jobs! We don't want no non-technology-starting-up Mexicans working in this country unless they're being exploited by Big Ag. Gosh, think of what it would do to our wages if corporations had to start paying them fairly!


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:41am

    Yeah, keep the illegal immigrants working their below-minimum wage jobs!

    Exactly. What so many anti-immigration folk don't seem to get is that if we don't provide a means for making the illegal immigrants legal, the alternative isn't them disappearing–it's that they continue to work beneath the radar, and hence for below-minimum wage jobs, and hence driving down wages.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:56am

    Give them our young daughters, otherwise they'll take our wives?  

    WE DONT NEED NO STINKIN PAPERS, WE DONT EVEN HAVE TO BE LEGAL,  WERE TAKING THE JOBS ANYWAYS  SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL GIVE US AMNESTY.

    ILLEGAL .......what part of that is hard for amnesty folks to understand.

    Enforce employer sanctions, arrest illegals.

    I think a lot of Japanese folks wouild love to come to America about now.

    I heard they are good workers, very educated too.

    How many illegals could be rounded up, to make room for LEGAL applicants. 

     


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:10am

    Wow, nice analogy. Let's make hunger illegal while we're at it.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:12am

    And your version is, "let's just let everyone come here"?

    My big gripe is why is our immigration 50% Mexican, vs. having 2% from 50 different countries & ethnic groups?


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:38pm

    And your version is, "let's just let everyone come here"?

    Where'd you get that idea? The proposal on the board is to improve our abilities to prevent new illegal immigrants from entering our country while encouraging existing illegal immigrants to become legal, while providing them a reasonable pathway for doing so. What realistic alternative are you proposing? The only viable alternative (which can be used in conjunction with providing a pathway for becoming a citizen) is to make sure we fine companies employing illegal immigrants heavily. Heavily. I'm tired of people (although no one here, I imagine) pretending that the companies are just innocent dupes, who didn't know they were hiring illegal immigrants.

    That said, I don't think US citizens are superior to non-US citizens. I just don't favor the anarchy that would ensue if we did open up our borders completely. Keep in mind, that an alternative to employing illegal immigrants in many jobs (although not all) is outsourcing. When jobs are outsourced there are no limits on how little the companies can pay their employees or on environmental standards, safety standards, etc. Making things legal allows us to regulate.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:26pm

    My big gripe is why is our immigration 50% Mexican, vs. having 2% from 50 different countries & ethnic groups?

    Huh. For some reason, I thought that your big gripe was permitting illegal immigrants to have real jobs. So it's OK for immigrants to have real jobs as long as they're not all Mexicans. Is that because Mexicans don't do tech startups?

    Btw, U.S. immigration is 24 percent Mexican. By comparison, it was 43 percent Irish in the 1850s and 29 percent German in the 1880s. Or do they count as the same "ethnic group"? If so, then immigration was almost 100 percent Caucasian/European/White* until the mid-1900s. Shocking lack of diversity, that.

    * What's your preferred term? Pat Buchanan prefers "Western," I think because it has less of a racial tinge. The thing is, Latinos are pretty damn Western. For that matter, most of them are pretty damn caucasian/european/white too. Maybe "From the western hemisphere except for the U.S. and Canada and Greenland and Iceland." Btw, Canadians? 10 percent of immigrants in the 1880s. F***ed the whole country up if you ask me. Ever heard of a Canadian technology entrepreneur?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:40pm

    Check your Blackberry, punk.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:58pm

    Check your Blackberry, punk

    I don't think that Genghis was talking about fruits and vegetables quinn.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:03pm

    And ask the president what that Canadian-designed bulge in his pocket is.


    by acanuck on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:32pm

    No, US legal immigration might be 25% Mexican (think it's closer to 30%), but illegal immigration they're at 50%.

    And I'm differentiating from "Hispanic". This is all about Mexico, not the rest of Latin America that's a tiny part of the effect.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:06pm

    Let me be clear - I grew up believing in a melting pot, and melting pots are what I like. I hate generic, boring homogenous whatever. When I walk through my old hometown, I feel gratified to see Philipinos, Indians, Vietnamese, Blacks, Mexicans, Whites, Nigerians....

    I spent years studying Latin American literature. I adore several Mexican writers and several film makers who did their best work in Mexico. But there's so much more to Latin America than Mexico (including the largest Latino population, Portuguese-speaking Brazil), and so much more to world culture than Latin America.

    And even within Mexico, we're not getting the cream of the crop - most Mexicans are advancing, as can be seen by their falling birthrate and Carlos Slim's billions in cell phones, and their creative film industry and their growing exports with the US. But we've geared our whole immigration system to accepting the most down-and-out from along the Mexican border to the exclusion of say more Russians, Indonesians, Congolese, Azerbaijanese. 

    And then we'll give amnesty to kids who were born here illegally, and they'll invite in their parents and other extended family as legal immigrants, and it just grows and grows. And then you can say they're "legal" but at that point it's just so out of proportion I don't care.

    Look, daily poor wage in Mexico is $6. Give each one thrown out $1000 and you've given them 160 days of sweatshop wages. Do that for 6 million illegals and you've spent $6 billion - probably much less than these other measures long term. 

    I'm not much on this join-the-military part of the Dream Act either, and while encouraging college ain't bad, there are millions around the world who would pony up serious change for a chance to go to US college and get US citizenship as a result.

    Probably if i took a breath I'd tone down my attitude a bit, but the blind acceptance that immigration is good no matter what form is rather irritating.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:27pm

    Face it, pal. You're one of them redneck racists that's never left home. Don't even have a passport, do ya?

    by quinn esq on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:20pm

    Moderators, he's baiting me. Do I have to put up with some white Nova Scotian trailer trash trying to out trailer trash me?

    Look buddy, the only reason *you* have a passport is to get to the good ol' US of A. And try to get into *our* fine trailer parks. Tell you what, I don't normally do this, but if you bring some of that LaBattsky, you can stick around for a few nights. But football, none of that hockey stuff. And no swearing in front of my momma. And the dawgs get first dibs on the pillow.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:42pm

    My brother lives in Arkansas now, and I was telling him about you. He says that if you took the dumbest county in Arkansas, then went to the dumbest town in it, then evacuated the few remaining that had any sense, then what was left was likely your relatives. After that, all you'd have to do would be to beat people round about the head and buttocks for 10-15 years, and you'd have a fine little crop of Des's. Now, I'm not saying I AGREE with my brother, mind you, just that... he's not wrong.

    by quinn esq on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:29pm

    Yeah, but just don't go baiting me about that passport again, awright? Hate to have people dissing me.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:57pm

    I don't know anyone who is pro-illegal immigration. If the government could effectively shut the border, it would. In an ideal world, all immigration would be legal, and it would be equitably distributed. .

    But...

    1) The fact that illegal immigration is a problem does not mean that we have no ethical obligation to people who have been living here illegally. The immigrants are here. We can let them live in deprivation, enact draconian laws to track them down, or legalize them to improve their status. I don't think that there is a real choice in the matter.

    2) I found your "big gripe" odd. Mexican immigration is disproportionate, but is that really the biggest problem with illegal immigration?

    3) As for the alleged quality of the immigrants, that's the oldest canard in the nativist playbook. I can point you to texts 100 years old complaining that America is getting the dregs of the world. The rhetoric is almost the same word-for-word except for the target--Irish, Italians, Jews, and so on. Desperate economic immigrants are almost always poor, and they suffer from the problems of poverty. They have less education, higher crime rates, higher birth rates, etc. But when allowed to assimilate, they always have. Then the cycle of nativism repeats itself with the next wave.

    So your earlier comments sound nativist to me, and they sound reminiscent of Pat Buchanan's rhetoric. But I apologize for insinuations which were perhaps inappropriate.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:20pm

    "...does not mean we have no ethical obligation to people who have been living here illegally" - of course not. The fact that they're living here illegally means we have no ethical obligation.

