If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Ric Romero has apparently been hired by CNN, reporting if you take immigrants out of major cities, the major cities will have fewer people living there   (cnn.com) divider line 146
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

3201 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2007 at 1:47 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-04-05 04:17:46 PM
DerDuschbagen

Savor the sticker shock of $12 a pound strawberries flown in from Europe.

Could you expand on this a bit more? Labor costs only make up around 10% of produce's retail price. What magical formula are you making up that would result in such high prices?
 
2007-04-05 04:22:38 PM
Without immigrants, Los Angeles will still have multitudes of whiny, self-centered, shallow, superficial, unskilled and uneducated East Coast/Midwestern transplants who will come here thinking they're gonna be a star and expecting their Oscar/Grammy/Emmy to be handed to them as they get off the Greyhound bus.
 
2007-04-05 04:23:19 PM

Since y'all don't want to read the study, I'll provide you some highlights:

* The gap between immigrant and native poverty almost tripled in size between 1979 and 1997. The poverty rate for persons living in immigrant households grew dramatically, from 15.5 percent in 1979 to 18.8 percent in 1989 and to 21.8 percent in 1997, while over the same period the poverty rate for persons in native households stayed relatively constant at roughly 12 percent.

* In 1997, more than one in five persons (21.6 percent) living in poverty resided in an immigrant household. And nearly one in four children in poverty now lives in an immigrant household. In comparison, only 9.7 percent of the poor lived in immigrant households in 1979.

* The growth in immigrant-related poverty accounted for 75 percent (3 million people) of the total increase in the size of the poor population between 1989 and 1997. This increase is enough to entirely offset the 2.7 million reduction in the size of the poor population that results from the $64 billion spent annually on means-tested cash assistance programs.

* Immigration is one of the primary factors causing the nation's overall poverty rate and the number of people living in poverty to be higher today than they were 20 years ago. If immigrant-headed households are excluded, the total number of people in poverty in 1997 and the nation's poverty rate would have been only slightly higher than it was in the late 1970s.

* This rise in immigrant-related poverty was caused partly by an increase in the poverty rate for each wave of new arrivals. In 1979, the poverty rate for persons living in households headed by an immigrant who arrived in the ten year prior was 23 percent; by 1997, the poverty rate for individuals in households headed by a new immigrant had increased to 29.2 percent.

* The increase in immigrant-related poverty was also caused by a slowing in the pace of progress immigrants make in moving out of poverty over time. For example, the poverty rate for immigrant households who arrived in the 1980s was still over 25 percent in 1997 - double that of natives.

* The increase in the poverty rate for immigrant households in the 1990s was very broad, affecting persons with different levels of education and individuals in and out of the labor force, as well as households from most parts of the world. The rise in the poverty rate was particularly large for children in immigrant households, increasing from 24.8 to 30.9 percent.

* The gap in the poverty rate for persons in immigrant and native households widened in every region of the country and in almost every major metropolitan area during the 1990s.

* The poverty rate varies significantly by region of origin. Immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America have the highest poverty rates, while those from Europe and Asia tend to have the lowest.

* In addition to an increased likelihood of living in poverty, people in immigrant households are also more likely to be near-poor. In 1997, 13.4 percent of persons in immigrant households had incomes that were only 50 percent above the poverty line compared to 8.6 percent of natives. In total, 35.2 percent or 12.4 million persons in immigrant households live in or near poverty.

* The high poverty rate associated with immigrants is primarily explained by their much lower levels of education, higher unemployment, and larger family size. However, even after controlling for a wide variety of factors, including race, age, family structure, and education, statistical analysis indicates that persons in immigrant households are still significantly more likely to be living in poverty than individuals in native households.

* Welfare reform does not seem to have caused the rise in immigrant poverty. Immigrant poverty was increasing well before 1996, when Congress curtailed benefits to legal immigrants. Moreover, the gap between the poverty rate for people living in immigrant and native households has actually narrowed slightly since welfare reform was enacted.

* The rise in immigrant poverty was not caused by an increase in the recency of the immigrant population. Since newly arrived immigrants tend to have higher poverty rates than those who are more established, an increase in the proportion of persons living in households headed by a newly arrived immigrant might account for the rise in poverty. However, this is not the case. Households headed by new arrivals account for a smaller share of the total population living in immigrant households in 1997 than in 1979.

* The high poverty rate associated with immigrants is not explained by the presence of illegal immigrants. Although their poverty rate is high, illegal aliens comprise only an estimated 22.5 percent of persons in immigrant households living in poverty in 1997.


