DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on January 14, 2010, 11:33:02 PM
-
Truths We Dare Not Speak
Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On January 13, 2010 @ 9:01 pm In Uncategorized | 116 Comments
There are a number of things we simply no longer talk about. The silence is partly due to intellectual laziness. Or maybe it is because of political correctness?or even attributable to ignorance and the absence of curiosity.
In no particular order, I list five propositions that simply have become taboo.
1). Illegal Immigration and California
There are dozens of recent expos?s on the California mess. The ?I accuse? themes?all quite accurate?are well known.
(a) The state propositions have hamstrung the legislature, and resulted in almost no free choices anymore in budgetary decision.
(b) The legislature?due to partisan gerrymandering, the unnecessarily large number of legislators in an unnecessary bicameral system, and term-limits?is inexperienced, captive to special interests, and increasingly incompetent.
(c) State employees have taken over the state: they are paid far above the national average, not accountable, and almost impossible to fire when found to be incompetent. The state pension system is unsustainable. Pay cuts, lay-offs, or furloughs loom.
(d) The nation?s highest income, sales, and gas taxes have driven out the most productive residents?to the tune of 3,500 a week?to no-tax or little-tax neighboring states.
OK? agreed, and I have written all that myself in various articles. But there is another problem never raised in polite company.
California, by most estimates, has somewhere between 40-50% of the nation?s illegal immigrants. That may mean 5-7 million residents here illegally, most without English, documentation, or high-school diplomas. This makes the practice of assimilation into the middle-class a multigenerational process over decades, rather than in the past, when immigrants came in fewer numbers and more often legally.
The state ranks 47-48th in most studies of the achievement levels of the nation?s schools, mostly due to millions of entering students who do not speak English well, if at all.
Of the some $50 billion in remittances that leave the U.S. each year to Latin America, perhaps $20 billion come from California residents, draining the state of capital, and ensuring that the donors will be in need of state health, education, housing and food supplements. California?s taxpayers, in essence, subsidize Oaxaca and Jalisco?that may be humanitarian, and worthy of praise, but it is costly nonetheless, and perhaps beyond the financial resources of the majority of the population.
I?ll pass on increased per capita rates of crime, gangs, etc. that are considered too illiberal to mention. But if studies are correct that anyone who comes north, without English, legality, and education, over his life-cycle will have to draw somewhere between $50,000 and $70,000 more in entitlements than he contributes in various taxes, and if we were to prorate that on an annual basis, and if we were to multiply that by several million, then one can envision an annual outlay of several billion in state expenditures.
Instead, illegal immigration is never much cited as a contributor to California?s fiscal implosion. To mention all this is considered racist. Yet, to take one instance, the cost of incarcerating the state?s illegal aliens alone exceeds the budget of the new UC Merced, a campus intended to serve mostly minority communities of the central valley.
The solution? Allow only legal immigration. Base admittance to the U.S. mostly on skills and our own need for expertise and capital. Trust in merit, and ignore the race and origin of the would-be immigrant.
2) Iraq
We are tired of Iraq and have Trotskyized it out of our existence, given the huge cost and 4,000 dead.
But consider: not a single America died in Iraq in December (38 murdered in Chicago during that period); three have been lost this month (24 murdered so far this month in Chicago).
Some random thoughts. The surge was a brilliant success.
The heroes are relatively ignored. They are U.S. forces who served in Iraq, of course; Gens. Odierno and Petraeus (recall what he endured from Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org in his Senate inquisition); civilian analysts like Fred Kagan and retired Gen. Keane; and, of course, a demonized George Bush?attacked by most of his former supporters, the majority of pundits and columnists, those Democrats who had voted to authorize the war, many of the Iraq Study Group members; and by a cadre of retired ?revolt of the generals? officers.
Yet for some reason, very few senators (cf. the You Tube videos of the debates of October 11-12, 2002) who gave impassioned pleas, authorizing 23 writs to go to war, have ever quite explained why they flipped?and what they think now of both their original support, and their subsequent opposition.
