Michael Barone likes the immigration deal -- says it reminds him of the 2003 Medicare reform, but in a good way! It reminds me of that bill, too, in that I'm hearing some people say that anything that makes the conservative base this mad can't be all bad. And, indeed, it can't be all bad, but some things are still bad ideas. One of the worst intellectual habits around is to assume that if you get attacked by both sides you must be on the right track.
« Copyright Forever | Main | Chinese Food Update »
Uh-Oh
21 May 2007 03:00 pm
Comments (31)
Don Williams,
I agree. The Dems are selling out the lower and middle classes for multiculturalism and cheap votes. Disgusting.
If this passes, I'm changing my registration too.
I am a liberal, and I oppose any path to citizenship for illegals, and I oppose any increases in legal immigration.
Big business is using both legal and illegal immigration to drive down American wages.
Please watch this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265
I also support massive decreases in legal immigration. Immigration will destroy our environment, infrastructures, and turn theU.S. into endless suburban development.
The biggest backer of immigration is Wal-Mart, which last year gave more money to La Raza than to any other organization.
Legal and illegal immigration are but tools for big business to drive down American wages.
News flash.
George Bush is not up for reelection.
So the smartest thing he and Karl Rove could do to help the Republicans is to sucker the Democratic leadership into a disasterous deal that will alienate the common Democratic voter and independents from the Democratic candidates.
A deal from which REPUBLICAN Congressional candidates can divorce themselves and run as champions of the little people.
Remember the Assault Rifle bill? How did that go over with all those blue collar union members?
How many states did AL Gore win in the South? Including his home state and Arkansas?
Bush and Rove have succeeded by playing Judo with the Democratic leadership --based upon the hypocrisy of Democratic leaders. Based upon showing the real allegiances of Democratic politicans vs what those politicans tell the Democratic rank and file.
Bush's pandering to Ariel Sharon has revealed just how deeply in debt Democratic leaders are to the Israel Lobby -- to billionaires like Haim Saban. We all saw how tongue-tied John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were in the Iraq debate of 2002. It's called being on the horns of a dilemmna.
Similarly, Bush is now pandering to the Hispanic lobby -- in order to reveal just how deeply in thrall the Democratic leaders are to that lobby.
Revealing these infuriating betrayals is how Republicans manage to gain the support of the common voters.
Republicans divert the attention of the voters away from Republican support for the rich and onto how Democratic politicans make corrupt sellouts to special interests.
I'm hearing some people say that anything that makes the conservative base this mad can't be all bad.I wouldn't put it that way, but I would say that if it drives a wedge between the base and the leadership--if it makes a significant number of the most wingnutty Republicans pissed off enough to stay home or vote third party--then it will have achieved some good entirely separate from its policy impact.
Don Williams and (so-called) Liberal (so-called) Patriot: no doubt there are a fair number of working-class Democrats with ignorant nativist tendencies. That doesn't mean catering to their ignorant nativism is the right thing to do.
Can someone post somewhere easily retrievable the code for tags such as quote, italics, bold etc?
Thanks.
Don Williams:
"So the smartest thing he and Karl Rove could do to help the Republicans is to sucker the Democratic leadership into a disasterous deal that will alienate the common Democratic voter and independents from the Democratic candidates."
An immigration bill anything close to the pending Senate compromise would alienate the Republican base as much if not more than it would alienate Dems like you. Not every bad piece of legislation promoted by President Bush is an example of some braniac Rovian plan to help the GOP get votes; importing millions of poor Mexicans will not help the GOP, since, even when the stars are aligned, the majority of non-Cuban Latinos votes Democrat.
"I wouldn't put it that way, but I would say that if it drives a wedge between the base and the leadership--if it makes a significant number of the most wingnutty Republicans pissed off enough to stay home or vote third party--then it will have achieved some good entirely separate from its policy impact."