    "Draconian laws to track them down"? How about "judicious laws to track them down"? Sounds better without the spin, no? "Legalize them to improve their status"? Well I'm sure they'd be most obliged. If you could spot 'em a twenty while you're at it, they'd be even more grateful.

    "Mexican immigration is disproportionate, but is that really the biggest problem with illegal immigration?" Well, yes. That it's not only disproportionate, it's also huge. Hugely huge.

    " I can point you to texts 100 years old complaining that America is getting the dregs of the world." Well when 80% of the population lived on the farm and the rest were driving rails or manning the bellows in steel mills or spending the days at a spinning wheel, it really didn't matter, did it? But Mr. Obama talked glowingly about how immigrants have built the tech startups, and I noted where that was a grossly misleading comparison - there are few math inspired Andy Groves in the Mexican wave.

    "But when allowed to assimilate, they always have." They're not going to assimilate when they're the majority. And if you have unchecked illegal immigration and the only big response is to make illegals legal so they can then invite in the rest of the family on family visas, well, that hasn't ended the problem, has it?

    "The rhetoric is almost the same word-for-word except for the target--Irish, Italians, Jews, and so on." Well no, the only group that dominated immigration like that were the Irish, and I would have likely agreed that 50% of immigrants being Irish was too much.

    And to make it clear, having dirt poor illiterate people as immigrants isn't the problem. Having them be the majority of the immigrants causes problems, presuming you have a high rate of immigration.

    And from personal perspective, having one group from one country dominate immigration as well as birth rate so that the entire demographic becomes tilted to that 1 group is just undesireable. Bring on the Cubans with their dropped final s's, bring on the Argentinians with their soft Italianized j's, bring on the Colombians with their million-miles-an-hour speech, bring on the Bolivians with their round mestizo faces, bring on the Costa Ricans and Dominicans and Brazilians and Nicaraguans. But 1 group, whether Irish, Mexican or Ethiopian or Chinese is just too much.

     


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:13pm

    I agree that more diversity in ethnic and national groups might be desirable. I'd also like to see smaller communities get some sort of toolset to help keep the rate of change within the bounds of the mentally manageable. People sometimes want to warp that toward racism, but I have the same view toward small coastal communities when they get overrun by the massive developments imposed by hordes of teeming yuppies. * Two disagreements though. Canada's immigration is heavily targeted towards those with degrees, language skills and money. You can end up attracting a lot of selfish or even vicious bastards if you push too far that way. As for innovation, you may be right that the 1st generation is often working too hard, and without enough education to ITSELF drive the innovation. But the CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS are often stellar. They saw the work and the sacrifice of the old folks, they themselves often straddle two worlds, and just by checking out RIM/Blackberry for instance, Lazardis is the child of Greeks born in Turkey, moved to Canada at 5. * And yes, the Irish were a mistake.

    by quinn esq on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:19pm

    Well I regularly see Koreans and Vietnamese and Libyans and whoever running their own stores, 12 hours or more a day, quite amazing. And yeah, they're stuffing it all away for their kids.

    Is there a fence high enough to keep out yuppies?

    And how do you reconcile that Lazardis, once a pure, pristine immigrant, created such a yuppie toy as the Bold 2? Isn't that grounds for expulsion?


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:30pm

    And yes, the Irish were a mistake.

    If I weren't so falling-down drunk right now, quinn, you'd regret smearing our fine race.


    by acanuck on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:10pm

    Hey, I asked an Irish guy and his brother, and they said it was too much, so it's not racist. And I might be Irish myself, shame my mother can't remember. Watcha drinking, by the way? Got any to share?


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:00am

    I frequently bait quinn with accusations of drunkenness, poor choice in hockey teams, and living off the avails of his porn website -- while knowing for a fact that only two of those claims are true.

    So it was only fair that I play along with his allusion to my ancestry. In all honesty, I had only had a single glass of cheap Chardonnay from the Pays d'Oc.


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:54am

    And if you don't find the current level of legal and illegal Mexican immigration to be a problem, please guess for me at what level you think they'd be a problem. I.e. if the current 1 million+ a year (or at least before the crash), then would 2 million a year be a problem, 5 million a year be a problem, 10 million a year a problem, or never never never a problem?


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:23pm

    And try 150-year-old texts, Genghis. Illustrations in the U.S. press depicted the Irish literally as apes. Yes, any massive influx of poor, illiterate "wretched refuse" will bring added crime and disease. But more crucially, their numbers threaten the existing power structure. Tammany Hall was no doubt corrupt, but probably no more so than the genteel elite it replaced. The signs reading, "No dogs or Irish" came down, and ape caricatures were replaced by images of the friendly, smiling Irish cop on the beat (he was smiling because he had a job).

    Every ethnic wave has followed a similar path. Think of the dying Godfather lamenting, "Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone .... There wasn't enough time." Given that the ultimate goal is always acceptance and respectability, isn't it wise to speed the process rather than stall it?


    by acanuck on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:29pm

    The Irish immigration was 50% of totals, so stood out. Italian immigration was much less.

    Obviously in at least the Italian case, the goal wasn't always "respectability", no?

    And if it's "wise to speed the process rather than stall it", why don't we increase Mexican immigration to 20 million per year? Whatcha worried about, it's all good!

    Really, the point of having immigration policy is to determine a desired rate. George Bush Sr. revamped that rate around 1991 and it's had this effect. But most people don't think about the cause and just figure, "hey, that's how it always was". Of course it's never been "always" - immigration policies have changed numerous times through the years - sometimes quite racist, sometimes more permissive, etc.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:37pm

    As A-man points out further down, the biggest Mexican influx is over; the overwhelming issue is what to do about those who have put down roots. Yes, acceptance and respectability are always the ultimate goal for any new ethnic group. If you follow the news, it's clear the era of the Italian mob has now ended -- much as it eventually did for the Irish and Jewish mobs of past centuries. (I believe the Russians are the next big thing.) I agree with you that setting and enforcing immigration policies should go hand in hand with regularizing the status of past illegals. Giving them legal status will actually diminish the demand for newly arrived illegals, by giving employers a legal way to fill the low-paying jobs they already occupy.


    by acanuck on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:34pm

    I found your "big gripe" odd. Mexican immigration is disproportionate, but is that really the biggest problem with illegal immigration?

    Yes. It is by far the biggest problem with illegal immigration. In fact, I'd go so far as saying it is pretty much *the* reason illegal immigration is a problem. Mexico is in the unique position that people can just walk across our border from there. Canada is the only other nation in this position; but I'm pretty sure it takes them so long to thaw out after the winter that it's only a problem for two weeks in mid-August.

    Interestingly enough, one of the reasons we don't see more border intrusion from further South is specifically because MEXICO has draconian laws to track down foreigners in their country illegally which are strongly enforced. By intent or happenstance, this allows Mexico to monopolize on a high percentage of the remittance dollars headed South (remittance is treated as a commodity now in Latin America - discussed as important to GDP in some countries).

    There's nothing against Mexico or Mexican people. Being the primary source of friction is a direct function of geography and economic disparity. If there was a land border between the US and China, you better believe the Chinese wave would make the illegal immigration problem with Mexico look like nothing.

    And I think that a part of Desi's point was that not ALL immigrants have to be desperate economic refugees. Many times in the past we have welcomed a high number of economic refugees in response to regional crisis around the globe. But historically this has been as a planned decision integrated with a larger immigration strategy. This strategy included a degree of social integration for the refugees and a certain (albeit weak) support on arrival.

    One concern, and it's not unfounded, is that the influx of UNCONTROLLED refugees eliminates the capacity to approach or accommodate the other immigration categories that historically have also been important to the growth of our nation. It also diminishes our capacity to serve the traditional role we have played in the past in conjunction with the global community to accommodate populations displaced by response to truly acute economic or environmental crisis. The social "injustice" of economic disparity is not the same thing as a famine. The Irish immigrants didn't swim across the Atlantic. Nor the Italians nor Jews. They all checked in at Ellis Island.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:56pm

    Last paragraph was a nice addition.