A Harry Reid (?the war is lost?) or Barack Obama (out of Iraq by March 2008 and the surge ?is not working?) have never subsequently suggested that they were wrong at a time when our troops desperately were trying against all odds to save the fragile country.
Nor has anyone questioned the conventional dogma that Iraq empowered Iran, supposedly by removing the demonic Saddam. (Yet consider the liberal logic: we were wrong to remove a monster because he was a useful balance-of-power monster [ignore the genocide of the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, etc]; yet we deplore prior administrations for giving the same monster some aid in his war against Iran.)
In fact, mass demonstrations and unrest now take place in an isolated Iran, not so much in a democratic Iraq. The latter is proving more destabilizing by its open broadcasting and word of mouth freedom to Iran than Iran is to Iraq by its savage use of terrorism. (What will happen to conventional wisdom, if there comes a day when Iran is constitutional, along with Iraq and Lebanon?)
No one has officially said they were wrong in alleging ?No Blood for Oil.? But we got no oil from Iraq. The price rose after we invaded. The Chinese, Russians, and Europeans got the contracts in free and fair bidding.
(Contrast Saddam?s rigged pre-war, quid-pro-quo oil concessions to the corrupt French). There was no Halliburton conspiracy to steal resources. The left often now, mirabile dictu, accuses us of being na?ve in bleeding to give others the resources that they once accused us of wishing to steal. Barack Obama still talks of Iraq as a mistake, even as he quietly ignores his own prescriptions to have gotten out by early 2008, and to have stopped the surge?and continues to follow the Petraeus/Bush plan.
3) Affirmative Action
The concept was noble, but now antiquated and mostly absurd. It requires the logic of the Old Confederacy to determine racial purity among the intermarried citizenry. Jet-black Punjabis get no preferences. Light-skinned Mexican-Americans of the fourth-generation claim privilege. Poor whites from Tulare don?t rank. The children of black dentists do. I see very little logic here.
Asians? We both claim them as minorities, and yet we discriminate against them at the University of California admissions process on the basis of their own superior achievement. (Apparently, the deplorable record of discrimination against Asians is now deemed irrelevant due to the community?s own success. Ponder the ramifications of that for a bit: should Asians have been struggling at UC, they would be considered suffering from the legacy of oppression; since they are excelling, they need to be quietly discriminated against).
As far as I can tell, here is the logic of this Byzantine system: Affirmative action in the 21st century has no logical basis in skin color, actual discrimination, poverty, class, or need. It is predicated on two archaic thoughts: previously discriminated against American minorities shall be defined as only Hispanic, Blacks, and Asians, and thus their children shall receive privilege for decades. BUT that new discrimination will not apply if such minorities on their own have prospered and are successful. (Why that would be so in some cases is again a taboo question.)
So, Japanese-Americans, whose parents were put in camps, don?t quite qualify any more for compensation seemingly because they are successful and are thus ?over-represented? in the racial spoils system. But Chilean immigrants do?if they can fraudulently piggy-back upon the Mexican-American experience by virtue of a shared language and last names.
If one is of mixed race, nomenclature trumps all. Bob Wilson, the son of a Mexican-American mother, is liable to get nothing, Roberto Martinez will get quite a lot, if the son of a Mexican-American (or any Spanish-speaking) father. A Barry Soetoro is of mere pedestrian mixed ancestry; Barack Obama is not merely black, but exotically so.
In short, the system is corrupt. In our society of intermarriage, immigration and mixed ancestry, we cannot any longer determine who is and who is not a certified ?minority? (cf. the con of mostly white candidates claiming some sort of Native American ancestry).
Class and need are no longer connected with race. Hyphenation only creates cynicism and enhances a professional class of grievance mongers in journalism, politics, academia, and the arts (yet somehow we quietly and unofficially drop affirmative action dictates when it comes to 747 pilots, brain surgeons, or nuclear power plant engineers, but no one sues to disregard competency exams for air-traffic-controllers solely on the basis of undesirable racial results).
