David Brooks' take on Mike Huckabee is very good and I agree with pretty much everything Brooks says. The trouble, though, is in what Brooks doesn't say, namely that Huckabee is essentially doomed because he's alienated both anti-tax fanatics and immigrant-haters and those are key GOP constituencies. A Republican Party without plutocrats or white nationalists would be a more appealing political movement, but it would also be a very different one from the Republican Party we have.
« Irony Watch | Main | Lazare on The Israel Lobby »
Brooks on Huckabee
19 Oct 2007 05:25 pm
Comments (53)
Of course, the other big problem is that Huckabee supports the crackpot fairtax proposals. What you really want, if you want a Christian Democrat right, is Huckabee with better tax policy. That would be a party one could live with.
Brooks is full of shit.
Huckabee is NOT a "solid conservative." The folks that asshole Brooks has been defending for the last 7 years are "solid conservatives."
Right, the view of Matt on immigration (like that of Mike Huckabee, David Brooks, and George W. Bush) is that, rather than the people electing a new government, the government should elect a new people.
(As Bertolt Brecht said in a rare moment of anti-Communism in 1953).
. A Republican Party without plutocrats or white nationalists would be a more appealing political movement
You mean because it would be a neutered minority party for the foreseeable future, as it largely was during the early part of FDR's reign? Fair point, but probably not what Brooks was aiming for.
The GOP would transform into an European-styled Christian Democratic Party, then, would it not? Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, hawkish foreign policy?
The GOP would transform into an European-styled Christian Democratic Party, then, would it not? Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, hawkish foreign policy?
That's a party that would win a lot of elections in the U.S.
Brooks: "He doesn’t seem to be visibly calculating every gesture. Far from being narcissistic, he is, if anything, too neighborly to seem presidential."
Vote Huckabee he’s not a narcissist!
Also liked the little bit at the end where he says Huckabee is popular with the press corps. Did he really even need to say that?
It wouldn't turn the GOP into a Christian Democratic party.
To be honest, the Democratic Party is more like a Christian Democratic Party in its philosohphical underpinnings.
For one, Christian Democratic parties are not hawkish. They tend to be grounded in cultural Catholicism, which makes them conservative, but more in a small "c" sense. They tend to be technocratic and cautious, with a faith in established institutions and practices. This is nothing like whta
The GOP is fundamentally a right wing nationalist party. It is more populist, nationalistic, and ideological than any Christian Democratic Party. And it is fundamentally so. It would have to be remade fairly radically to become a Christian Democratic Party. It would require dropping its almost fanatical devotion to American righteousness/American exceptionalism, which derives from an evangelical Christian spirit that is fundamentally at odds with the CAtholic spirit that is at the root of parties like the CDU/CSU in Germany, the Mexican PAN, etc..
Re: The GOP is fundamentally a right wing nationalist party.
That doesn't quite cut it either. Because its nationalism is more of a propagandist pose than a program. In fact it's wholly lacking in any sort of economic nationalism, one reason I always object to the meme that the GOP is "fascist". On economic matters, quite openly, and more covertly on some other matters, the GOP is fairly internationalist. The America Firsters, like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, were long ago told to sit down and shut up.
JonF - maybe you have a different idea of what "nationalist" means?
I mean nationalistic in that it is a hyper-patriotic party whose is appeal is grounded in an evangelical faith in American's goodness and its "mission." The American miltiary is an extension and exemplar of this faith. Nationalist doesn't have to mean the kind of European "blood and soil" nationalism it seems to invoke for you. At least in my opinion.
Strawmen again, eh Matt?
It's not Immigrants Republicans don't like - it's illegal immigrants. I'd like to see the legal system opened up and made simpler, and the floodgates of the too open border closed down.
Your side seems to simply favor completely open borders. Even back in the late 19th century, there was better checking for things like communicable diseases at Ellis Island than there is at the border today.
I guess I would also say that the GOP's "internationalism" is only possible because the US can potentially dominate the international sphere - it is a hegemonic power. In other words, it is only interested in the rest of the world insofar as it fulfills a (their) sense of America's specialness and it ability to bring American ideas to benighted people who don't yet share them.
This clearly doesn't extend to any interest in a real give-and-take or empathy with other nations and a corresponding interest or respect in international insitutions and foreign public opinion. To me, these things defines internationalism.