    Thinking over the years when suddenly Iranians flowed in when the Ayatollah took over, or the Vietnamese and Laotians after we pulled out of Indochina, and the Ethiopians who came after time of famine, and on and on.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:06pm

    The Vietnamese/Cambodians came to mind for me. As a kid I was able to volunteer at a refugee camp in Pennsylvania a bit one summer. It wasn't like an earth-shattering life changing experience or anything, but it did shape my view some.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:01am

    They all checked in at Ellis Island.

    That's not the case.  I think the statute of limitations has run now so I can tell the story of my Great Aunt Evelyn of blessed memory.  I first heard this story at Aunt Evelyn's funeral, from her daughter Judith.  Evelyn came here in the late 1920s or early 1930s after implementation of the restrictive quotas contained in the Immigration Act of 1924.  That Act effectively eliminated immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, as well as from Asia.

    Aunt Evelyn was the youngest of eight children born in a little town in what is now Belarus.  She was one of only three of her siblings who survived the Holocaust, and she survived only because she left what was then Poland when she did.  She was my grandmother's sister.  And she got here via Canada, and she did so by hiding in a chicken truck as it crossed the border into New York State.  So she was "illegal" and she was my Dad's second mom and I adored her.  I would come to her apartment on Grand Street on the Lower Eastside as a kid, and I continued to do so with my little ones when she was in her 90s, and she would always cry with joy because she was so happy to see me and the kinderlach, her family that lived because she and her sister chose to come here when they did.  And then her daughter grew up to become a professor of law and so on and so forth.  

    And so this is one of many reasons that I have a soft spot for folks who are here "illegally," because I know that Aunt Evelyn was hardly the only person who came here in interesting and risky ways.  And you know we clamped down on immigration in the 1920s when times were supposedly good, and those quotas were fully in place in the 1930s when all hell broke loose economically, and then in the 1940s when all hell broke loose in other ways.

    I know immigration is a tough issue.  But the first thing we need to do is to break down, recognize and deal with all of the sub-issues connected to the immigration question.  And one sub-issue is what we do with people who are already here.  It's just not right, it's inhumane, to send folks back to Mexico or from other places without giving consideration to other factors.  Do they have kids here?  Have they and will they pay taxes?  Giving humane consideration to folks who are here already doesn't mean we don't set limitations and it doesn't mean we don't have effective border security and it doesn't mean that we leave it to Arizona to deal with the problem without federal assistance.  But at the threshold, we need to come to terms with the fact that it's more than just labelling people who live in this country "illegal" and responding accordingly.  


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:37pm

    Good story, Bruce. The Irish immigrants didn't swim across the Atlantic in 1848 or so, but many would have if they could. Many of those who ended up in Canada did so because the ship's fare was something like half a pound less than the fare to New York. Also because the Quebecois, who were Catholic, gave them a warmer reception than they got in the U.S. My great-grandfather and his two brothers made that trip.

    They're all buried within walking distance of where I happen to live today, as are several generations of their descendants. (One died in Texas in the 19th century; I wish I knew the story of how he ended up buried here.) They worked hard, made money, lost money, got better educated, died in their country's uniform. Just as all our predecessors did -- even native Americans were immigrants at one point. And just as those now called illegals will do, given time.


    by acanuck on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:00pm

    Thanks Ack, and yours is a great one too.  And there are so many more.  My daughter's caregiver is getting sworn in as a citizen in a couple of weeks.  She's from Grenada, goes back every summer to visit her Mom and Dad, she's raising three beautiful kids in Brooklyn, and she and my little Noa love each other like family.  She really is one dynamite woman.

    By the way have you checked out Ancestry.com?  It's amazing what you'll find on there.  I'm not sure if there's a Canadian version.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:16pm

    My sister does the genealogy in the family. I don't think she's tracked down the guy who died in Texas, but you're right, I'll get on her case.

    by acanuck on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:37pm

    If the Irish made up almost 50% of immigration for 3 decades, how bad could the reception have been?


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:14am

    They were made to feel a bit unwelcome. I googled "Irish depicted as apes," and found dozens of images. This one is a classic:

    [racism.gif]


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:17am

    The Irish of that day did bring it on themselves, in a way. They couldn't help having hair all over their bodies and sharp teeth, but did they have to wear those stupid hats reading "Anarchy?" No wonder polite society shunned them.


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:35am

    Swear to God, that's O'Sullivan. Grew up wit 'I'm. Helluva nice fella. Til his Ma got 'im with the shillelagh.

    by quinn esq on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:56am

    The Irish immigrants didn't swim across the Atlantic in 1848 or so, but many would have if they could.

    That is exactly the point. Don't you think a bit of the warm reception was related to the way immigrants arrived at port after having secured passage? I imagine the response would have been rather different if every person who wanted to could have simply stepped across the Atlantic, bypassed the authorities, set up shop, and then said "this is our country now regardless how you guys feel about it." I'm skeptical the latter situation would have followed such a feel-good arc.

    Of course America's history is interwoven with warm stories of the rich contributions immigrants have made to our culture and communities - that's who we are. Much of my family came over from Czechoslovakia in the early 20th Century. But the closest Canada has ever come to dealing with something like the USA's immigration situation vis a vis Mexico was when you were flooded with Viet Nam draft dodgers.

    And for the record, you guys kick we Yanks the heck out of your country pretty damn quick if we're there illegal. I know someone who got kicked out last September trying to make it up to winter in a BC commune (or something that sounded a whole hell of a lot *like* a commune). What's up with violating her human rights? You deported her ass back to an economic hellhole - with no healthcare to boot.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:06am

    It's them draft dodgers. First they smuggled in their guns and took over the votin', then they started up a lot of new, "high end" commercial developments like them McDonalds burger houses, and now they say since times are tough, we gotta pull up the drawbridge.

    by quinn esq on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:02am

    Cool story. Heh. I knew when I used it that line would illicit a minutiae-based protest of some sort - far too glib. 'Twas already a long-as-hell comment that needed to wrap. But I think it properly described the typical case in relation to immigration-waves Ghengis specifically referred to.

    I'm not unsympathetic at all. And obviously all the issues you raise are important. That said, I think deporting someone back to Mexico is rather different than sending your aunt back to Belarus. And you have to bear in mind there *is* the other side. Have you ever seen a jobsite where people jump out of second story windows and run ... or cram 5-deep into the nearest closet every time an inspector shows up?

    I suspect you have never known a Wolf. Or lived in a neighborhood that houses the people who man their operation. The wolf holds a stack of social security numbers and collects all the paychecks - workers live about two-dozen to a three bedroom in the lower burbs. The same "person" this week could be an entirely different human being as the "person" was last week. And again, on a human level they're great when you are friendly and treat them like humans - invite you over for bbq and everything even though you don't understand a WORD anyone says. But they are here to collect a bunch of money. And most of *these* guys plan to go back home anyway when they've racked up a year or two worth of third-world wages. Then they come back after a year or so and do it again.

    So I counter your observation that we need a humane way to consider the lives of people "already here" with the observation that every single person who makes it across the border becomes one that is "here already". That will continue to be true for all the new ones that come tomorrow as well. We must find some other criteria by which to judge if it would be inhumane to send them back to their home nation than merely tenacity at getting across the goal line. An assumption that if they make it across it's inhumane to send them back creates a perverse incentive to specifically bypass the laws (as does the third trimester sprint we encourage Mexican women to undertake for the prize of their child's American citizenship).

    But in my opinion, getting in to this whole line of discussion is kind of pointless. If we want to fix the pressure from the South, we've got to ease the economic differential between the two countries. In my opinion that in large part means fixing NAFTA. If we want to be total dicks, we can really just address Mexico and keep screwing everyone else (and our own workforce) - Mexico should serve as a proper buffer and they have no problem kicking their neighbors out. But we've got to push the third-world workforce plunder portion of the formula at least one border south. Until we do, it's kind of pointless to waste a bunch of resources on trying to keep them out - or send them back. And if it were addressed, all the Mexicans who are totally happy being Mexican would probably just go home and make money where they'd rather be in the first place.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:37am

    So I counter your observation that we need a humane way to consider the lives of people "already here" with the observation that every single person who makes it across the border becomes one that is "here already". That will continue to be true for all the new ones that come tomorrow as well. We must find some other criteria by which to judge if it would be inhumane to send them back to their home nation than merely tenacity at getting across the goal line.