So what is left of affirmative action? Cynicism. Mostly it is an easy way for elite whites and Asians to feel good about themselves by helping the ?other??usually at someone else?s expense (cf. the lower-class white applicant from Tulare who is rejected with equal or superior qualifications, without the resources and preparations of the wealthy and connected.) It provides psychological alleviation of guilt, without the need to be tutoring in the ghetto, sending your kids to a mostly Hispanic school, or living among the lower classes. In that sense, the construction of Barack Obama, the former Barry Soetoro, and his apotheosis by elite whites, is again an unintended paradigm of the times.
For those who find the above illiberal, I?m sorry, but after twenty-one years as a professor I have never quite seen any American institution so corrupt, unfair, and cynical as the practice of affirmative action.
4) The Ivy League is a Naked Emperor
By Ivy League I do not mean just Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, but the entire concept of high-priced elite schools like a Stanford, Duke, or Columbia as well. We know a BA from such institutions does not ipso facto any longer, as it once may well have, guarantee knowledge or competence. We know the race/class/gender craze has watered down the curriculum, and ensured therapy and empathy trump recall of facts and adherence to the inductive method. And we know that one?s first two years will probably mean instruction largely by graduate students and lecturers.
Had we national exit requirements, I am convinced those leaving a Hillsdale College or St. Thomas Aquinas or St. John?s would do better than the average Yale BA.
A motivated undergraduate student, who picks the right professors and classes, can get as good an undergraduate education at San Jose State as at Stanford. Certainly, the four years are not worth $200,000 in room, board, and tuition? if education is the goal.
But wait! If, in contrast, networks, influence-accumulation, and contacts are the objectives to ensure a child remains, or enters into, the elite class, then the investment in such undergraduate schools is very much worth it?but should be considered analogous to a debutante ball, the social register, or the Grand Tour.
Does anyone believe that the present professional classes of Ivy-League certified technocrats in the administration understand the law, the economy, or the government any better, by virtue of their university educations, than a does a country trial lawyer, a military officer, a CEO, or any of the others who were educated elsewhere, or received training in the rather rougher arena of the real world?
I am fortunate for a wonderful graduate education in the PhD program at Stanford, but I learned more about the way the world works in two months of farming (which saved a wretch like me) than in four years of concentrated study.
In short, the world does not work on a nine-month schedule. It does not recognize concepts like tenure. It does not care for words without action. And brilliance is not measure by vocabulary or SAT scores. Wowing a dean, or repartee into a seminar, or clever put-downs of rivals in the faculty lounge don?t translate into running a railroad?or running the country. One Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower is worth three Bill Clintons or Barack Obamas. If that sounds reductionist, simplistic, or anti-intellectual, it is not meant to?but so be it nonetheless.
5) The ?Middle East? is a Fraud
Why do we beat ourselves up over Israel and the Palestinians? Why not occupied Cyprus? Or the Kuriles? Or South Ossetia? Or the divided city of Nicosia? Is there a ?Falklands Question??
Why are not Germans blowing themselves up in Gdansk, the former East Prussia, the Alsace, or old Silesia to recover ?lost? land?
Were there no Israeli-Arab wars before the ?occupation? of 1967? Does anyone think that, should the West Bank simply take a 30-year break from the violence, emulate Western business and government, draw in Gulf capital, a few thousands acres here or there would then be still be relevant?
Are the far poorer people of Chad blowing themselves up? Is the world crying for those in the slums of Lima? Does want and famine drive those in rural China to capture the world?s attention by virtue of their terrorist acts? Do we send special envoys to occupied Tibet? Is there a Green Line there?
Sorry?take away three things, and the Mideast ?crisis? is relegated to Cypriote status. If there were no oil in the Arab Middle East; if there were no Islamic terrorists; and if there was no endemic global anti-Semitism, we would be as likely to have a ?Mideast czar? as we would an ?Ossetian Czar.?