So this makes its national chauvinism different from nationalism as it functions in, say, modern Poland or Serbia. But it is a form of national chauvinism nonetheless.
Not many Republicans are for increased legal immigrations, either. Which would presumably be the result of "the legal system opened up and made simpler".
Instead, most seem to say they favor legal immigration and simultaneously tighten restrictions on immigration, while ignoring the reality of the ridiculously restrictive regulations already in place. The result? Illegal immigration. I have yet to hear a candidate come out in favor of increased immigration.
I've always thought that an American CDP would be a combination between the Populists under William Jennings Bryan and the Progressives under Theodore Roosevelt.
It's good to see MattY in fine, self-discrediting form.
Supporting the enforcement of our immigration laws isn't a mark of an "immigrant-hater".
On the other hand, someone who opposes enforcement of our immigration laws - as MattY does - usually has some sort of financial or power-based stake. Either they're being paid off, or they're seeking race-based political power for themselves or their party, or similar.
I don't think MattY's on the take, but given his support for illegal activity I wonder why not. C'mon, MattY, take a taste.
It's not Immigrants Republicans don't like - it's illegal immigrants. I'd like to see the legal system opened up and made simpler, and the floodgates of the too open border closed down.
This is obviously not the case. Nobody with a lick of common sense - or an ounce of economic literacy -- doubts illegal immigration could be radically slashed by a generously expanded quota for legal immigration from Latin America. But the "let's reduce illegal immigration by increasing legal immigration" argument garners very little support amongst rank and file Republicans these days. And that's because, they, um, don't like immigration, period, legal or not.
Matty
Does someone who supports prosecuting the illegal acts of rapists constitute a "rapist-hater" in your mind?
"Nobody with a lick of common sense - or an ounce of economic literacy -- doubts illegal immigration could be radically slashed by a generously expanded quota for legal immigration from Latin America."
Sheer, unadulterated BS. A great many of the illegal immigrants could not enter the country under any rational system of expanded legal immigration, for such basic reasons as English illiteracy or criminal records. Open the legal floodgates without border enforcement, and the new legal immigrants will be in addition to the current flood of illegals. Particularly since legal immigrants, no matter how many they might be, can't fill the demand for cheap labor which doesn't dare complain about working conditions, which is what drives illegal immigration.
Nor would a rational expansion of legal immigration concentrate on Latin America. There's a whole world of people who want to come here, and giving one specific part of that world overwhelming preference only makes absorbing immigrants more difficult. A rational expansion of legal immigration would probably be mostly from eastern Europe and Asia.
As Charles Krauthammer wrote, using an analogy NBA fanboy Matthew Yglesias should appreciate:
"As the most attractive land for would-be immigrants, America has the equivalent of the first 100 picks in the NBA draft. Yet through lax border control and sheer inertia, it allows those slots to be filled by (with apologies to Bill Buckley) the first 100 names in the San Salvador phone book."
Any rational immigration policy ought to consider what is in America's best interest: millions of unskilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America with 4th grade educations, or college-educated engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs from Poland, South Korea, India, etc.? The educated, skilled immigrants will contribute more in taxes than they consume in government benefits, on average. The unskilled immigrants won't. After four generations here, most Mexican-Americans still don't even graduate high school.
Re: JonF - maybe you have a different idea of what "nationalist" means?
Sure. Pat Buchanan is a nationalist, in just about every sense. George Bush is not. Nationalism = "Amerika Über Alles." Bush and Company don't share that attitude in altogether too many areas. They are willing to put too much else in front of America. The self-interest of the upper classes, and even the interests of their foreign friends, like the Saudi royals. Now compare that to, say, Mussolini. Can you see Il Duce at his worst throwing open the Italian markets to free trade or putting the interests of 1920s Wall Street plutocrats ahead of Gloriosa Madre Italia?
Re: Nationalist doesn't have to mean the kind of European "blood and soil" nationalism it seems to invoke for you.
That's the only kind of nationalism I can conceive of. Otherwise you have nationalism without a nation, which is like Christianity with no Christ, or Islam with no Allah. I really don't think the GOP can be analyzed properly in terms of past "-isms". They are sui generis, partaking of a little of this and a little of that (generally the worst of each) but not consistently of anything.