Please note that these findings do not comport with your preconceived notions about what is happening, but show what is actually happening. Immigrants today are arriving poor and staying poor, and the trend is increasing, not decreasing. Immigrants and immigration are progressively impoverishing the United States overall. We are importing poverty. Forget your received wisdom, economic theories, and the results of past waves of immigration. Pay attention to what is actually happening in the real world today.
 
2007-04-05 04:31:43 PM
"Savor the sticker shock of $12 a pound strawberries flown in from Europe.

Could you expand on this a bit more? Labor costs only make up around 10% of produce's retail price. What magical formula are you making up that would result in such high prices?
"

You bet. I didn't pull this figure out of my butt. Every so often I go to an upscale deli where, you guessed it, you can find European produce and olive oil and so on. The other day they had strawberries at $11.95 a lb. I guess I exaggerated by a nickel's worth ;-)

I don't know where your 10% figure comes in. Are you sure this relates to harvested food? Something tells me the saffron and vanilla growers would disagree.
 
2007-04-05 04:32:39 PM
Rational Exuberance: Immigration is really the only reliable measure of relative prosperity and people's quality of life.

Relative to the country the are coming from and the migrant's alternatives. You don't have to have a good quality of life, just a relatively better quality of life to attract immigrants. Even migrants from South America try to sneak into Mexico.

The people that immigrate are inherently risk takers. After all, they are giving up their lives back home just for the chance to make a better one here. That is certainly a good thing; by definition they aren't lazy, because they could be lazy back home.

I'll give you that, however being a hard worker and risk taker doesn't mean you are going to be a net benefit to the society. A hard working landscaper with 5 kids is still probably going to cost the taxpayers more than he pays.

If our social programs can't scale up to more people, then we need to reform our social programs, not cut off the people.

Let's figure out how to do that first before we let even more people in.
 
2007-04-05 04:33:43 PM
DerDuschbagen

The other lie is that having cheap immigrant labor saves the average consumer a lot of money on goods and services. That's bullsh*t. Labor is a tiny fraction of the cost of strawberries (I'll use that ludicrous example since it was mentioned above). If the UFW picked your strawberries instead of illegal aliens, the cost to the consumer would rise approximately 2%. Weather (meaning yield) has a much greater impact on the cost of produce than labor. Cheap labor does, howeever, handsomely pad the botto line of the sh*thead who hires illegals. Virtually none of those savings make it to the consumer.

Then there is the despicable and chickensh*t "racism" charge. Why don't you follow current events, asshole?

Have you not seen how many products coming in from China are made of lead when tyey're advertized as aluminum or steel or iron? Don't you understand they have different standards, and routinely use pesticides and fertilizers that are banned in the United States? How long before some of that crap gets into the human food chain?

In short, you are quite wrong and resort to the old "racism" thing when confronted with facts. DIAF, asshole. I bet I'm "browner" than you are, clown.
 
2007-04-05 04:42:46 PM
DerDuschbagen: I don't know where your 10% figure comes in. Are you sure this relates to harvested food? Something tells me the saffron and vanilla growers would disagree.

Low-paid illegal work force has little impact on prices..... At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor (Pop up)
 
2007-04-05 04:43:36 PM
DrewCurtisJr: Relative to the country the are coming from and the migrant's alternatives. You don't have to have a good quality of life, just a relatively better quality of life to attract immigrants. Even migrants from South America try to sneak into Mexico.

Yes, it is definitely relative. However, if you are going to give up your life, most people would go to the place that offered the best chance. Many asians immigrate to America even though Australia and Europe are closer.

I'll give you that, however being a hard worker and risk taker doesn't mean you are going to be a net benefit to the society. A hard working landscaper with 5 kids is still probably going to cost the taxpayers more than he pays.

Possibly in the short run, if he needs government assistance to live on. But whose to say what his kids will produce, since they have the opportunity for an education.

If our social programs can't scale up to more people, then we need to reform our social programs, not cut off the people.

Let's figure out how to do that first before we let even more people in.


That is the real chicken and the egg problem. There is no impetus to change social programs if there isn't a problem to be addressed. And it is easier to block immigration than it is to proactively fix an issue that has no pressing need.
 
2007-04-05 04:46:18 PM
Look at it from the immigrant's point of view.

Let's use canyoneer's own examples of Mexico and Peru. In Lima, which is filled to the brim with domestic immigrants seeking a better life and still growing, an unskilled worker may expect to earn 15 Soles ($3) a day if he's lucky enough to find a job. And with that he has to support his nuclear and possibly his extended family as well.