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/truths-we-dare-not-speak/?print=1 (http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/truths-we-dare-not-speak/?print=1)
-
Wow this guy is awesome. Reading this breaks my heart but damn it he's right on. Gee now it's not too difficult to understand (at least now a 6 year old should get it) why there are some really angry people out there, including me. I can really relate to the CA part too. Liberalism is a mental disorder, that is a cancer, and is ruining our country before our very eyes.
-
http://www.victorhanson.com/ (http://www.victorhanson.com/)
-
<<Liberalism is a mental disorder, that is a cancer, and is ruining our country before our very eyes.>>
How can that be? After almost a decade of solid, non-stop conservative Republican rule, the U.S. was then "blessed" with the resultant Great Depression of the 1930s, from which the liberal administration of FDR had to steer the country through, first to victory over the catastrophe which a decade of Republican laissez-faire capitalism had manufactured, and then onward to victory in WWII.
Thanks to the liberals of the FDR administrations, and their successors, America now has Social Security and, in every single state, unemployment insurance. Thanks to the liberals of the LBJ administration, America has liberated its blacks from de jure segregation and disenfranchisement and enjoys the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid.
The only mental disorder I can see lies in the diseased brains of crypto-fascist, racist, war-mongering Republicans who want to turn the clock back to the days of unregulated markets, pure laissez-faire capitalism, militarism, torture of prisoners and unrestrained aggression against the other peoples of the world, anywhere, anytime. Fortunately the American people got a good look at where THAT was taking them in the fall of 2008 and sobered up pretty fast when their fucking economy began to fall apart before their very eyes.
As for Victor Davis Hanson, he is a fucking nutbar, and the only reason he gets away with his bullshit is that he crams so many lies, non sequiturs, misconceptions and errors into every single sentence that it becomes a Herculean effort to take on anything he writes that is more than one sentence long. The guy is a fucking joke. I would like to know of one serious writer who pays any attention to this dipshit.
-
<<Liberalism is a mental disorder, that is a cancer, and is ruining our country before our very eyes.>>
How can that be? After almost a decade of solid, non-stop conservative Republican rule, the U.S. was then "blessed" with the resultant Great Depression of the 1930s, from which the liberal administration of FDR had to steer the country through, first to victory over the catastrophe which a decade of Republican laissez-faire capitalism had manufactured, and then onward to victory in WWII.
Ahem...
only two years after the Democrats take controll of the Congress the robust economy reverses.
-
"Robust economy?" What are you talking about? It was on the brink of the abyss. Even the GOP dipshit in charge had to realize that the house was on fire and a bipartisan bail-out of massive proportions had to be organized. Bush and the GOP brought you to within an inch of collapse and it's still sick as hell. Even FDR couldn't turn around the economy in two years after a decade of GOP misrule, and neither can Obama do it in two. Just thank your lucky stars that Bush isn't still in charge, or you'd be at the bottom of the abyss by now.
-
The ol "brink of the abyss", "inch of collapse" tactics yet again. Minus of course any validation of such, with unemployment, GDP, Consumer confidence, national debt, all spiraling out of control far more than it was when we were on this so-called "abyss"
And the ironic thing is the only thing that was really worse then vs now is those great satans, the Stock Market and Large Banking Corporations. And that's what Tee is apparently referring to as it relates to the success of Obama. Kinda surreal, isn't it
-
"Robust economy?" What are you talking about? It was on the brink of the abyss.
All economys are always on the brink of an abyss.
What was wrong with the economy four years ago compared to now?
Bush had to cope with the 9-11 damage and recover , not that Clinton handed him a winning econoomy to start with.
So yes Congress went Dem and the economy co-incidently went south , I make the connection , you can't.
-
Tee has an apparent phobia of timelines
-
<<All economys are always on the brink of an abyss.>>
How absurd do you want to make this? Do all economies always require a trillion dollar bail-out to stave off the collapse to the end of the incoming President's first term of office? Do they all run a 17% real unemployment rate, disguised as 10% by the government tasked with keeping track of it?