Let's say this happens and me and my wingnutty Republican friends stay home an don't vote. So now you can vote in more liberal representatives and advance your 'progressive' agenda, which entails making taxes more progressive and spending more government resources on those at the lower end of the income scale. Here's my question for you: How will you help your poor, needy constituents by importing more poor, needy constituents from Mexico who will compete with them for government resources?
You could, of course, advocate raising taxes even higher and increasing/expanding government transfer programs more to aid the larger underclass swollen by Mexican immigration, but doesn't this become a downward spiral? Higher taxes and benefits will attract more poor immigrants who will require still higher taxes and benefits. A generous welfare state is simply incompatible with a policy of importing tens of millions of poor people.
Barone is a pro-oligarchy/big bidness neocon shill on immigration, like Freddie the Beetle Barnes.
I read Barone's book "The New Americans" when it came out in 1999 and it was facile. It was like a college paper where his assignment was "Argue that our current Mexican illegal immigration fiasco is going to turn out just fine."
His thesis was that old Jewish immigrants are like the more recent East Asians, the old Irish immigrants are the "internal immigrant" black who left the South in the 1950s, and the new Latino immigrants are like the older Italians.
He stuck to it, but it was, as you might imagine, a real stretch. Who can name a few differences between the find-de-siecle Italian wave of immigration and the current Hispanic one? I bet everyone can if they try real hard.
Re Fred's comment " importing millions of poor Mexicans will not help the GOP, since, even when the stars are aligned, the majority of non-Cuban Latinos votes Democrat."
-------
Right -- so why would Republican Congressmen SUPPORT this bill?
Are they not more likely to distance themselves from it at a convenient point and use the bill to vilify the Democrats?
Especially if their districts have a low percentage of Hispanics relative to ethnic groups harmed by this?
Sure, the Republicans are being pressured by Big Business lobbyists wanting cheap labor. But Matthew says Big Business is not happy with the guest worker "sop" in the current bill so screw Big Business.
Besides, Big Business will not be happy if the Democrats keep control of the Congress in 2008 -- since it means those nice tax cuts won't be renewed.
Fred makes a good point. If your concern is poor Americans, how exactly will legalizing 12 million folks (many of them poor) help those Americans? does the law of supply and demand magically disappear when it comes to low wage labor?
enforce the current laws, esp the ones vs employers for using illegal workers, and see what happens in a few yrs.
The so-called intellectuals don't note another heavy cost for our country. As I noted earlier, China has over 4 TIMEs the population we do (1.3 Billion vs 300 million) , yet we have almost 5 TIMES more people incarcerated than does China (7 million versus 1.5 million ).
We spend $Hundreds of BILLIONS to apprehend, try, convict, and imprison our citizens -- instead of offering them a road to a decent life.
Yet our two-faced pundit whores bleat about the "economic benefits" of massive illegal immigration--while averting their eyes from the huge costs.
Who can name a few differences between the find-de-siecle Italian wave of immigration and the current Hispanic one? I bet everyone can if they try real hard.
Zagnut: Let me rephrase it: who can name a few similarities between the fin-de-siecle Italian wave of immigration and the current Hispanic one? I bet everyone can without even trying very hard.
These immigrants are already part of our economy. They're already taking whatever jobs they're taking. Giving them papers isn't going to "take jobs away from Americans" at all - those jobs are already gone.
However, legalizing them will force employers to pay them minimum wage. Which means you're no longer competing against somebody who's taking 3 dollars an hour.
But Jasper, the similarities aren't as important as the differences. There are numerous similarities between a bowl of Cap'n Crunch and a bowl of Cap'n Crunch laced with rat poison, but I'd be more interested in what's different about them.
If it was Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch I'd eat it whether it was poisoned or not, that shit is good!
"These immigrants are already part of our economy. They're already taking whatever jobs they're taking."
If we enforce our laws and send illegal aliens back to the countries they are citizens of, they won't be taking those jobs anymore, will they Josh?
They also won't be consuming public benefits they're not entitled to.
We also wouldn't be sending a signal to the rest of the world that we're going to do another amnesty in 20 years.
Senate just scrapped next week's deadline. I sense me some pro-enforcement momentum.