That same guy can sneak into the U.S. and work some crappy sweatshop job or hang out at the day laborer joints and make say $50 a day. If he sends home half his pay his family is catapulted into the lap of luxury by their standards. This, naturally, has a trickle down effect in the Lima economy which then finds itself with a new middle class family with disposable income.

Labor creates wealth. It's as simple and irrefutable as that. And the more that we can keep on this side of the fence the better it is for me. So I saw we let Juan keep working the fields and Maria keep taking care of the kids. We're still left with a win-win.
 
2007-04-05 04:49:01 PM
canyoneer: Have you not seen how many products coming in from China are made of lead when tyey're advertized as aluminum or steel or iron? Don't you understand they have different standards, and routinely use pesticides and fertilizers that are banned in the United States? How long before some of that crap gets into the human food chain?

You know, we went through these kinds of growing pains too. And as people as a whole became more prosperous, we formed unions and demanded things get changed. The more we trade with China, the quicker this process is. People become more prosperous. If we shut out countries like this, or block immigration, they turn themselves inward and become even poorer, which gives their government a chance to turn hardliner. Or worse, turn their anger towards America.

I know you don't believe in globalization, and that's fine. But there's no better way to increase the net quality of life. It leads to better things for the people, like it did in this country. But it takes time, and you can't force it. Right now fighting immigration is just fighting progress. You can rely on saying "it's the law", but that same rationale works for other policies (i.e. the drug war) that most would say are pretty ridiculous. You will always lose when you try to fight the market, because the market will just go underground. Like we have now.
 
2007-04-05 04:54:54 PM
Not picking on you, DerDuschbagen, you just seem to be parroting a lot of the usual talking points on this issue.

Illegals pay taxes without a commensurate level of benefits. I'm not talking about filling out 1040's... they pay taxes at the pump and buying jesus candles.

Various forms of sales taxes cannot begin to even touch the millions upon millions of dollars local and state (not federal) governments have to spend on education and medical services for illegal aliens and their children, to the point where entire healthcare systems have to shut down their ERs. The people who don't have insurance and can't afford treatment (illegal aliens, in this case) go elsewhere, and the cycle continues. The federal government won't let anyone deny them these benefits, but won't foot the bill. Your average taxpayer does. You and I. All the votive candles in the country can't cover that debt alone.

They're doing wonders for the balance sheet on social security when FICA receives revenue on made up social security numbers.

I believe you're mistaken on this as well; if you look at the published results of the Social Security Advisory Board's 2005 conference on this issue (which I'm sure you have, being well-read in this area), you'll see that while surges of low-wage immigrants are good in the short term, they simply exacerbate the problems we already have with the system in the long-term. Neither you nor I are economists (well, I'm not), but their math seems pretty sound. If you have a better interpretation than they do, send it in! The system is in trouble as is...

Savor the sticker shock of $12 a pound strawberries flown in from Europe.

I didn't pull this figure out of my butt. Every so often I go to an upscale deli where, you guessed it, you can find European produce and olive oil and so on. The other day they had strawberries at $11.95 a lb.


I'm sure you've already seen the problem with this position; what your deli charges for European strawberries is absolutely unimportant to this particular discussion. It has no bearing whatsoever. It certainly doesn't mean that we'd all be buying $12/lb. berries from Europe if we didn't have illegal aliens picking them here.

The 10% is a generally-accepted figure. I believe it was first proposed outside the industry itself by UC's Philip Davis. If you have any decent critique or challenge of it, post it. :)

The bottom line is that each new immigrant, legal or otherwise, is a net plus for the economy...

I don't believe this is the case, either. Do you have any figures that suggest it's the case? In the small scale, let's look at a single family. Let's assume they have two parents and two children (it's usually more). Let's assume the father works under a stolen identity, and thus pays all the usual taxes. Mother works under the table, cleaning your house or raising your kids (no taxes). They do the usual amount of shopping (sales taxes, etc.).

Do you honestly believe they're pouring enough money into the economy to cover the education of their children in public schools or healthcare for the entire family? How, if you don't mind showing your work...
 
2007-04-05 05:00:11 PM
Eochada: Do you honestly believe they're pouring enough money into the economy to cover the education of their children in public schools or healthcare for the entire family? How, if you don't mind showing your work...

Globalization (and immigration is just a subset of that) is a net plus for the entire world economy. Some countries lose out, but the idea of a "national economy" is rapidly dying anyway. Competition is universally recognized to be a good thing for efficiency and productivity. You have to think about the repercussions. With good programs, it only takes a generation before those kids can become very productive. They might be scientists, lawyers, doctors, whatever. They probably won't stay in the low skilled jobs (on average).