    I am not arguing that anyone who makes it across the border gets a free pass.  I haven't seen anyone argue that.  And, fwiw, I am not suggesting that you are inhumane or unsympathetic.

    As to my experience, I don't recall seeing anyone jump out of a second floor window for any reason.   But I think I have had a pretty close-up view of the immigrant worker issue, beginning in 1986 when I was doing migrant worker cases at DOL.  But on the issue of what to do with folks who are already here, I'm not sure if that my experience or who you've seen jumping out of windows or serving as Wolf is relevant.   


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:06am

    After the great lull, the Celtic Irish were the first to come in great numbers. From 1820 to 1850 they were more than two-fifths of all immigrants, and during the fifties more than one-third.

    ...

    During its earlier period, Irish immigration brought in a desirable class, which assimilated readily. Later, the enormous assisted immigration that followed the famine of 1846-48 brought in many of an inferior type, who huddled helplessly in the poorer quarters of our cities and became men of the spade and the hod.

    ...

    A decade ago the Irish were found to be relatively thrice as numerous in our almshouses as other non-native elements. In the Northeast, where they formed a quarter of the foreign-born population, they furnished three-fifths of the paupers.

    ...

    Many things have decided whether Europe should send America cream or skimmed milk. Religious or political oppression is apt to drive out the better elements. Racial oppression cannot be evaded by mere conformity; hence the emigration it sets up is apt to be representative. An unsubdued and perilous land attracts the more bold and enterprising. The seekers of homesteads include men of better stuff than the job-seekers attracted by high wages for unskilled labor. Only economic motives set in motion the sub-common people, but even in an economic emigration the early stage brings more people of initiative than the later. The deeper, straighter, and smoother the channels of migration, the lower the stratum they can tap.

    ...

    The fewer brains they have to contribute, the lower the place immigrants take among us, and the lower the place they take, the faster they multiply.

    The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration by Edward Alsworth Ross, Ph.D., 1914


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:49pm

    Interesting. But I'm not seeing the exact relevance/point here. Who is this guy, why do we care what he thought, and how does it relate to the discussion?

     


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:23am

    kgb, drop me a line at [email protected] (correct spelling)


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:21am

    The point is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mexican immigrants, though though they come illegally over land, are not otherwise exceptional in relative numbers or economic level to previous waves of immigrations. And the arguments that you feel apply particularly to Mexican immigrants, are little different from the objections that others raised against those previous immigrants, albeit updated for modern sensibilities.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:58pm

    Come on, of course they're exceptional. The only near percentages were the Irish in the 1800's, and in terms of assimilation, the Irish spoke English. So everywhere the Mexican population grows, we need more and more redundant Spanish-based services, even as we're cutting back on basic government services to pay for our ridiculous wars and bailouts for wealthy people

     


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:14pm

    Ah yes, the "they won't learn English" argument is another one of those canards that keeps coming back. The earliest record is from none other than Ben Franklin in 1753:

    Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; They have one German News-paper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German: They begin of late to make all their Bonds nad other legal Writings in their own Language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our Courts, where the German Business so encreases that there is continual need of Interpreters; and I suppose in a few years they will be also necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our Legislators what the other half say; In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious..

    Btw, here's total immigration as a percentage of population:

    Didn't display on the fringe here. Here's the link.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:11pm

    OK, but if you factor in illegal immigration then… your point still stands. Carry on.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:20pm

    Point of fact, Desider: During the Potato Famine exodus, most Irish emigrants spoke Gaelic as their first language, and many spoke only Gaelic. They were the most desperate to flee, since the alternative was starving to death in a roadside ditch. After the legally sanctioned genocide was over, up to half the country's population was gone, and the rest had learned to speak English if they knew what was good for them. I'm still pissed off.


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:46pm

    I'm not following your point. ???


    by kgb999 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:15pm

    My point is that one can't eliminate hunger by making it illegal, anymore than one can do that with illegal immigration. The question then becomes, what can we do? What will help?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:11pm

    Sheriff Joe will feed them.

    Come back a second time, maybe the Federal government will feed them, instead of pushing the responsibility onto the State of Arizona.

    Wonder what happens to the deficits when 20 million more;  NOW legal residents need governement services

    Maybe the Mexican government can send back some of the remmitance money to care for their own people.

    Maybe we could repeal NAFTA and allow the farmers of Mexico to be able to compete fairly? 

    If they cant work legally, I guess you think its okay to steal it from hardworking Americans?

    Either you let them work or they'll steal from you, even if it means you lose your job because  they work so much cheaper and they're hungrier?.

    And if YOU get hungry enough, maybe you'll work cheaper than the Mexican illegal, and becuase he'll find themselves hungry again, they'll undermine the American worker even more.... maybe  they'll eat they're young?

    Seeing as how they keep reproducing despite hard times it seems they havent learned a thing about survival  "were hungry, lets have more kids"   

    "America a good counrty it has welfare" Come Grandma and Grandpa, come all my cousins.

    We can all live in a HUD home paid for by American taxpayers.

    Come, hurry, the banks have lots of homes on short sale.  

    Come anyways they'll not punish you anyways and if you get cuaght in Arizona you can move to Georgia.   

    For the aristocracy, maybe even the crumbs would be too much and can be eliminated, as the peasants fight it out amonst themselves ?    


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:55pm

    Again, where is the anger for employers taking advantage of illegal immigrants?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:04pm

    Arrest both and incarcerate both the employer and the illegal

    We as a Nation said we would not allow slavery to expand beyond the existing slave States.

    Immigrant slave you are free. Go home  

    If you are illegal GO HOME

    What? Am I supposed to stay awake all night, for fear a thief who sneaks into my house and takes what is mine? Once he's in my house, it is now my responsibility to care for his needs ?


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:27am

    Wait. Your plan is to go from having the illegal workers basically supporting themselves - perhaps taking green from your pocket on an esoteric level - to using tax dollars in the concrete to house and feed them for an incarceration? Bad. Plan. Man.

    The money drain with mass-deport sucks to the point of not making much sense. The money on medium/long term mass care-and-feeding would *have* to be insane.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:43am

    Good point. A much more sensible plan is to fine those companies employing illegal immigrants, trebly so if they're paying less than minimum wage since that'd be proof that they knew they were doing so and were taking advantage of them and our fellow citizens to boot. Not only is that a natural means of removing the incentive to hire illegal immigrants, it is also puts money into the treasury rather than taking money out of it.

    So, why not also punish the illegal immigrants caught working? For one, they have far less to lose. For another, you make it far harder to prosecute the guilty businesses when the evidence is highly motivated to run and/or hide. (And the more motivated they are, the more difficult it becomes)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:16am

    They'll find someone to pay them somewhere, and there's a limit to how much employer tracking's going to be done. It's not like when a crew redoes someone's roof that there's a social security check going on. And is the government going to follow roofing crews out to the site? fat chance.


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:13am

    They'll find someone to pay them somewhere,

    Probably. Meanwhile, you've increased the expected cost of hiring an illegal immigrant, which is  part of the point, and you've also done it in a manner that can pay for itself, by levying a fine.

    On the other hand, if you go after the illegal immigrants (our current focus), the companies will just find other illegal immigrants.

    The only other approaches I see is to go after both groups or to not go after either group. Going after both groups might make sense in theory, but I think in practice you'll end up making it much harder to go after the businesses doing the hiring. And, why not follow roofing crews out to the site? Where I live (Charlottesville), houses are springing up all over the place, and the vast majority of people doing the manual labor appear to be Hispanic. They might be citizens, they might be legal immigrants, or they might be illegal immigrants. If we're talking about targeting the roofers and not the employees, I've got far less of a problem with doing some profiling, but maybe that makes me a bad person.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:22am

    Where did I say

    having the illegal workers basically supporting themselves

    Then you limit the option

    to using tax dollars in the concrete to house and feed them for an incarceration? 