I'm tired of paying rent, so I'm going to break into Josh Yelon's house.
If there are locks on the door, I'll break them, while complaining about his non-inclusive lock policy.
I'll make his bed (nasty!) and wash his dishes. If he tries to kick me out, I'll claim I'm already part of the house's economy and that he's got to change his life around to accommodate me.
Analogies ain't perfect. But this one ain't bad. Josh, do we have a hot tub? I lie hot tubs. Actually, I demand one.
Hey Zag & Don Williams, why don't you go get a job? Or a hobby? Try an online dating site or start your own blog?
I've unmasked both of you as racists in past threads - you have stated that you are willing to drive the U.S. economy into the ground and put an immigration checkpoint on every corner if only it could ensure permanent white supremacy. Yeah sure, you are Democrats like I'm a Republican (i.e. you're lying). I have no desire to waste my evening - as I'm quite sure both of you will waste yours - sitting in front of this computer screen. Everyone should just ignore these pathetic white-supremacists and say C-ya!
El Future,
I have two hobbies, posting on weblogs and trying to keep my country from becoming a hole.
Sometimes I combine the two!
"racists...
white supremacy...
white-supremacists..."
WelcometotheFuture... of political discourse.
I don't have any major problem with immigrants (illegal or otherwise) if they come in, work over the table and pay their taxes and payroll taxes like everyone else. My guess is most of them would be happy to do that. I have a real problem with guest worker programs that don't or can't lead to citizenship. What's with the alleged provisions in the new immigration bill that allow for two years as a guest worker then five years banned. Why would any worker agree to that?
The Senate's immigration bill is a masterful example of both parties (or more accurately both wings of our 1 party system) betraying their constituents. The Democrats are screwing the ordinary workers whom they always claim to represent just as the GOP is screwing its conservative base. The political elites want more ignorant, uneducated voters just as bad as the business elites want more ignorant, uneducated workers. I give the U.S. maybe one more generation before it achieves true banana republic status. Huge debt, ignorant population, control entirely in the hands of the rich.
Welcometothefuture, you don't have to be a "pathetic white supremicist" to want slow down, as opposed to accelerate, the shift in racial demographics the USA is undergoing. All you have to be is a person that wants to live in a low crime country:
Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men
By Rubén G. Rumbaut, Roberto G. Gonzales, Golnaz Komaie, and Charlie V. Morgan
University of California, Irvine
excerpt: "Second Generation
Incarceration rates increase significantly for all US-born coethnics without exception. That is most notable for Mexicans, whose incarceration rate increases more than eightfold to 5.9 percent among the US born; for Vietnamese (from 0.46 to 5.6 percent among the US born); and for the Laotians and Cambodians (from 0.92 percent to 7.26 percent, the highest of any group except for native blacks)............[snip]
....Thus, while incarceration rates are found to be extraordinarily low among immigrants, they are also seen to rise rapidly by the second generation. Except for the Chinese and Filipinos, the rates of all US-born Latin American and Asian groups exceed that of the referent group of non-Hispanic white natives."
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=403
Don Williams:
"Right -- so why would Republican Congressmen SUPPORT this bill?"
The majority of Republican Congressmen won't support the bill (remember, it was the GOP-controlled House that effectively killed the amnesty bill last year). The problem is, Republican Congressmen can't stop it. And there are more pro-open borders Republicans in the Senate (e.g., McCain).
"Besides, Big Business will not be happy if the Democrats keep control of the Congress in 2008 -- since it means those nice tax cuts won't be renewed."
Don't you worry too much about Big Business. They have a lot of options when it comes to taxes, e.g., if the 15% tax on dividends is increased (I doubt it will be -- Wall Street Dems won't like that), publicly-traded corporations can scale back dividend payments and increase occasional stock buybacks. Big Businesses can also lobby for tax breaks specific to their industries, or relocate operations to more favorable tax jurisdictions (e.g., Ireland). They can also pass along the cost of higher taxes to consumers. The only folks who will get hammered by repealing tax cuts will be the 'working rich' as I call them: Physicians, attorneys, high-income salesmen, etc. Warren Buffett will do fine (he's already given donations to Hillary and Obama).