Though in your example, you are talking about an illegal scenario, and it is of course more expensive. Think about it if it were legal and easy to immigrate between countries (like the EU) instead. Of course, if they all have to work under the table, then they have no choice but to stay in work that allows that.
 
2007-04-05 05:00:27 PM
Rational Exuberance: There is no impetus to change social programs if there isn't a problem to be addressed. And it is easier to block immigration than it is to proactively fix an issue that has no pressing need.

We have a huge impetus for changing many social programs, especially education and health care. And we've been trying for decades. We've thrown more and more money at the problem and things have gotten worse. I really don't think it is the lack of a pressing need, we can't agree on what to do.

We have many school systems with low performance, large class sizes, under funded, etc.. It seem obvious that letting more and more kids in is only going to make the problem worse.
 
2007-04-05 05:04:13 PM
Rational Exuberance

Globalization (and immigration is just a subset of that) is a net plus for the entire world economy. Some countries lose out, but the idea of a "national economy" is rapidly dying anyway. Competition is universally recognized to be a good thing for efficiency and productivity. You have to think about the repercussions. With good programs, it only takes a generation before those kids can become very productive.

No offense, friend, but canyoneer's point that you're just talking theory and ignoring reality seems pretty true. I understand that you work under these ideological assumptions; I'm just asking for some reasonable explanation that doesn't require acceptance of that ideology in the first place to work.
 
2007-04-05 05:12:23 PM
Eochada: No offense, friend, but canyoneer's point that you're just talking theory and ignoring reality seems pretty true. I understand that you work under these ideological assumptions; I'm just asking for some reasonable explanation that doesn't require acceptance of that ideology in the first place to work.

I recognize reality, and everything that happens now is to be expected. However, I don't see how you can just ignore basic economic precepts. It's not like the foundations of globalization are particularly earth shattering or anything.

It more sounds like some sort of academic assault to me, which I frankly never thought I'd see. I'm sorry if they are "theories", but I don't see how you can attempt to understand what's going on and what to do next if you don't have a framework. Economics is hard to understand, I get that, but people somehow think they are immune to it and that these things are called laws (like supply and demand) just for fun.

DrewCurtisJr: We have a huge impetus for changing many social programs, especially education and health care. And we've been trying for decades. We've thrown more and more money at the problem and things have gotten worse. I really don't think it is the lack of a pressing need, we can't agree on what to do.

We try, sure, but things only seem to get moving when a system is on the verge of collapse. Take the Social Security debate of 2005. I heard a whole lot of "it's fine until 2045". No one wants that kind of confrontation, because it is politically dangerous. And we can keep nearly all our programs limping along indefinitely, never realizing what value we didn't get by fixing them.
 
2007-04-05 05:12:28 PM
I saw that this morning and truly wondered what their point was.
 
2007-04-05 05:13:05 PM
I got bored after my Detroit zinger - did anyone win this debate yet?

And none of this changes the fact that the headline is still incorrect and stupid. That's the real issue here - not immigration!
 
2007-04-05 05:18:54 PM
Rational Exuberance: Competition is universally recognized to be a good thing for efficiency and productivity.

Sometimes competition on a global scale also means which country has the fewest employee protection and environmental laws.
 
2007-04-05 05:30:19 PM
DrewCurtisJr: Sometimes competition on a global scale also means which country has the fewest employee protection and environmental laws.

Yes, it definitely does. We were like that, too, though. (no environmental protection and very shoddy employee rights). After we started making more money, we formed unions and lobbyied the government and made changes. Once people have more money, they have the ability to do this. Economic power provides a counter to political power.

It's a whole hierarchy of needs thing. Once your immediate needs of basic survival are met, you start wanting higher level things. And thats where those protections come in. It happened in the US, and I think it can happen other places too. But it doesn't happen fast enough for most people.
 
2007-04-05 05:43:53 PM
Rational Exuberance

I recognize reality, and everything that happens now is to be expected. However, I don't see how you can just ignore basic economic precepts.

"Globalization is an a priori positive" is not a basic economic precept. It's an ideological assumption you've chosen to work under.

Economics is hard to understand, I get that...

You're talking ideology, again, not economics. You have a chosen theory you believe ("globalization is good"), and work from that as a basis, rather than dealing with reality and drawing a conclusion thereby. Bankrupting hospitals is not good. Reducing one group's quality of life to raise another's is not automatically "good" just because it fits in your theory. This subject is a lot more nuanced than blanket ideological assertions can properly address.