    Who said we need to use concrete? Tents work just fine for our valued soldiers.

    The illegal immigration problem  is costing ALL legal citzens presently, there is no free lunch in America, someones footing the bill.

    In Arizona we see many incarcerated individuals working in orange jump suits, cleaning empty lots of weeds and cleaning along the highways.

    Come to Arizona and we'll give you;  the ILLEGAL a job no one else wants to do. 

    I dont know why you would want to stay though? 

    If you do come  I suppose You got here, I'm sure you can find a way back home, or better yet.......... Dont come to Arizona if your illegal .....you won't like our hospitality or the work.

    We have no problem;  its YOU  the illegal, that has a problem. If your caught working illegally in Arizona, you'll do the time and you'll not be a drain on the taxpayers of Arizona.

    I dont know how many bags of trash cleaned up on the side of the road it'll take to buy you a ticket home. Thats your problem, maybe some relatives will buy the ticket and post bail?

    You tell me illegal...you think it's worth coming to Arizona   2 years in County jail, eating jail food and every morning dawn till dusk; you'll perform work the citizens of Arizona would be willing to have you do, like cleaning up the sides of roads or clearing weeds or fire hazard spots on vacant lots, and when you've performed enough to pay for a plane ticket to go home.

    What do other Countries offer illegal entrants? 


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:12am

    And again I notice the emphasis on the employee and not the employer, who is far more culpable, and far more able to solve the problem without anyone needing to be incarcerated.

    And… tents? What, are you expecting them to incarcerate themselves on the honor system or something? Or, is the genius of your plan the extra employment it would require to hire all of the guards necessary to guard the tents? Do you think maybe there's a reason we don't keep inmates in tents other than for the comfort of the inmates?

    Ask yourself who Jesus would consider to be his neighbor, and whether he would be directing his anger at the schlepps using the money changers or at the money changers themselves. (I assume you get the reference.) The way you write about illegal immigrants really gives the impression of someone who doesn't understand agape.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:38am

    You didn't say it. I did.

    That doesn't make it untrue. While an illegal worker MIGHT be taking a job you or I could do ... in so doing at least the person is supporting themselves financially and making a net contribution to the economy (buying stuff from totally legal businesses for example). This also nominally increases government revenue. OTOH, when incarcerated they are guaranteed to be a direct drain on government resources and nothing more. Doing this takes money directly out of the pockets of many, many working Americans. My pocket and yours.

    I don't disagree with you that it's a problem. But I think your preferred solution is counterproductive if what we'd like to see is more Americans working at good paying jobs. In my mind more good jobs for Americans is what really matters most. I also see this desire being at the heart of why you have decided to place yourself and fellow Americans mentally in a tooth-and-nail competition for the amazing upward career opportunities provided through the esteemed position of dishwasher.

    Frankly, it seems like you want to waste our money to essentially torture these people; as if taking revenge against them will somehow bring opportunity back. Considering the primary reason the employment picture in America sucks has nothing to do with illegal immigration, I can't help but wonder if that money might be better spent creating some jobs that are actually worth a crap. I see your solution as dumping a shit-ton of money with a best case outcome being to possibly secure a few seriously shitty jobs for the American workforce.

    Sorry. I'm not paying to house every illegal Mexican in America for two years because you are pissed off at Mexicans. Don't be wasting MY tax dollars on that shit. At the end of the day if we spend all of our money as you suggest; we'll be fucking broke, overrun with Mexicans and STILL have no damn jobs.

    I'm not criticizing you for wanting to address the issue, but this is a dumb solution.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:28pm

    Im not looking for revenge or torture. I am looking for a deterrant.

    Evidently they dont care, that the welcome mat is not out.

    We built a barbed wire fence, they tore it down,

    We built a steel fence they tunnel under

    We tell them Stop coming across the border illegally;  thats falling on deaf ears.  

    What the heck works, what would be a stronger deterrant?

    we'll be fucking broke, overrun with Mexicans and STILL have no damn jobs.

    We are F* broke, we have no damn jobs and Amnesty will not stop "overun with Mexicans.

    Does the illegal care about the demise of the middle class or Unions? 


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:19pm

    I truly believe that what you want to do (a) would cost a shitload of money that could otherwise be spent promoting real jobs for Americans and (b) would do little or nothing to improve the lot of the middle class and unions even if you achieve 100% success. And it isn't only because many of the jobs you are talking about deterring folks from taking have never in history supported a middle class lifestyle.

    I don't know how to make this any more clear: even if we kick every single person who is here without documentation out of the country - burning two years' worth of food and lodging each on their way out the door or not - IT WONT HELP THE MIDDLE CLASS OR UNIONS ONE BIT. If helping Unions and the Middle Class is your objective, the business plan you have presented will not do it. As such it is just wasting money (which serves to reduce the middle class even further) and intentionally creating direct physical discomfort as a "deterrent" against people who have it even crappier than we do.

    The illegal may not care about the demise of the middle class or unions, but I do. I want the same things for America's workforce as you do. Some here have proposed slightly improving the lot of a third-world worker totally makes fucking over Americans the right thing to do. These are my adversaries on the issue of economic justice as they are yours. Your energy is great, but you have been misled by people who have laid out one of most amazingly terrible approaches to benefiting Middle Class Americans ever presented. In addition to being a horribly expensive waste of time, the Arpaio approach is completely sadistic. Either of these two things would disqualify it in my view. I say let's go after the bankers - not the banker's slaves.

    (BTW: There is an awful lot of ground between amnesty and what you propose).


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:43pm

    There is an awful lot of ground between amnesty and what you propose).

    I'm listening KGB.

    I am surrrounded daily by folks that remind me Amnesty 1 failed as will any other Amnesty proposal.

    I am surounded by folks that think Sheriff Joe is the only one doing his job.

    Congress and the Federal government fooled them once when they enacted Amnesty 1.

    The weasels in Congress are not to be trusted.

    Every night on the news, another illegal involved in a serious crime.

    Most recent

    http://www.silobreaker.com/sheriff-suspect-in-officers-death-was-illegal-5_2264559949994524797

    The suspect in the shooting death of a Buckeye police officer was an illegal immigrant who should have been deported years ago, authorities said Tuesday

    Those in Arizona dont trust Napolitano to tell the Truth. Shes a political opportunist, by protecting the President, she protects her opportunities for advancement.

    We get lip service from the Democrats pandering for latino votes and the illegals champion;

    Mary Rose Wilcox; panders for her constituents, the latinos. She's the one who tore down the historic house to put a parking lot in for her restaurant.

    People in Maricopa County are sick of her antics, and we cant get her out of office, because  those she panders too, protect her   

    WE ARE SICK OF THE LIES.   

    Phoenix Mayor Gordon another pandering latino

    The pro amnesty crowd is deeply etrenched in Mariciopa County and Sheriff Joe despite his many faults is the only one left to remove the threat the open borders crowd represents.

    Open borders proponents wont be satisfied with this Amnesty, they want open borders

    Amnesty 2 will not work, they'll ignore the laws. They will enfeeble the legislature or the effect of any legislation that interferes with OPEN BORDERS.

    Obama has to know that. the record is clear. Amnesty 1 Failed.     

     


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:18pm

    What the heck works, what would be a stronger deterrant?

    Take away the reward. And how do we do that? By making it more expensive (e.g., through hefty fines) for companies to hire illegal immigrants than to hire citizens and legal immigrants.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:05pm

    It's much chepaer when they're tent cities.  I haven't kept up with Obama's DoJ investigations of Arapaio, but maybe 6 months ago, I believe, he was still refusing to turn over court-ordered documents; I didn't know a person could get away with that...  I'd love to see him live there wearing pink underwear, myself.