Re: ...grounded in an evangelical faith in American's goodness and its "mission."
The idea is shared by at least some folk on the Left, though in a very, very different way. For that matter it was shared by Abraham Lincoln ("Mankind's last, best hope") and even the Founders. These folks were not nationalists, and they would be quite horrified by today's GOP.
Re: I guess I would also say that the GOP's "internationalism" is only possible because the US can potentially dominate the international sphere
I agree that the term "imperialistic" can be applied to today's GOP. But only in a limited way. They want the perks of empire, but are unwilling to accept the burdens it brings. Hence trying to do Iraq on the cheap.
Re: Not many Republicans are for increased legal immigrations, either.
???
The GOP is still rather dominated by pro-immigration folks at the top. Hence the Bush immigration reform bill which all kinds of leading Republicans signed onto.
he doesn't believe in evolution. no more willfully ignorant presidents, please.
shecky - our immigration system is ridiculously restricitve? I was under the impression that it was one of the least restrictive in the world.
Steve Sailer- excellent point.
"They want the perks of empire, but are unwilling to accept the burdens it brings."
THAT would imply wanting the tribute shipped back to the empire's capitol, without sending out the necessary armies. Whereas we ARE sending out the armies, (Admittedly on the cheap.) and not getting a cent of tribute. Heck, if anything, we're sending the "tribute" (Foreign aid) in the opposite direction! IOW, that statement is about as close to 180 degrees from the truth as is humanly possible.
Now, the Russians, they knew how to run an empire, as anybody in Eastern Europe could tell you.
A great many of the illegal immigrants could not enter the country under any rational system of expanded legal immigration, for such basic reasons as English illiteracy or criminal records.
Are you seriously contending that English literacy is necessary to wash dishes or roof houses? This is one of the most absurd restrictionist arguments I've yet heard. I think absolutely nobody wants to admit criminal immigrants. But we'd certainly stand a better chance of stopping them if we diverted the bulk of economic immigration into legal channels, thereby freeing up limited resources into stopping those who actually pose a danger to us. I'm not arguing for letting in everybody who wants to immigrate. I'm arguing in favor of allowing in a number of economic migrants sufficient to subvert the perverse incentives to break our immigration laws. Call me crazy, but I'm not a big fan of black markets.
Open the legal floodgates without border enforcement, and the new legal immigrants will be in addition to the current flood of illegals.
Who exactly is advocating any policy "without border enforcement?" You and Lou Dobbs need to lay off the acid. No sensible person aware of that phenomenon known as "terrorism" wants the borders left unguarded. Again, allowing the finite number of people assigned to our borders to focus on actual enemies of the country rather than its future workers would only enhance our safety. Unfortunately for folks like you, doing so might mean we reach 25% hispanicization in 2031 instead of 2052. Or something.
Particularly since legal immigrants, no matter how many they might be, can't fill the demand for cheap labor...
We haven't been able to "fill the demand" for new workers since 1607; by what magical set of circumstances do you suppose it's some day going to be "met?" I think this particularly economically illiterate debate point of yours underscores my original contention about the fundamental hostility of many contemporary American "conservatives" to immigration of any kind -- legal or not.
There's a whole world of people who want to come here, and giving one specific part of that world overwhelming preference only makes absorbing immigrants more difficult.
Nobody needs to give "overwheliming preference" to migrants from Latin America. Geography has already done that. This is about devising policies to deal with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. If the same distance that separates the United States from Indonesia also kept Mexico at bay, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A rational policy deals with the facts at hand. And fact numero uno is it's easy for Latin Americans to sneak into the US because they're close, and because the border is very long and very hard to seal off. Rational analysis acknowledges we don't need to have the same policy with respect to economic migration from areas outside the western hemisphere, because, to a considerable degree, "distance" takes the place of "policy." And, in any event, it's not a foregone conclusion that subverting the black market in illegal labor requires giving preferences to Latino migrants over those from Asia. My own analysis leads me to suspect an annual increase of as little as 500,000 additional Latin Americans (targeting lower-skilled workers who might otherwise be tempted to swim the Rio Grande) might well be enough to dry up illegal immigration from the western hemisphere. There's no reason that 500,000 couldn't be coupled with increases for Europe and Asia.