Implying others are less intelligent than yourself because you can't support your theories with more than mere assertion is a losing position. Have a good night.
 
2007-04-05 05:50:30 PM
Eochada: Implying others are less intelligent than yourself because you can't support your theories with more than mere assertion is a losing position. Have a good night.

Forgive me, I did not mean to offend. Globalization is not the axiom on which I identify, but this is not the forum to discuss basic economic concepts like consumer and producer surplus in trade, and creative destruction. That would require much more time, and I have perhaps assumed too much. Those are the foundations on which globalization as a policy are built. And perhaps I have confused the discussion of positive economics (stating globalization increases the net producer and consumer surplus) and normative economics (saying it is "good"). I do that sometimes, I'll admit.
 
2007-04-05 05:54:22 PM
untrustworthy: The US is dependant on immigration to keep our population steady. Without it we would be a declining population.

Nope.

Birth and death rate for the U.S....

14.14 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)


Without immigration, our population would be growing, just not quite so fast.
 
2007-04-05 05:55:38 PM
DerDuschbagen: The bottom line is that each new immigrant, legal or otherwise, is a net plus for the economy and that's good for the haves. It must be good for the have-nots too because they keep coming. Win-win baby.

You have a lot of wind, but still wrong. There are way too many deaths of American citizens per day than there are in Iraq per day.

Try again though, by all means. You sure can type, buddy.
 
2007-04-05 05:57:42 PM
Eochada: Illegals pay taxes without a commensurate level of benefits. I'm not talking about filling out 1040's... they pay taxes at the pump and buying jesus candles.

It's a weak talking point. Each and every one of the illegals that earn cash, DO NOT PAY A SINGLE CENT OF TAX.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
2007-04-05 05:57:51 PM
Rational Exuberance: After we started making more money, we formed unions and lobbyied the government and made changes. Once people have more money, they have the ability to do this. Economic power provides a counter to political power.

That seems counter to your globalization, economic forces argument. Wages got better in part because of unions and government laws more favorable to unions and workers rights. Why can't immigration laws also benefit our workers? Or are you assuming that eventually all of the nations of the world will gradually build themselves up to our standards?

But it doesn't happen fast enough for most people.

Well it could take generations, if it happens at all.
 
2007-04-05 06:34:18 PM
Why should an American look at anything from an immigrant's point of view? There are evidently persons posting in this thread who have abandoned the idea of national sovereignty - as it suits them, no doubt. Clearly, they have no loyalty to the United States of America at all. I just thought I'd point that out.

What's worse, these individuals have only a vague idea of what is actually going on. Somehow, the jobs being offshored from America is good for those who've lost them. Tell that to the highly skilled programmers and other tech people I know who've been downsized. They didn't think their jobs were sh*tty, and most are having trouble replicating their former salaries. They generally end up with a pay cut or abandon their careers altogether, but that's good for them, I gather.

Then the flow of money leaving the U.S. is cited as a benefit. Somehow, not spending money in our economy is good for it. How this is so remains unexplained.

It is also allegedly good for the immigrant.

Actually, it is mostly good for the coyotes and their loan-shark partners. No one can know for sure - just as no one can quantify the economic effect of perhaps 25 million illegal aliens in the U.S. precisely because their financial and other activities are off the books - what percentage of these Western Union money transfers out of the country go to human smugglers instead of poor old granny in her mud slum dwelling in Lima. It's a lot less than you think.

In case you hadn't noticed, 99% of illegal immigrants don't have the thousands of dollars to pay the coyotes, and usually are forced to take out punishing loans and work for 5 - 10 years just to pay it off.

You'd think there was a tangible benefit of all this money flowing back into Mexico by now, wouldn't you? But what is actually happening in Mexico? Is there a new flush of prosperity? Why, no. No, there isn't. But Carlos Slim made the Fortune 500 Billionaire's Club in a big way, didn't he? Here in the real world, Mexico is no better off than it was before, except for the usual suspects. Meanwhile, poor old granny is still shuffling about half starved in the same old mud hut in that Lima slum.

The rest of the argument seems to be all theory and faith. This second age of globalization (there was one previous in modern times, and it collapsed) has not produced the advertized benefits. Since NAFTA and the formation of the WTO and GATT implementation, the planet's human population has, in fact, gotten poorer. This may be in spite of globalized trade, but once again, no one seems to be able to quantify that. The economy seems to grow in tandem with population growth at some annualized rate, but overall humanity is not getting richer, just more numerous.