<<What was wrong with the economy four years ago compared to now?>>
You're kidding me, right? It had a growing deficit with no realistic plans for correcting the tide of red ink, it was engaged in two wars it couldn't get out of and should never have started and wouldn't raise taxes to pay for, while jobs and capital were flowing outward faster than bilgewater being pumped from a sinking ship.
<<Bush had to cope with the 9-11 damage and recover . . . >>
ROTFLMFAO. Remind me again what production facilities were lost in the Sept. 11 attacks? Or how the loss of a couple of blocks of high-rise Manhattan office space is so crucial to the nation's economy?
<< . . . not that Clinton handed him a winning econoomy to start with.>>
Uh, yeah, really Clinton did hand him a budgetary surplus and a nation at peace, which Bush chose to convert into a nation at war with an ever-growing deficit and no visible means of paying for the wars that he had chosen to start. Quite an accomplishment, if you ask me.
<<So yes Congress went Dem and the economy co-incidently went south , I make the connection , you can't>>
The only connection you seem to be able to make is "GOP = good," and "Democrats = bad," even when the ship of state is slipping under the waves after a Republican had been steering for the past eight years. Thankfully, the American people were finally able to make the RIGHT connections and the looming disaster was averted - - for the time being.
-
<<So yes Congress went Dem and the economy co-incidently went south , I make the connection , you can't>>
The only connection you seem to be able to make is "GOP = good," and "Democrats = bad," even when the ship of state is slipping under the waves after a Republican had been steering for the past eight years.
Naaa, that's left to the Obama cool-aide folk who can see no wrong in the chosen, except when he's not being socialist enough. No one denies that Bush's policies facilitated the housing bubble burst. No one denies that Bush was fiscally irresponsible with what he allowed congress to spend. No one denies that Congress sat therr, watching that housing bubble, doing nothing, outside of the Democrats actively RESISTING any possible fixing to Fannie & Freddie, that might have staved off the collapse.
But at least the downturn was under some control.
Until Democrats took over majority control of congress, opening up the spending spickets, and kicking the "abyss" can down the hill. Then Obama came in, and that can has now dropped over the cliff, in a near free fall, unlikely to see any substantive economic recovery for years, if not decades. It's called a timeline of events and FACTS
Maybe, just maybe, the election of brown for Mass Senate, MIGHT put a floor under the can.
Thankfully, the American people were finally able to make the RIGHT connections and the looming disaster was averted - - for the time being.
And the American people are now realizing, in mass, (pardon the pun) what a colossal mistake they made
-
<<All economys are always on the brink of an abyss.>>
How absurd do you want to make this? Do all economies always require a trillion dollar bail-out to stave off the collapse to the end of the incoming President's first term of office? Do they all run a 17% real unemployment rate, disguised as 10% by the government tasked with keeping track of it?
<<What was wrong with the economy four years ago compared to now?>>
You're kidding me, right? It had a growing deficit with no realistic plans for correcting the tide of red ink, it was engaged in two wars it couldn't get out of and should never have started and wouldn't raise taxes to pay for, while jobs and capital were flowing outward faster than bilgewater being pumped from a sinking ship.
<<Bush had to cope with the 9-11 damage and recover . . . >>
ROTFLMFAO. Remind me again what production facilities were lost in the Sept. 11 attacks? Or how the loss of a couple of blocks of high-rise Manhattan office space is so crucial to the nation's economy?
<< . . . not that Clinton handed him a winning econoomy to start with.>>
Uh, yeah, really Clinton did hand him a budgetary surplus and a nation at peace, which Bush chose to convert into a nation at war with an ever-growing deficit and no visible means of paying for the wars that he had chosen to start. Quite an accomplishment, if you ask me.
<<So yes Congress went Dem and the economy co-incidently went south , I make the connection , you can't>>
The only connection you seem to be able to make is "GOP = good," and "Democrats = bad," even when the ship of state is slipping under the waves after a Republican had been steering for the past eight years. Thankfully, the American people were finally able to make the RIGHT connections and the looming disaster was averted - - for the time being.