The United States government allows an annual immigration inflow that is essentially unchanged from the level of a century ago. Obviously the country and its economy are many times larger than 1907, and equally obviously, we've seen a commensurate increase in the demand for immigrant labor. Shockingly, a black market has materialized to meet the demand the government won't allow to be met by legal means.
Any rational immigration policy ought to consider what is in America's best interest: millions of unskilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America with 4th grade educations...
Like my great-grandparents, you mean?
Unskilled immigrants who work their ass off are going to have kids and grandkids who will be great Americans. (Before declining in the next generation I seem to have done.)
People tend to think of America as finished, but there's no reason not to think that we're just getting started.
The Bush-Huckabee-Brooks Grand Strategy:
Invite the World, which means we have to Invade the World.
"Are you seriously contending that English literacy is necessary to wash dishes or roof houses? "
No, I'm seriously contending that the number of immigrants we could feasibly absorb is far less than the number of people who want to immigrate, who are English literate. And that, given the manifest disadvantages of having groups within your country that can't speak the common tongue, that implies restricting immigration to people who are English literate, outside of exceptional circumstances.
Even if you can wash dishes or roof houses without speaking English, being able to speak English is a plus.
Talking about the future of the Republican Party is laughable since changing demographics coupled with the incompetence of the Bush Administration will soon make the Republican Party irrelelvant. For a political party to be relevant, it has to win election and changing demographics will eventually ensure that the Republicans cannot win election.
The real question is what will politics be like in the U.S. when half the population is black and hispanics. The other question is what will happen to the Democratic Party when all of the former Republican voters start voting in the Democratic Party primaries?
I think, Superdestroyer, you seriously fail to understand how the two party system works in practice. The Republican party will continue to be relevant, it will just adopt enough Democratic positions to split the newly engineered electorate with the Democratic.
That's one of the points of illegal immigration, on that Sailer was right at 5:53: The major parties are in the process of electing a new people, who will be more accepting of the sort of parties our current parties aspire to being. (Corrupt and rent seeking, like the PRI.) The Republican party just screwed up and got ahead of the transition for a bit. It will catch up with them.
Brett,
1. The enormous size of the government will allow the U.S. as a one party state. As long as the Democrats rewards more than 50% of the voters with large government programs while while having most of the taxes paid by one segment of the population (upper middle and upper class whites), the Democratic Party can easily function as the only relevant political party.
2. The Republicans have tried moving to get new demographic groups and all they have manged to do is lose more votes from the based than they ever hoped to pick up. Part of the Republicans funding raising and turnout issues were caused when they tried to get more Hispanic voters. The middle class whites in the Republican Party revolted but the Republicans failed to pick up any Hispanic support.
If you believe that the Republicans can survive as a poltical party, then you are claiming that the Republicans will again be competatives in California. I just do not see that happening. What is more likely as that as the U.S., as a whole, become more like California, the Republican Party will become less relevant. And soon, the Republicans will be unable to be competatives in most elections and cease to exist as a major political party.
Re: THAT would imply wanting the tribute shipped back to the empire's capitol, without sending out the necessary armies.
But we aren't sending out the necessary army. We are sending out an expeditionary force only. The necessary army in Iraq would be ten times (or more) what we have there, in order to quell all resistance and really put the place under our boot. But that would entail a draft and a major tax increase to support it. A true imperialist wouldn't care: they'd take those measures, and any other necessary ones (see: Napoleon, the Romans, etc. and etc.) But the GOP isn't willing to do anything that might upset their domestic agenda. Hence half-assed Walmart-priced imperialism. And like most extra-cheap bargains, it don't work.
JonF, we might not be sending out enough army, but we're not getting the tribute at all. You know, the reason "empires" send out the army in the first place?
We're not half-assed imperialists, we're half-assed non-imperialists. Our not fitting the imperial model doesn't imply us being competent at what we ARE doing.
"I'm seriously contending that the number of immigrants we could feasibly absorb is far less than the number of people who want to immigrate, who are English literate. And that, given the manifest disadvantages of having groups within your country that can't speak the common tongue, that implies restricting immigration to people who are English literate, outside of exceptional circumstances."