                                       


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:04am

    It's not *that* much cheaper. And any "savings" is eaten up by contractors who still charge top-dollar for all services provided. Arpaio's coneys are making BANK..

    Have faith. It's not a matter of *if* that sadistic piece of shit goes down. It's a matter of when. And when he does .... fuck continuing his sadistic bullshit. Put him in a civilized jail like the civilized folks we are and let his sickness fade into history where it belongs.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:28pm

    Sounds like in July they will have been in existence for 17 years.  I might ask, "How much longer?" and why his friend Napolitano gave him a pass on it for so long.  Oh, that is, until she didn't, and put some groundrules down for 287(g') authority, pulled the funding...all that.

    How nice of you to tamp down my vengeful streak and want him in a decent prison.  Thanks; I needed that.   Cool

    Just saw Robert Greenwald's take on the Immigrant Prison Industrial Complex.  Reference to Emptywheel's coining of the term 'Anglo-American hegemony'.  ;o(


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:33pm

    Arpaio's coneys are making BANK..

    $200. a day per prisoner is a figure given here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuGE1VxVsYo&feature=player_embedded


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:03pm

    You guys talkin' about hot dogs, rabbits or 'cronies'?   ;o)  'Arpaios coney dogs' works for me, but...


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:34pm

    What are "cronies"?   Did I miss something? You, and your ilk, demand too much perfection.I was just cutting KGP some slack for misspelling cohonies.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:51pm

    'Cronies' iz 'pals', compatriots.  Cojones is huevos; Colonics are...never mind...   ;o) 


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:11pm

    Aaaah. I think it's a economic justice issue. Fix the current approach to global economic policy properly and it should eliminate the conditions that are creating a bunch of  economic refugees.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:27am

     

    think of what it would do to our wages if corporations had to start paying them fairly

    And withholding  their social security.. 

    The Republicans proclaim

    o the imminent demise of social  security because there will be too few people of working age to support it .

    o.and  that too many people of working age are sneaking in.. 


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:15pm

    Obama mentioned alligators in the moat.

    You think that would deter the illegal entry?

    How many?

    IMHO One alligator won't do it  

    Why not just bring the armed troops home from Afghanistan,  and protect the border.

    We don't need alligator teeth we just need teeth in our border enforcement, and please not just one soldier giving lip service.

    According to Sheriff Paul Babeu, arrests are down on the border because the border patrol has been told not to arrest, but to redirect the illegals back across he border. 

    How disengenious is that?

    Obam doesnt like the Democrats he has to work with, so he'll just give the illegals ciizenship and tell long time Democrats I dont need you, We have replacement workers Democrats now.   


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:49am

    I call bullshit on that, Resistance.  This administration has deported many times more immigrants than Bush's did, not that I like it.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:24am

    What? They finally did what they should have done all along?

    How many does that make now;  one or two more than BUSH

    Theres been an increase of 200%?  WOW  


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:37pm

    R - the Obama administration enforcement seems pretty tight:

    The number of unauthorized immigrants in the nation's workforce, 8 million in March 2010, also did not differ from the Pew Hispanic Center estimate for 2009. As with the population total, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the labor force had decreased in 2009 from its peak of 8.4 million in 2007. They made up 5.2% of the labor force in 2010.

    The illegal population has been falling since Obama took office. Greater harassment of immigrant populations plays a big role. Don't know if that is a good thing or not, personally. But you ought to be thrilled.


    by Obey on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:47am

    I thought this blogpost was about Obama's misuse of the immigration issue for political purposes, and in particular to avoid the issue of unemployment.  FWIW, I think immigration and unemployment are both really important issues, with unemployment being critical right now.  But I just don't believe that even a politically-motivated focus on immigration is inconsistent with the need to focus on unemployment.

    Anyway, whatever.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:16pm

    Well said, bslev.  Immigration is not the first big issue I would choose as low-hanging political fruit to pick. Public officials who engage this issue are going to piss off, royally, a lot of people no matter what they do.  As on abortion and same-sex partner issues there is no stance I know of on that issue that does not produce heated and often vitriolic opposition.  Partly because of that, and because of the way the political dynamics shake out, it is one of the few major issues which seems to me to stand a chance of attracting enough Congressional support any time before next November to pass.

    But that is true only if enough Republican members of Congress vote their publicly stated positions instead of just "denying Obama a win" at any cost.  I don't know of any particular reason to think that is likely to happen.  But if Obama is going to try to address any big problems legislatively before and not limiting himself to defining himself solely in opposition to the GOP, this would be one issue where there might be a chance.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:48am

    WHY is the USA  BANKRUPT?

    This was sent to me as an email

     Informative,  and mind  boggling!
     You think the war in  Iraq is costing us too much?  Read this:
     
     Boy, was I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is
     the  Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
     I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

     I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they
     are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.  I also
     have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...
     
     1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each
     year by state governments.
     
     Verify at:
         http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7f
     d8

     2.  $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as
     food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

     Verify at:     http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

     3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
     Verify at:     http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

     4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
     education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
     English!
     Verify at:     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt..0HTML

     5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born
     children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
     Verify at     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01HTML

     6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY(1.1 Billion a year) is spent to incarcerate
     illegal aliens.
     Verify at:     http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt01.HTML
     7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
     Verify at:
         http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01HTML<http://transcripts
     /..cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML>
     8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
     social services by the American taxpayers.
     Verify at:     http://premium.cnn/..com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML
     9.  $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by
     the illegal aliens.
     Verify at:     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
     10.  The illegal aliens in the United States  have a crime rate that's two
     and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular, their
     children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
     Verify at:     http://transcripts.cnn/..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.HTML <
     <    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML%3E>
     <    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML%3E> 

     11.  During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that
     crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
     Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
     marijuana, crossed into the   US  from the Southern border. They have
     improved on that, they now plant large swaths of land in the Sierrra Nevada
     Mts with marijuana. Protected by armed guards and worked by immigrants .They
     are in some of the most desolate areas  and the police are too  few to cause
     them any concerns!!  They keep the illegals working for them by keeping
     their families back in Mexico.
      
          http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML%3E> 

          http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML%3E> Verify at:
     Homeland Security Report:
     12.  The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass
     deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of
     between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

     Verify at:     http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute/..org/PDF/deportation.PDF
     13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their
     countries of origin.

     Verify at:     http://www/..rense..com/general75/niht.htm <
     <    http://www.rense.com/general75/niht..htm%3E>
     <    http://www.rense.com/general75/niht..htm%3E> 
     14..  'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes
     Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'
     Verify at:  http: //     www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <
     <    http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E> < ww  http:>
     <    http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E> %20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <
     <    http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E>
     <    http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E> 

     The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE
     LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
     $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE
     CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY. A Just one million dollars of this given to each

      <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E>  honest citizen of the USA would
     result in spending our way our of this mess we are in!


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:29am

    Is this a joke posting? 338 billion!! That's like 10% of our budget spent on just 10 to 15 million folks.  Do you really believe this?  Or are you just showing the pernicious emails you get? 


    by Saladin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:56am

    IMMIGRANT POEM

    I cross ocean, poor and broke, Take bus, see employment folk.

    Nice man treat me good in there, Say I need to see welfare.

    Welfare say, "You come no more, We send cash right to your door."

    Welfare checks, they make you wealthy, Medicaid it keep you healthy!

    By and by, I got plenty money, Thanks to you, American dummy.

    Write to friends in motherland, Tell them 'come fast as you can.'

    They come in turbans and cheby Ford trucks, I buy big house with welfare bucks

    They come here, we live together, More welfare checks, it gets better!

    Fourteen families, they moving in, But neighbor's patience wearing thin.

    Finally, white guy moves away, Now I buy his house, and then I
    say,

    "Find more aliens for house to rent." And in the yard I put a tent.

    Send for family they just trash, But they, too, draw the welfare cash!

    Everything is very good, And soon we own the neighbourhood.

    We have hobby it's called breeding, Welfare pay for baby feeding.