If you think that the Bush presidency was bad three years ago when the Democrats took over Congress, then you must have really deplored the Clinton economy when employment numbers were worse. Or the Obama economy when emnployment numbers are worse.
Go ahead and call it absurd, I can too , but where are the numbers really?
-
<<if you think that the Bush presidency was bad three years ago when the Democrats took over Congress . . . >>
Ah, no, that is not what I said. I'm not fixated on "three years ago when the Democrats took over Congress." Bush was still the President then, still controlled the executive branch, and the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The exaggerated powers that you would like to believe were enjoyed by the Democrats during the last two years of Bush's second term are in fact a ludicrous attempt to distort the facts of the situation. Between the GOP hold on the executive branch and the weakDemocratic majority in the Senate, the real power was still with the GOP and - - under the GOP - - the country's financial situation continued to deteriorate.
So if you want to quote me accurately, please keep in mind that my comments on the results of eight years of Republican misrule would logically focus on the end of the eight years, i.e., on January 20, 2009.
<< . . . then you must have really deplored the Clinton economy when employment numbers were worse. >>
Worse than what? My impression of the Clinton years is that they were good times for most people, foreclosure rates nothing like the present consequences of the Bush disaster, and, most importantly, due to Clinton not having started any wars he couldn't finish, and not making any tax cuts for the rich, Clinton left a healthy surplus in the Treasury for the Bush idiot to piss away on wars of his own making.
<<Or the Obama economy when emnployment numbers are worse.>>
No, I don't blame Obama for striving valiantly and imaginatively to turn the clock back to the pre-Bush years of sanity and rationality and to try to stem the tide of rot and ruin unleashed by Bush and his wealthy corporate sponsors. He's doing his best, we'll just have to see if America can be saved by the liberals now that the conservatives have fucked it up to the extent they have.
Go ahead and call it absurd, I can too , but where are the numbers really?
-
This makes the practice of assimilation into the middle-class a multigenerational process over decades, rather than in the past, when immigrants came in fewer numbers and more often legally.
One, assimilation has always been a multi-generational process. Two, in the past coming here legally was much easier. Since the author does not seem to be advocating making legal immigration the U.S. easier, I submit that Mr. Hanson is being hypocritical on this issue.
-
The solution? Allow only legal immigration. Base admittance to the U.S. mostly on skills and our own need for expertise and capital. Trust in merit, and ignore the race and origin of the would-be immigrant.
He doesn't go into details but i'm guessing as long as you meet the requirements, the burdens to entry would be as difficult as applying and being accepted to a first tier college.
-
Which does not sound like a plan for making immigration easier.
-
No but it does sound like a plan to make immigration manageable.
-
It sounds like a plan for more illegal underground activity to me. But that is what he was complaining about in the first place.
-
No i believe he was saying that illegal immigrants should be treated like all other criminals.
-
I don't see how that contradicts what I said.
-
And i don't see how what he proposes makes legal immigration harder.
-
<<So yes Congress went Dem and the economy co-incidently went south , I make the connection , you can't>>
The only connection you seem to be able to make is "GOP = good," and "Democrats = bad," even when the ship of state is slipping under the waves after a Republican had been steering for the past eight years.
Naaa, that's left to the Obama cool-aide folk who can see no wrong in the chosen, except when he's not being socialist enough. No one denies that Bush's policies facilitated the housing bubble burst. No one denies that Bush was fiscally irresponsible with what he allowed congress to spend. No one denies that Congress sat therr, watching that housing bubble, doing nothing, outside of the Democrats actively RESISTING any possible fixing to Fannie & Freddie, that might have staved off the collapse.
But at least the downturn was under some control.
Until Democrats took over majority control of congress, opening up the spending spickets, and kicking the "abyss" can down the hill. Then Obama came in, and that can has now dropped over the cliff, in a near free fall, unlikely to see any substantive economic recovery for years, if not decades. It's called a timeline of events and FACTS
Maybe, just maybe, the election of brown for Mass Senate, MIGHT put a floor under the can.