Brett,
How do you know that we can't absorb the number of people who want to immigrate here for economic reasons? What basis do you have for that position?
If anything, the facts argue the opposite. The fact that we have so many illegal immigrants here who are making a legitimate living shows that our country can absorb people far in excess of the levels set in the early 20th century. I have never understood how so-called supporters of free markets can understand the folly of imposing quotas of imported goods, but can't see the same lack of logic in imposing quotas of imported labor.
Moreover, fluency in English is not a genetic condition; it is a question of knowledge. History has shown that immigrants overall are capable of learning English, and that their native-born children are fluent in the language. Moreover, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of immigrants are overwhelmingly English-only speakers. Again, it amazes me how so-called believers in the dynamism of American society are so ready to subscribe to a defeatist mindset when it comes to assimilating immigrants.
I'm aware that English isn't a genetic condition. Anybody who wants to immigrate here who's barred by reason of English illiteracy, then, has the capacity to remedy that lack. Before immigrating.
Having factions in your population that don't speak the same language, (I'm not talking bilingual here.) is just flat out bad news. There's NOTHING good about it. It just stonkers me that some people want that to get worse.
"Having factions in your population that don't speak the same language, (I'm not talking bilingual here.) is just flat out bad news."
That's assuming that people in those faction are PERMANENT non-English speakers. When has that ever been a reality in American society? The only examples I can think of are segments of Native Americans and of Chicanos in the American Southwest. Note that I say Chicanos, not Mexican-Americans. I am referring specifically to the Mexicans who lived in the American Southwest who were there when it was still part of Mexico, and to many of their descendants. Immigrants to the US, on the other hand, have undergone the assimilation process here, and their descendants are overwhelmingly English-only speakers by the 3rd generation. Moreover, even the bilingual 2nd generation tend to regard English as their 1st language.This applies to Latino immigrants as well.
Even in the cases of Native Americans and Chicanos (who are conquered peoples and not immigrants) the pressures of assimilation have worked to promote the widespread adoption of English among its modern generations.
So the condition that you fear doesn't exist. Therefore, there is no need to demand English fluency & literacy as a condition for admission in this country.
Furthermore, this country has never experienced a period where English was spoken by every person in this country. There have always been enclaves of non-English speakers in the American population (even in the colonial period). Yet, somehow, this country has averted disaster over the centuries.
Is it really possible that 21st century America is incapable of dealing with immigrant assimilation, while the relatively primitive America of centuries past was?
Brett,
I do agree, however, that fluency and literacy in English should be a condition for an immigrant to acquire CITIZENSHIP.
eltoro,
It is much easier for immigrants to keep functioning in their native language. Previous generations did not have international airlines, cell phones, DVDs, and satellite television that allows them to maintain their proficiency in their native language. Recent immigrants from central and south american can easily function in the U.S. without learning English.
It is only a matter of time when it will be easier to function in Spanish if you live in California instead of English.
eltoro says: I have never understood how so-called supporters of free markets can understand the folly of imposing quotas of imported goods, but can't see the same lack of logic in imposing quotas of imported labor.
"supporters of free markets" are generally too stupid to recognize the differences between people and refrigerators. Unlike the latter, people tend to bring their beliefs and customs with them, can be manipulated by those linked to foreign governments and by racial demagogues (youtube.com/watch?v=3jwqQ8DtlPQ), and so on. That "imported labor", whether given the right to vote or not, has an impact on our political system as we can see by those who pretend to pander to Hispanics by supporting loose immigration. They also give foreign governments and racial demagogues power and even affects CongressionalApportionment.
And, as we saw last year, they can be agitated to make a show of force in our streets. And, it's a security issue as well: if we tried to conduct MassDeportations of those who are here illegally, we'd probably suffer millions of dollars of property damage and hundreds or thousands of lives lost.
So, it's pretty obvious that "eltoro" can't think things through.
P.S. Note to MattY. A couple years ago, one guy got almost 3/4 of a million dollars from the MexicanGovernment to promote their policies in the U.S. IllegalImmigration is a multi-billion dollar industry, and there are plenty of governments, business groups, and businesses with cash to spare. If you're going to promote the "industry" you might as well get your share.
"After four generations here, most Mexican-Americans still don't even graduate high school."