    Kids need dentist? Wife need pills? We get free! We got no bills!

    American crazy! He pay all year, To keep welfare   running here.

    We think America darn good place! Too darn good for the white man race.

     If they no like us, they can scram, Got lots of room in Pakistan.


    It is interesting that the federal government provides a
    single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also
    get  an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00.
    This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50  years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 

     Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!

    This was sent to me


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:36am

    If it was sent to you you could always send it back. Or just sit on it.

    Why you need to post this shit here, I don't know.

    There's nowhere in America that Pakistani immigrants are a problem, so take your bit of nastiness and cram it, and your insulting reference to "turbans" (see a lot of Pakistanis running around with turbans? you live in a different neighborhood than me)

    If they're refugees, we're trying to do some good. Yeah, that occasionally costs money. But less than fighting useless wars or blowing up their houses with drones. Anyway, you're way past your shelf-life. Be-gone.

     


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:17am

    I suggest you quit being so generous with other peoples money.  

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

    US Public Debt $14,370,,094,300,999

    and counting by the second

    actual unemployment 23,760,102

    food stamp recipients 43,888,770

    US unfunded liabilities  $113,772,766,988,843

    liability per person $1,021,668

    time for you and your dumb American friends to wake up

    This isnt the good ship lollipop, The ship is about to capsize taking all of us down (and you wanrt to talk about taking on more; thats insanity)

    WERE BROKE....... QUIT USING THE CREDIT CARD  

    Who'll rescue us, from people like you. .  


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:29am

    Taking it out on Pakistanis and talking about their turbans? Grow up.

    Yes, there's a real problem to solve in a non-asinine distracting way.


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:11am

    I'm sorry you were offended.

    Picking one element out of the poem, so you can beat me up over it?

    Rewrite it the way it should be, make it PC for all of us, without diminishing the truth in how Americ can no longer support the world. I do not wish to be enslaved under his burden of debt.

    Take out the reference that offends you so. replace it with the words ILLEGAL    

    You miss the greater point. A point not missed by the other side.


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:56am

    No, it's not just 1 point - it's the whole offensive attitude.

    While I don't need to live next door to all of Mexico, I also don't need to hate them and make old stereotypical jokes about their "cheby" and what not.

    And while I am concerned about demographics and the still high birthrate vs. the rest of our population, this is not the kind of over-the-top breeding that your poem suggests.

    It's just a nasty piece of work. Whatever points you might have, it makes me not want to associate with you. Got it?

    The people themselves are not doing anything I wouldn't do in their situation. I don't make fun of their poverty, I don't make fun of their desperation. 


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:02am

    We'll just print the money, until idiots like you defund our productive capacity and that no longer is an option. Why don't you step away from the computer and go read Adam Smith's arguments against mercantilism.  Currency doesn't matter- it's a nation's productivity that counts. That's why we get away with printing it now. 


    by Saladin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 1:01am

    I'm not buying it.


    by Resistance on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 5:27am

    Yesterday I'd been trying to think through why the argument that legalizing Mexican and other immigrants roughly in the paths to citizenship described by Obama would rob other Americans of jobs wasn't  altogether valid. (Wow; what an unwieldy sentence, and I can't seem to fix it) I had a lot of different stuff in my head yesterday, and I don't know all the economic terms that would make formulating a counter argument coherent.  I kept coming back to the notion that immigrant/native born employment isn't zero sum, and could actually create more jobs.  I'd read a piece from Bell Policy Institute years ago that described why that's true.  It's a non-partisan think tank in Colorado, and I've learned to trust their analyses.

    Anyway, this morning I stuck 'not zero sum' into the Google with a few other terms, and found this article from The Hill., part of which says:

    "A recent study conducted by Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda for the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress, estimates that immigration reform would add at least $1.5 trillion in cumulative Gross Domestic Product to the U.S. economy over 10 years. Over the first three years alone, the higher personal incomes of new and newly legalized immigrant workers would generate enough consumer spending to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the United States, as well as increased tax revenues of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion.

     A second study, by University of Southern California researchers, estimates that legalizing unauthorized immigrants would yield $16 billion in annual economic benefits to California alone when all the “multiplier effects” of higher wages, increased consumer spending and increased tax revenue are taken into account. The study estimates that “granted legal status, California’s unauthorized immigrants could strengthen our national social safety net by bolstering Social Security and Medicare taxes by an additional $2.2 billion annually.”

    Before I stuck that 'not zero sum' in, I found lots of tirades like Resistance's in the hits, with some pretty ugly bias with purported facts to ballast them (as his do).  I dunno; around here, all the Mexican and Central American folks have been good additions to the community and the schools, save for the bias against the schoolkids and some of the more active bigots seeming to feel it's their duty to harass them.

    The kids learn English, not always the adults, which does piss off some Anglos.  Though the practicalities involved in taking English classes (distance to travel, time, etc.) would need to be considered very fairly, IMO, before making it mandatory.

     

    Employment is not a zero-sum game in which workers compete for some set number of jobs. Workers who earn higher wages also buy more goods and services from U.S. businesses, and pay more in taxes to federal and state governments, both of which create jobs.

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:36am

    Thanks for this stardust. I always appreciate a little game theory. :)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:47am

    ;o)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:24pm

    Agree it's not zero-sum.

    However, also think people can paint rosy pictures of economic growth, and downplay costs if that fits the preference.

    Not sure if there's thought to urban crowding and other negative factors.

    Paying into social security is only slightly interesting - there are simpler ways of adjusting Social Security for long-term stability.

    Brain doesn't want to engage this topic anymore, but thanks for your input.


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:21pm

    Copy that, Brain.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:35pm

    After I'd read Lulu's Counterpunch op-ed, I saw this Joel Olson piece on living in Arizona today.  He describes a bit of the history of elites in Goldwater-Libertarian AZ living in harmony with migrant workers, and sees the populist fight against SB 1070 as a great vehicle for self-determination and struggle in the ongoing class war and laissez-faire capitalism.  Pretty interesting read for a bleeding heart.   ;o)

    Most colorful sentences:

    "Areas that were once comfortably white now have Spanish-language business signs. More and more schoolchildren have brown faces—even in the "good" schools. Cars roll down formerly white streets bumping music whose percussion comes from a tuba."

    Can't have that.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:24pm

    They have a lot of brass playing their tuba music on our streets.


    by Rootman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:47pm

    ;o)     New law: 'Busted for driving con tuba'.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:10pm

    I had a sister who went that way.

    The kids called her... "Tuba Tramp."

    Face it, she was.


    by quinn esq on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:21pm

    In reply to various people down the thread, I'd offer that:

    1. The passage of 19th C groups such as the Irish are not entirely comparable to the Mexican movements of recent decades. The closure of the frontier just plain makes a difference. A world where people could always head West, or where it remained "open" in the mind, is a very different place. Similarly with education. When most jobs were manual, to arrive "with nothing" is very different than a world where 12+ years of formal schooling is a baseline.

    Yes, I'm aware there are still lots of jobs to be done, but the arrival of poorer, less educated Mexicans runs directly into the economic sectors occupied by a smaller subset of of the working class. This doesn't mean I'm against Mexican immigration, I simply concede that it's different. 

    In the UK, you see this sort of thing much more blatantly, because the upper and middle classes do everything they possibly can to make sure that immigrants get moved into and integrated with working class communities. And I can tell you, if you move enormous numbers of visible minorities, often Muslim, into public housing in working class communities already facing massive unemployment which has lasted decades, and those communities have deeply entrenched local cultures, both the Anglos and the Immigrants....  you have a recipe for disaster.

    Immigration need not be done this way, but the point is that it's never done in the abstract, there can be too many here or not enough there, too many of one type of trade not enough of another, difficult to do in some tightly-knit or racist local community, etc.   

    2. I would LOVE to see more Mexicans in Canada, as we have such enormous numbers of Asian immigrants in some communities now that a bit more diversity might not be a bad idea. [Also, yes, we have too high a concentration of Scottish people in parts.] Besides, Anglo-Scots-Irish-German world is often just dead boring. Toronto has been nothing but improved by the move to becoming an incredibly culturally and ethnically mixed place. 