Oh, a small percentage of the world's population sees some subjective benefit, primarily in the form of imported luxury goods and profits, but even in America those benefit only a minority of the population.

I guess we'll just have to keep the faith and wait for all the marvelous benefits to kick in, right?
 
2007-04-05 06:37:06 PM
untrustworthy
Are submitters getting more retarded?

Yes. Yes, they are. Either that, or modmins are greenlighting more retarded headlines. I'm continually amazed at how thoroughly submitters are able to misunderstand articles, based upon the headlines they write. I'd like to see some reading comprehension ACT scores.

Is it intentional? ie. dumber headlines = more people posting to point out dumb headline = more page hits = more advertising revenue for Drew? Or is it just plain stupidity?
 
2007-04-05 06:47:45 PM
canyoneer
Why should an American look at anything from an immigrant's point of view? There are evidently persons posting in this thread who have abandoned the idea of national sovereignty - as it suits them, no doubt. Clearly, they have no loyalty to the United States of America at all. I just thought I'd point that out.

Sweet! Human empathy = disloyalty. There's only one response to such a claim: nazism!

Why should a German look at anything from a Jew's point of view? There are evidently persons posting in this thread who have abandoned the idea of national sovereignty - as it suits them, no doubt. Clearly, they have no loyalty to Germany at all. I just thought I'd point that out.
 
2007-04-05 06:59:25 PM
canyoneer
Why should an American look at anything from an immigrant's point of view?

If you have to ask why any human should look at things from any other human's point of view, you're not really a full participant in the human race. Seeing things through others' eyes is how we learn about ourselves, each other, and everything else, really.

Yeah, I know, I'm a durned librul commie turrist traitor with mah fancy book-learnin' and IQ above 95. Sigh.
 
2007-04-05 07:08:55 PM
SigmaOmega

Sigh.

You overlooked a germane fact: Jews oppressed by other Germans in the Third Reich were German citizens. Furthermore, the Nazis internationalized their depredations by creating a sort of free trade zone of their own design, didn't they? You'll note that the Jews of Poland were perfectly safe until they became exposed to German authority. I just thought I'd point that out.

Me, I'm a big supporter of the poor campesinos of Latin America. I've always supported an enlightened American foreign policy towards the region, believing that reforms and popular government would benefit the average man and liberalize their societies. Alas, our policies towards Latin America have consistently been pernicious to the interests and welfare of the campesinos, in spite of the urgings of people like me.

We have disgracefully supported the status quo of bad government, oppression, and ignorance in Latin America for many decades, always to protect American commercial interests in the region. This "free trade" and open-borders policy has been and will be no better for Latin America and Latin Americans than what American financiers have arranged in the past.

Now, I am painted as a Nazi for pointing out that immigration from Latin America to the U.S.A. has not measurably benefitted Latin American countries, while merely adding to the strain here in El Norte. I guess these sorts of reactions are predictable when one exposes oneself to all the unwashed boobs floating around in the intraweb tubes.
 
2007-04-05 07:10:37 PM
StillH2O

You totally miss the point. Do American citizens have the right to decide what happens in the United States?
 
2007-04-05 07:11:04 PM
We handled it better in the old days. We let the people come, with few restrictions, and no quotas - but we only let them enter the country as citizens. The illegal and/or provisional status of so many of todays immigrants creates a second tier of people that the unscrupulous (ranging from business to the self perpetuating welfare state)can and do exploit - at great cost to all of us. We need to return to our old immigration laws, but at the same time, we need to get draconian with anybody who is in the country who tries to enter without assuming citizenship. I'd bring our soldiers home and put them on the borders, if need be.
Let's face it, every wave of immigrants has been greeted by an upheaval of xenophobia. The xenophobes always lose, the immigrants stay, life goes on. In fact, that's how it has worked throughout human history. Resistance is useless, and counterproductive. Ask any Cherokee. Or Englishman, for that matter.
 
2007-04-05 07:15:19 PM
canyoneer: Dehumanization is dehumanization. Jews and illegal immigrants were both demonized and persecuted by the Third Reich. The fact that the Jews were German citizens is not salient for the analogy; you strongly implied that to sympathize with an illegal immigrant (aka another human being) was to be disloyal to the U.S. Sorry pal, that's facism, pure and simple.

You can make your points about immigration without calling into question people's patriotism. I would go so far as to suggest it adds to your credibility.
 
2007-04-05 07:20:52 PM
"You can make your points about immigration without calling into question people's patriotism. I would go so far as to suggest it adds to your credibility."