Juan,
In case you haven't realized, this is true of many Americans who aren't Mexican-Americans. There are generations of WASPs, particularly in the South, for whom this is true. Are you also going to advocate the removal of large segments of native-born Americans who have failed to graduate high school?
Moreover, Juan, there are many Mexican-Americans who graduate from high school and then later go to college or trade school. They acquire skills and become productive members of society. Most of these Mexican-Americans are descended from unskilled, uneducated, even illiterate, immigrants from Latin America. How is it fair then to advocate a policy that bars Latin American immigrants merely for being unskilled? Maybe you don't realize this, Juan, but America is a far more dynamic and adaptable country than wherever you came from.
BTW, Juan, I don't know about the Mexican-Americans you hang out with, but in my working class Mexican-American community in Chicago's Southeast Side, graduation from high school is the NORM, not the exception.
"That "imported labor", whether given the right to vote or not, has an impact on our political system as we can see by those who pretend to pander to Hispanics by supporting loose immigration. They also give foreign governments and racial demagogues power and even affects CongressionalApportionment."
TLB,
This was true of other immigrant groups in the past. Why was it okay for immigrant Irish, Italians, and Germans to exude influence on American society, while it is illegitimate for immigrant Latinos to do the same thing?
No, TLB, it is you that doesn't think things through.
"And, as we saw last year, they can be agitated to make a show of force in our streets. And, it's a security issue as well: if we tried to conduct Mass Deportations of those who are here illegally, we'd probably suffer millions of dollars of property damage and hundreds or thousands of lives lost."
TLB,
How are protests (not riots) an example of a show of force? Are you such a wingnut that dissent of any sort qualifies as an act of violence in your eyes?
Moreover, while I don't that mass deportation would result in your scenario (at least on the part of those being deported), I don't see how this is an argument for continuing to legally restrict immigration in contravention of economic reality. If anything, it is a prudential argument for granting amnesty and lifting the numerical limits we currently place on legal immigration from Latin America. We arrived at this situation because our immigration law contravenes economic realities, just as Prohibition did. Doesn't it make more sense to reduce illegal immigration by making it legal, rather than trying to deport every illegal immigrant and trying to wall off this country?
Again, TLB, you haven't thought things through.
Superdestroyer,
It may be easier in some ways to get along without learning English, but considering that the demands and pressures of our society require a greater level of literacy in English among our population, the overall pressures in American society to learn English and become literate in it haven't abated. Arguably, they have increased. Immigrants learn very quickly that without a sufficient knowledge of English, they will remain permanently marginalized in American society. That is why even today's immigrants push their children, particularly their American-born ones, to learn English.
What's different about today's immigrants is that they don't feel the necessity to have their families abandon nearly every aspect of their native culture. They want their to incorporate both American culture and immigrant culture. Whether their children actually do this is another story. American pop culture is such a widespread influence in our society that the vast majority of children of immigrants embrace a wholly American identity.
Eltoro,
I have anecdotal experiences every day that would demonstrate that it is easier to function with no knowledge of English (push 1 for Spanish, government workers and school teachers being required to learn Spanish, etc) while also seeing immigrants devaluing English (speaking to their small children in Spanish, frequently spanish-only neighborhoods, watching Univision. How many American born children of Hispanics never heard an English word spoken at home.
If you worked in law enforcement, in an emergency room, on in social work, you would see first hand how most recent Hispanic immigrants are illiterate in both Spanish and English.
"In case you haven't realized, this is true of many Americans who aren't Mexican-Americans. There are generations of WASPs, particularly in the South, for whom this is true."
Eltoro,
Let's say that the academic performance of "WASPS, particularly in the South" were as awful as that of Mexican-Americans, which we both know isn't true. How would this be argument for importing more unskilled, uneducated Mexicans? If anything, it would an additional argument against doing so -- why increase the percentage of uneducated poor people in this country whose descendants, if history is any guide, will stay uneducated and poor for generations? There is no good reason to do so.
"BTW, Juan, I don't know about the Mexican-Americans you hang out with, but in my working class Mexican-American community..."