    3. The argument that immigration has no impact on unemployment simply strikes me as absurd. I am entirely willing to accept - and I made this argument regularly in Manitoba, when they decided to vastly expand their immigration targets - that, long run, they will almost certainly boost the economy. Short-term, the key was how quickly they could reach a status where they would decide to taker out a mortgage and build a house.  And most immediately, what jobs or trades or occupations would they be doing, and was there ANY existing slack in the system, because that could spell trouble. 

    To see how the argument fails in the short-term, simply ask yourself, how many millions would need to arrive before we'd see unemployment and underemployment in existing occupations? It's a simple, non-racist question, and it has some sort of answer. In real life, you have to monitor and adjust. 

    3. The major issue in all this for me is... class. I hear from upper middle class liberals that they have no problem with more immigration. And they're often quick to tar those below as "racist" for shouting about it. I would argue it's because they often aren't yet under real personal economic pressure from the immigrants. 

    4. And acanuck is wrong, Genghis is wrong, Des is wrong and KGB is wrong. These are the fundamentals, the sorts of principles Americans should lock onto during these difficult times. 

    Just sayin'.


    by quinn esq on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:19pm

    Very well stated, quinn. Especially #4. I'm glad to see I made the cut, though.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:54pm

    Yup, Canadians are way too welcoming towards immigrants...

     


    by Obey on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:36pm

    First, you mean "various people up the thread." So you're wrong, too. As are Verified Atheist, Rootman, stardust and a bunch of others who didn't even join in the shouting.

    But points 1 through 3 are all surprisingly reasonable ones. You're totally right, no country can allow unlimited immigration. They need to set (and enforce) immigration policies that meet their changing needs, and the difficult discussion might as well take place now. I thought I was mostly arguing against pandering to racist stereotyping, some of which bubbled up here.

    In Canadian terms, I do love the fact Toronto has gone so rapidly from being "the good, the white and the uptight" to boasting about being the most diverse city in Canada. It's actually fun to visit. I do have a problem with how the Harper govt. is directly sucking up to the "cultural communities" while drastically cutting back on family reunification.

    Good thread, eh? Even the overheated parts. Too bad the part about Obama's motivations got sidetracked, but there's lots of time for that.


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:48pm

    Obamas motivation?

    May I suggest maybe  he plans to tell us, how if we allow 20 million undocumented to become legal, they'll buy up all of those homes the banks are sitting on.

    "You anti- amnesty people, are preventing the economy from turning around." 

    The banker class more than eager to rid the books of the glut of homes, will help the president;  seeing as how the President saved them once before

    The President can snicker, saying "hear the peasants WERE accusing Washington of corruption and the influence of money on Washington. Now look We can shove Amnesty 2 through, because it's not just the poilitcians moved by money; so are the peasants moved, when the economy can be turned around when the illegals buy the homes the bankers are sitting on.

    "Sorry folks but Tim G, Summers and I, had this planned all along, and it took until,the right timing."

    I get New Democrats to relplace the Dirty F hippies and an economy turning around;  what more could an encumbant ask for? 

    "Sorry for the collateral damage, There will always be winners and losers, and I plan on winning

    "God Bless America"  that should be good for a few votes"


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:37pm

    What didn't I shout about?  I'm sooo confused. And I even put my shirt on frontwards today....

    And Obama's motivation seems to be that this is a promise he made in 2008 he hasn't kept, and he likely read the new NBC/WSJ poll I heard about that puts the percentage of Latinos who thinks he is doing a crap job with the economy at 55%.  Just guessing, since he has to know this ain't goin' anywhere, and he told people to push Congress to make it happen, and contact whitehouse.gov.to get 'involved'.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:51pm

    I just tossed your name in to test whether you were still following the discussion (it has gotten a bit wordy, what with all the side discussions). I see you were.

    You're right, I think, that there won't be legislative action on immigration before the 2012 election. Maybe Obama wanted to get a vague promise of support out there early, so it won't be all anyone is talking about in the weeks and months immediately before the vote is held. I really don't know.


    by acanuck on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:13pm

    Following it, but my eyes are crossed by now.  But if you don't want to tell me, fine; I just won't invite you to my birthday party....     ;o)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:24pm

    You should have known he was yanking chains when he suggested I might be wrong about something.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:14pm

    Damn; that shouldda been a clue.  But Quinn's wrong; at least there's that.  Or at least unclear.  To me.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:39pm

    Likewise, what VA said, quinn.  Especially #3--the second #3. Smile 

    I would observe that US upper middle class liberals (UMC generally, actually) usually are not under serious cultural pressure on account of recent immigrant residential patterns, either. 

    [They aren't under serious economic pressure, as you suggest--either they hire at low wages the lower class immigrants who don't live anywhere nearby and save themselves money on work they'd prefer not to do themselves or, if they are in a situation where other high-class immigrants are competing with them for upper-end jobs, they have a social context which invites respect for achievement, merit, workplace and academic competence generally.  So of course it is hardly surprising that they are, generally speaking, going to be much more receptive to more immigration.  Unless they're hopelessly prejudiced, that is--and there is some of that as well.] 

    The density and class composition of immigrants in upper middle class US suburbs is typically far different than in the central cities (and in some metro areas, inner suburbs now as well).  

    In the UMC suburbs immigrants are usually dispersed [meaning almost inevitably less threatening to other cultural groups, and in some instances probably feeling at least somewhat more culturally threatened or uneasy themselves].  In the central cities and some inner ring suburbs now, they are often densely concentrated, where they can provide more safety and comfort for one another living in culturally less inhibited or self-conscious ways.  

    And in the US only those who have some significant wealth can afford to live in UMC suburbs in the larger metro areas.  So there is a more or less self-created class composition/segregation that is geographically based, hardly affecting only recent immigrants.  Is it this way in Canada as well?

    In my experiences some UMC liberals really do just seem to embrace diversity of just about any type.  Others seem to discover over time, if they haven't already--how to say this?--that they have some different reactions than they expected based on their previous experience base with immigrants and what they had thought was their belief structure and philosophical commitments.  

    The latter is one among several kinds of real-life phenomena that give rise to the familiar charge of the "hypocritical liberal", more humane and accepting or embracing of diversity and equality rhetorically than in practice when it gets up close and personal.  A meme which I have certainly heard Republican candidates and ordinary citizens push in some contexts. 

    I've written before about our friend neighbors--not recent immigrants, either of them (I am admittedly OT here elaborating a bit on the hypocritical liberals phenomenon.) who are just anti-politician and anti-political parties generally, think they are all a bunch of self-serving, worthless scumbags.  They voted for McCain although she has usually voted for Dems before she married this fellow, as her 2nd hub.  The guy has mentioned this concept of the "hypocritical liberal" several times and given examples.  I think he had come to accept the view of liberal-bashers that we are all a bunch of class snobs and talk the talk a lot more than we walk the walk. 

    I'm giving him what may be a different experience.  I happen to agree with a number of his complaints about specific experiences, at least as he relates them to me, which of course is not the entire story.  He hears that I am at least as outraged with the current federal government's soft treatment of the big bank dirtbags who wrecked the economy as he is.  And he turns out to be surprisingly sympathetic to unions as a counterweight to what he sees as unjust economic policies and realities.  He is someone I feel Obama might have won over, over time.  But he's come to see Obama as just part of the bipartisan Washington open sewer, not any different from the rest--a view he admittedly appeared predisposed to have.  I do talk to him about some of the good things I think Obama deserves credit for and why I think the Republicans are vastly worse in relation to the concerns he expresses to me.

    But I digress.  Smile


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:36pm

    We have had massive (mostly legal) immigration in Miami in the last 50 years and the place is basically uninhabitable and ungovernable. The poor have suffered the most. And the environment.


    by Rootman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:37pm

    Meanwhile, the E.U. has decided to crack down.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 1:06am

    Latest Comments