Well, no, actually, they can't. Back when the xenophobes of the 1870s were trying to keep my ancestors from coming here, because we were dirty, lazy, welfare scrounging cultural subversives, they had to employ the same unreasoning, paranoid, racist, pseudo-patriotic rhetoric. When you claim to be defending a nation by opposing the very phenomenon that created it, you don't have much to work with. It was not without reason that they called themselves the "Know-Nothings".
 
2007-04-05 07:24:56 PM
jso2897: We handled it better in the old days. We let the people come, with few restrictions, and no quotas - but we only let them enter the country as citizens.

Conditions were awful for immigrants back then, disease, crime, poverty, legalized discrimination. Compared to back then illegal immigrants live like kings.

The xenophobes always lose, the immigrants stay, life goes on.

We, the U.S., passed immigration laws that practically brought immigration to a halt in the early part of this century, the Depression kept people out also. Ike kicked out millions of Mexicans by force. Its not like it hasn't happened before.
 
2007-04-05 07:27:27 PM
jso2897: I think a person can take an anti-immigration position without being a racist, and many do. Similarly, I think people can disagree with each other about what America should stand for without being un-American. Unfortunately, few debates on the internet acknowledge either point.
 
2007-04-05 07:34:40 PM
"jso2897: I think a person can take an anti-immigration position without being a racist, and many do. Similarly, I think people can disagree with each other about what America should stand for without being un-American. Unfortunately, few debates on the internet acknowledge either point."

Oh, absolutely - didn't mean to imply otherwise. But when charges of unpatriotic sentiment start being hurled, it's usually not by folks whose reservations regarding immigration are of the more defensible order.

"We, the U.S., passed immigration laws that practically brought immigration to a halt in the early part of this century, the Depression kept people out also. Ike kicked out millions of Mexicans by force. Its not like it hasn't happened before."

True - but it didn't work, and it didn't last. Hey, Custer got his ass kicked too - but it didn't change anything in the long run - and despite what a few whiny activists say, the first people are far better off today for Europeans having come here. There are simply limits to what cops and laws can accomplish.
 
2007-04-05 08:12:23 PM
You know...

It is possible to want to take care of one's own without being a racist, bigot, nazi, or any of the other desperate last-resort names people like to call someone who doesn't want a border free-for-all. Please. This nonsense just wastes energy needed to solve problems and come up with good ideas.

It is also possible to love and support your country while being sympathetic to those who want a better life. One person can hold all of these views in harmony, believe it or not.

People not taking the necessary steps to stand up to their sh**y money-grubbing governments (or not being able to without being killed, depending on where you live)seems to be a more pressing issue.

Why does it have to be so black and white? There is so much grey area surrounding this...

We as citizens (immigrant AND native citizens) are entitled to ask for a better plan when the government wants to appear to the rest of the world to welcome everyone with open arms but won't pay for it. WE pay for it. Should we not care? Should we continue to lose and sacrifice for a crappy system for the Greater Good that has proved inefficient? It sounds beautiful in theory, but until some real action is taken (maybe when we stop concentrating our efforts on blowing the sh*t out of everyone overseas, perhaps) to better our system for EVERYONE'S benefit, not just us and not just the immigrants, then we are royally getting F-ed. The people who are supposed to benefit from these things do not.
 
2007-04-05 08:24:50 PM
jso2897: True - but it didn't work, and it didn't last. Hey, Custer got his ass kicked too - but it didn't change anything in the long run - There are simply limits to what cops and laws can accomplish.

It did work until we decided to change the laws.

and despite what a few whiny activists say, the first people are far better off today for Europeans having come here.

You don't know that and neither do I. Are we worse off because 6 million Egyptians didn't come over between 1928 and 1932? I don't know but if they did come over I'm sure everyone would say how much better off the U.S. is because of the great Egyptian migration.

And before you call people whiny why don't read about what a Tuberculosis outbreak would do in a neighborhood of severely overcrowded tenements before antibiotics.
 
2007-04-05 09:03:30 PM
Tell me again how sheeps bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...
 
2007-04-05 09:58:05 PM
A general reduction in population has many beneficial side-effects, particularly for the traditional "lower classes". When the "Black Death" decimated Western Europe in the 14th century quite a few things changed over the next 100 years or so...

Serfdom for all practical purposes became extinct ( in the sparcely settled Eastern European countries unaffected by the plague it lasted well into the 19th century ) and labor was no longer cheap! The peasants gained wealth and upward mobility as their resourcefulness became sorely needed by the ruling classes. More wealth created a burgeoning middle and mercantile class - Capitalism, anyone?