My limited anecdotal experiences are as irrelevant as your limited anecdotal experiences; policy shouldn't be decided by anecdote, but by examination of statistically significant data. Those data clearly indicate that importing more uneducated Mexicans is a losing proposition for this country. See pp.12-13 of this pdf, The Hispanic Challenge, for some hard numbers on how far Mexican Americans lag other Americans educationally and economically after four generations. I was wrong before, by the way: "Only" forty one percent of fourth generation Mexican-Americans don't graduate high school. So they have that going for them.
There are billions of foreigners who would love to come to this country, so we can take our pick every year. Why keep taking the dregs from Mexico? I'd be happy to accept an occasional Mexican scientist or engineer, but we have no shortage of busboys and gang members.
Re: JonF, we might not be sending out enough army, but we're not getting the tribute at all. You know, the reason "empires" send out the army in the first place?
Oh, good grief, empires look for advantages other than tribute! Napoleon did not put his brother on the throne of Spain because Spain was a filthy rich country that could pay him scads of tribute. Nor did the Romans conquer the Alpine countries for their riches. Empires also look for stratetgic advantages (among other things). That's why we are in the Middle East trying to create one or more client states to do our bidding. It's not some get-rich-quick scheme, it's a move in a vast global game of chess.
Superdestroyer,
Illiteracy was a problem in previous generations of immigrants also. In my grandparents' generation, there were many members who were illiterate in both Spanish and English. Yet, these illiterates produced children and grandchildren who gained high and college educations. The same was true of the illiterate Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, East Asians, Africans, etc. who come here in generations past. Why assume that illiteracy is a permanent condition now that can't be alleviated?
Moreover, just because a Latino immigrant speaks Spanish to to his/her children, it doesn't mean that they devalue learning English. It may simply reflect the limited command of English that immigrant has at that time. You cannot predict the future level of fluency that immigrant has just because you hear him speaking Spanish at the time. Moreover, you are assuming that the children are not learning English in school and in their everyday life. The reality often is that the native born children learn English along with Spanish, and that the parents often learn English from their children (which makes sense, considering that the linguistic adaptability of children is far greater than that of adults)
(My mother remembers her parents speaking Spanish primarily when she was a kid, but over time her parents spoke more and more English when she started going to school. Her fluency in both languages made it easier for her parents to gain a full command of English. As a result, my grandparents became primarily English speakers with little or no accent. By the time my brothers and sisters were born, they spoke little Spanish in their everyday lives, except when conversing with older relatives.)
"Let's say that the academic performance of "WASPS, particularly in the South" were as awful as that of Mexican-Americans, which we both know isn't true. How would this be argument for importing more unskilled, uneducated Mexicans?"
We don't decide that WASPs, particularly in the South, shouldn't be given a chance to prove themselves in this country, just because a large segment of them perform so poorly for generation after generation. Why should we deny Latino immigrants those chances, especially when we didn't deny those chances to Italians or Eastern Europeans, who also historically have not distinguished themselves academically, especially in comparison with Jews and East Asians?
"There are billions of foreigners who would love to come to this country, so we can take our pick every year. Why keep taking the dregs from Mexico?"
Why is this an either/or proposition? I never said that we should limit immigration from other parts of the world while expanding immigration from Latin America. I merely said that the current numerical limits in our immigration laws are arbritrary and in contravention of economic realities. I say lift all numerical limits, and allow everybody in who can support themselves economically, regardless of whether they are skilled and unskilled. If an immigrant loses his ability to support himself economically, then make him/her leave.
It is fallacious of you to assume that an unskilled immigrant has nothing to contribute to American society, and that a skilled immigrant is automatically going to provide a greater contribution to American society in the long run. The unskilled immigrant may produce generations of future college graduates who gain highly productive employment, while the skilled immigrant may produce generations of trust fund kids in the manner of a Paris Hilton.
Since you are not a native-born American, you may not be familiar with the concept that genetics is not destiny.
You cannot predict the future level of fluency that immigrant has just because you hear him speaking Spanish at the time.
Actually, you probably can safely predict that the children and especially the grandchildren of Spanish-speaking immigrants will be fluent in English. You can moreover predict a great deal of difficulty in retaining fluency in Spanish as time goes by. In this regard Latino immigrants are no different than past waves of German, Italian, Yiddish or Gaelic speaking newcomers. Americans are simply bad at foreign languages, and it doesn't seem to matter whether an American's ancestors hail from Holland, Hungary or Honduras. Give 'em enough time and chances are they'll speak no other tongue save English.