Jasper:
"who can name a few similarities between the fin-de-siecle Italian wave of immigration and the current Hispanic one? I bet everyone can without even trying very hard."
This doesn't need to be hypothetical: we already have multiple generations of Mexican-Americans here, and we can compare their rates of achievement with earlier waves of immigration at similar stages. As Samuel Huntington pointed out in Foreign Policy (The Hispanic Challenge), 41% of 4th Generation (!) Mexican-American adults haven't graduated high school. Do you think the same percentage applies with 4th generation Italian Americans?
Josh Yelon:
"However, legalizing them will force employers to pay them minimum wage. Which means you're no longer competing against somebody who's taking 3 dollars an hour."
Two problems here. First, I highly doubt that most illegals are being paid less than the minimum wage. There was an article in the NY Times recently, for example, that said illegal alien busboys in diners were getting paid $10 per hour (though they had to kick back about 20% of that to the agent who placed them). Second, legalizing today's illegals doesn't mean there won't be another wave of illegals competing against them -- particularly if there is no effective border enforcement. That's exactly what happened after the '86 immigration deal.
I think illegal immigrants could do a real service by taking the jobs of 97% of America's awful pundit class (we can keep Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert). We need healthy free-market competition applied to this closed-off, insulated racket. True, there might be a slight language problem, but I'm positive it would still be more interesting and insight-providing to read (or attempt to read with our Spanish-English dictionaries at hand) various compadres coming up from South of the Border than the insipid musings of American columnists and talking heads.
You want to keep Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert? Krugman is shrill, but he did at least concede that the laws of economics still apply on immigration. Bob Herbert? He had the audacity to call Clarence Thomas an affirmative action hire (true) without acknowledging that he is also an affirmative action hire (also true). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Anyhow, the cultural elite in America doesn't feel threatened by Mexican Americans, or Latinos in general. They know the most popular TV show for them is Sabado Gigante, which is cringe-inducing in its... well, you just have to watch it.
Welcome, Josh: You're both trying to take money from American poor and give it to the poor in Mexico. You're not advocating this to make the lives of Mexicans better, so stop pretending that you are. You just want to benefit from cheaper goods and cheaper labor while putting millions of Americans into unemployment. It's not your own pockets your talking about picking, so please sit the fuck down, and shut the fuck up until you're willing to be more honest about this. You're really just hypocrites.
You want to keep Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert? Krugman is shrill, but he did at least concede that the laws of economics still apply on immigration.
Absolutely zero credible economists are claiming the laws of economics don't apply to immigration. What the debate about is to what extent immigration puts downward pressure on wages. Actually, there isn't much debate. The overwhelming consensus is that the effect -- just like that of trading with poorer countries -- is exceedingly modest.
Jasper:
In his seminal NY Times column North of the Border, Krugman did more than acknowledge that low-skilled Mexican immigrants:
"increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration."
He also admitted that:
...modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should, and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net... [because] low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive."
Give that low-skilled Mexican immigrants both lower wages for low-skilled American workers and consume more government benefits than they pay in taxes, why do you want to import millions more of them?
The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
Right. So, like, 10.85, instead of 10.00. Big freakin' deal. And that's just Borjas, who is by no means the final word on the subject. Most studies have shown the gap to be much narrower -- something along the lines of 2 % if memory serves me right (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=296108). It's shocking you cherrypicked Borjas's work -- just shocking. Anyway, I'd much prefer to help poor people by giving them things that will actually improve their lives, like a fairer tax code, wage replacement insurance, robust worker retraining, much better schools, and guaranteed, high quality health insurance. And if it's wages you that are your real concern, your best bet is to give all workers -- brown, yellow, white and black -- a booming economy. The extremely modest (if it even exists at all) boost in wages they'd likely get if all immigration were ended tomorrow morning would likely be eroded by higher prices. Just ask the Japanese -- mechanization ain't everything.