Innovation and inventiveness increased to pick up the slack of a tight labor force. Little things like the focus on more "scientific" and "efficient" means of production. Renaissance, anyone?

Religion was forced to loosen it's grip as the "know all and be all" of philosophy. Reformation, anyone?

Land became cheap - affordable to anyone who could work it. Property Rights, anyone?

When Ernst Schumacher quipped "Less is More" and "Small is Beautiful", he wasn't shiatting around. I for one prefer quality over quantity. Human's are supposed to be a K-selection species, let's not revert back to R-selection, please.
 
2007-04-05 11:53:05 PM
Ah, the subby has arrived (me). Firstly,

Salacious Salad: Submitter fails calculus,

the submitter is a mathematician, and knows more calculus than he cares to admit. On a side note, the submitter also seems to enjoy talking of himself in the third person. Lastly, to everybody else, it is okay to simplify a headline to misinterperet the point of the story in order to get more attention, the mainstream media has no problem doing it all the time. Okay, I'm done.
 
2007-04-05 11:53:57 PM
and misspelling "misinterpret" is okay too, if you're a math major. I do proofs, I don't spell. Leave that to the linguists.
 
2007-04-06 08:52:16 AM
Evidently there are those who believe America should function as a safety valve for every dysfunctional, f*cked up 3rd World country on the planet. Every poor person on Earth shall be invited, and we shall provide lawn mowers for each and every one of them to ride. All stray cats shall be taken in. Unless we do this, we are dehumanizing them. Unless we agree to unlimited immigration into the United States, we are fascists. To object to the unlimited overpopulation of North America is paranoid and unreasoning.

Comically, many on the American "left" suffer from the same delusion as many on the American "right." Many on both sides believe America has unlimited wealth and power and should use it to make the world a better place. Thus we have screwball christians advocating perpetual war in order to "transform Arab societies" and drippy bleeding hearts inviting 2 billion peasants into the United States. After all, our wealth and power are infinite.

No thought is given to how this will affect our social safety net, our physical infrastructure, our own workers, our own economy, or our own environment. To hell with clean water and clean air and wildlife and open spaces. America is infinite. Why stop at 300 million? Let's shoot for 500 million...better yet, let's cram 1 billion people into the country!

We can bulldoze the national parks into housing for them, fill in the Everglades, and cover all of our farmland with apartment complexes. We can divert the Mississippi River to flush all the toilets, drink the Great Lakes, and hollow out the Rocky Mountains for the requisite shopping malls. If food runs short, we'll eat songbirds and turn our forests into salads and use the Grand Canyon as a sewage treatment lagoon.

If we do not do this, we are paranoid fascists who dehumanize all the poor 3rd Worlders.

I've got a better idea: if all of you compassionate humanists really give a sh*t about the 3rd World poor, why don't you do something to help them fix their own countries. Mexico is a great example. Here we have a country with fine ports, oil and gas reserves, great farmland and rangeland, mountains and plains and rivers full of fresh water, yet it remains poor and backwards. WTF is wrong with Mexico?

Why don't you bleeding hearts go down to Mexico and figure out what the problem is down there and fix it, eh? Why do you hate Mexico and Mexicans? Is it possible all of your blubbering is merely an excuse to get cheap gardeners and pad the profits of your fruit-picking businesses and restaurants? I think you like having slaves and indentured servants, because you clearly don't give a sh*t about Mexico. I think a large part of this "compassion" is actually good old fashioned greed.
 
2007-04-06 10:40:11 AM
Typically, when Americans discuss illegal immigration, it's all about them. It goes something like this: Illegal immigration is only important to the extent it affects the price of the strawberries I want to buy, and I will employ economic arguments to show that A) illegal immigration is good for me, or B) illegal immigration is bad for me. No attention is paid to the bigger picture, either in the U.S. or in Mexico.

In effect, the pro-immigration "conservative" viewpoint extols the virtues of serfdom while the "liberal" pro-immigration viewpoint extols the virtues of the kleptocratic, dysfunctional status quo in Mexico. "Conservatives" want helots to pick their fruit for free while "liberals" want to perpetuate the misgovernment of Latin America.

Of course, billions of electrons will be wasted by these people explaining the theoretical basis for their positions, but in the real world, this is all it boils down to: Mexican campesinos are expendable and the reality in Mexico is secondary or tertiary to the matter.
 
2007-04-06 12:27:49 PM
writing that on fark is like eating pizza off the nice china
 
Displayed 46 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report