Juan,
The data that you referred to in The Hispanic Challenge do not show that letting in more Mexican immigrants is a losing proposition for this country.
Take your claim that after 4 generations, 40% of Mexican-Americans do not graduate from high school. That statistic is taken from a statistical snapshot from 1990. It is not an average from a time series of data during the entire range of years that Mexican-Americans have immigrated to this country.
Therefore, you cannot say with any authority that this condition will continue to be true in perpetuity. You especially cannot say that when you examine the data for 3rd generation Mexican-Americans (which includes me). 67% of 3rd generation Mexican-Americans in 1990 were high school graduates, which is a considerable improvement over 60%. Since the children of high school graduates tend also to be high school graduates or better, this implies that over time, the 4th generation figure will rise above 60%, as the influence of 3rd generation Mexican-Americans spreads throughout the Mexican-American community.
After all, a large proportion of 3rd generation Mexican-Americans in 1990 were people who belonged to Generation X, and thus in 1990 they were people in their 20s. As Gen X Mexican-Americans gain more prominence and influence within the Mexican-American community, and begat more 4th generation Mexican-Americans, the figures for 4th generation educational attainment are very likely to change.
This is especially likely when you remember that the 4th generation figure gives no breakout by age group, and does not adjust for the average age of each generation. Mexican-Americans in 1990 who were 4th generation or more are going to include people of a much wider age span than 3rd generation Mexican-Americans. You must factor in that high school graduation rates for Americans as a whole have increased over time, and that older generations of Americans have a greater percentage of people who didn't graduate high school. People of the WW2 and Korean War generations came of age in eras when you could get high-paying factory jobs that didn't require a high school degree, and when you could enter many white-collar fields with only a high school degree.
It stands to reason that in 1990, the 4th generation segment of Mexican-Americans included a large proportion of people from the WW2 and Korean war generations who weren't high school graduates. So while the 20 year old 4th generation Mexican-Americans in 1990 may have had high school graduation rates of 70% or better, the older segment of 4th generation Mexican-Americans would drag down the average overall.
The data you cite then would have more relevance and authority if it truly made an apples-to-apples comparison, and not an apples-to-oranges one.
"eltoro" (who probably goes by other names) is a complete and utter idiot.
There's a difference between legal immigration having an impact and *foreign citizens* having an impact, especially when their country is next door and is extremely aggressive about protecting the gravy train.
And, just as obviously, it's generally considered a bad sign when **hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens march in your country's streets making demands**. Most countries consider that an aggressive action, and many would respond in a very aggressive fashion.
Go plant some trees so those foreign citizens can march in the shade.
"TLB" (who apparently also goes by 'lonewhacko', about which enough said), is not a complete an utter idiot, he's just an alarmist with nearly enough knowledge of the things he speaks of to be dangerous. But not quite.
And, just as obviously to those who are paying attention, it is generally considered a great sign that, to use TLB's admittedly odd punctuation, **hundreds of thousands of people who would like to be American citizens, and who are otherwise in general pulling more than their fair share of the weight in American society while being pointedly ignored in the area of the actual benefits of that society, to the point where lots of them actually die for want of long-term health care after having been fired by their employers because they got sick, march peacefully in your country's street making demands.** Instead of, e.g., pulling out guns and starting to shoot people, or indeed (if they could coordinate it) simply all not showing up for work for a month and watching food prices triple.
You know, having hundreds of thousands of peace protesters march in the streets is also considered an 'aggressive action' by a lot of people. I wonder, do you have similar wet dreams about taking out an M2 and hosing down the crowd at anti-war rallies?
-fred
Comments closed November 02, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Exactly right.
But from their perspective, the social conservatives should really be doing a better job fundraising for him and at least getting him and themselves a seat at the table, rather than letting an apostate candidate like Rudy or an untrustworthy massive panderer like Romney get out front.
The xenophobes really don't have a good, credible candidate either. Romney and Rudy are trying to check the box, but neither is convincing. Thompson is making a play, but he's just not very good period.
Posted by bob | October 19, 2007 5:32 PM