Give that low-skilled Mexican immigrants both lower wages for low-skilled American workers and consume more government benefits than they pay in taxes, why do you want to import millions more of them?
I don't "want to import millions of Mexicans." I simply believe immigration's benefits exceed its costs. Since we're getting hundreds of thousands each year anyway, I naturally ask the question: what is the proper policy response? My preferred policy is: regularization, education, assimilation. Your preferred policy seems to be "I don't want any." Great. Good for you. Your policy preferences will be realized the same year we also legislate the Free Lunch and the Perpetual Motion Machine.
I suspect, FWIW, that America's failure to come to terms with Latino economic migration will actually exacerbate the trends you supposedly worry about, like negative wage pressure. Were we to adopt a sensible program legalizing such immigration (ideally one a lot better designed than the barely adequate plan just passed by the Senate), we'd actually stand a decent change of regulating and perhaps reducing the influx from south of the border. My guess is a typical would-be illegal immigrant, when given the opportunity to immigrate legally, will choose to do so, even if that means waiting a few years for his number to come up. After all, the quality of life of an illegal immigrant, while an an improvement in many respects over life in the old country, in nonetheless inferior to what is enjoyed by legal residents.
Jasper,
"Right. So, like, 10.85, instead of 10.00. Big freakin' deal."
So black high school dropouts should take their 8% pay cut and not whine about it. Mighty white of you to be so empathetic.
"I simply believe immigration's benefits exceed its costs."
Well as long as you believe that the benefits of massive unskilled immigration exceed the costs, I'm sold. Since the costs are lower wages for the poorest Americans and the shredding of the social safety net as these low-skilled immigrants consume more in government services than they pay in taxes, what exactly are the benefits that you see exceeding these costs? Please don't obfuscate the issue by talking about the benefits of highly-skilled immigrants. I'm in favor of highly-skilled immigration, just against massive low-skilled immigration.
You assume there's no way we can stem the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico. The truth is we've never tried. Mexico does try to keep illegal aliens from crossing its southern border, with cutting edge technologies such as fences. They do a far better job of it than we do. My policy prescriptions would be we make a similar effort on our border. Build a fence. Combine it with requiring a verifiable ID for legal employment. Every job I've had I've needed to show proof of legal employment status; let the restaurants and meatpacking plants do the same.
The problem with building a fence and requiring employers to verify employees' legal status isn't that either would take rocket science to do, it's just that there has been no political will to even try so far. Multiculti lefties, who respond emotionally rather than rationally to the situation, are in favor of continued massive unskilled immigration, even though logic would tell you that more poor immigrants means lower wages and fewer opportunities for poor Americans, and fewer government resources per each poor American.
Low-wage employers (and the Republican politicians to whom they contribute) welcome more poor immigrants too, because they'd rather hire Mexicans as busboys than have to higher poor African Americans. Democrats of course welcome another underclass constituency of reliable voters.
Sometimes your initial emotional response to an issue is wrong. Weigh the facts, and try to have some empathy for your fellow citizens, including the poorest ones.
For those of you who think the immigration bill is some clever Rove plot, check out these responses to one of the WSJ's pro-amnesty/open borders editorials
Comments closed June 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Re "anything that makes the conservative base this mad can't be all bad"
-------
What "conservative base"??
What about the DEMOCRATIC base -- especially blue collar workers and Afro-Americans who worked to return Democrats to Congress only to see those Democrats stab them in the back as the first order of business.
(I'm ignoring the pathetic posturing over Actually doing something about Iraq).
I've worked for months as a volunteer for Democratic candidates in the last three Congressional elections --as well as a volunteer in the Howard Dean campaign.
Yet I'm thinking about changing my registration to independent because i don't think my stomach is strong enough to be a Democrat. To say our leaders are amoral whores is to slander all those hardworking street walkers who draw the line at some acts --who say that there are some things they won't do.
Posted by Don Williams | May 21, 2007 3:48 PM