(http://www.cagle.com/working/100115/ramirez.jpg)
-
<<if you think that the Bush presidency was bad three years ago when the Democrats took over Congress . . . >>
Ah, no, that is not what I said. I'm not fixated on "three years ago when the Democrats took over Congress." Bush was still the President then, still controlled the executive branch, and the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Of course not you are fixated on a point in time that you chose.
That point in time does not coincide with a real change in the economy.
I note that for Bush your attitude is that, it happened on his watch , it is his.
But what happens on Obamas watch has roots eight years deep.
Deepen those roots and see that many important things happen that the President doesnot order.
The dot .com bubble burst months before Clinton left office and irrational exuberance was over.
Bush struggled with a sinking economy untill 9-11 when a national tragedy harmed the banking industry (yes Virginia Banks do create real value) and for most of his presidency had better employment numbers than Clinton did , now what makes more diffrence , more people makeing exuberant money on the stock market on electronic IPOs or more people haveing Jobs?
Now for Obama my attitude is , it happens on his watch, it is his.
-
Poor plane. Of course, I see your dilemma. The power resided with the GOP for the whole of the eight years of his two terms.
So you need to jettison some of those GOP years and make them Democratic years. Nothing easier than to pick a fake point of "change" from GOP to Democratic control, then Bush only becomes responsible for the first six years of the two terms and the Democrats responsible for everything that happened starting from January 07.
Not buying it, plane.
And don't try to compare Bush with Clinton either, even on economic crashes. The dot.com bust was survivable, the collapse of the big brokerage and finance firms was not. Clinton left a healthy surplus in the Treasury, which Bush turned into a gaping hole in the ground.
-
Poor plane. Of course, I see your dilemma. The power resided with the GOP for the whole of the eight years of his two terms.
So you need to jettison some of those GOP years and make them Democratic years. Nothing easier than to pick a fake point of "change" from GOP to Democratic control, then Bush only becomes responsible for the first six years of the two terms and the Democrats responsible for everything that happened starting from January 07.
Not buying it, plane.
And don't try to compare Bush with Clinton either, even on economic crashes. The dot.com bust was survivable, the collapse of the big brokerage and finance firms was not. Clinton left a healthy surplus in the Treasury, which Bush turned into a gaping hole in the ground.
Subtract the SS taxes from Clintons "surplus" , and it disapears.
and that is actually what is going on .
-
Poor plane. Of course, I see your dilemma. The power resided with the GOP for the whole of the eight years of his two terms.
Which is not true is it?
-
The GOP controlled the house for 6 years and the senate for 4
-
I think the bottom line is that Bush and the GOP determined what was going to happen in America for all of eight years, not the Democrats. For the last two years of the eight, the Democrats had control of one house of a bicameral legislature.
-
For the last two years of the eight, the Democrats had control of one house of a bicameral legislature.
For the last two years, Democrats had control of BOTH houses of a bicameral legislature.
-
And i don't see how what he proposes makes legal immigration harder.
Did I say what he proposed would make immigration harder? No, I did not.
What he proposes may or may not make immigration more difficult, without more details knowing is impossible. But as best I can tell, his plan would not make immigration less difficult than it is now. Since immigration is now harder than it used to be, and one of Mr. Hanson's complaints is that immigrants in the past used to more often come here legally, I said he is being hypocritical on this issue, and so far I have no reason to change my position on that.
-
No you said :
It sounds like a plan for more illegal underground activity to me.
And i think the reason there would be more illegal activity is that there would be a lot of immigrants who did not qualify for legal immigration and they would just come anyway.
And that is just one part of the problem.
Hanson suggests that we set requirements for immigration. One being having a skillset in demand that currently has a shortage in the candidate pool. I don't see that as being any more onerous than applying to a state college where requirements also have to be met before admission.
Where we disagree is your notion that labor is a human right that transcends national borders and i don't think you have offered up any arguments that would change my mind on that.
-
For the last two years of the eight, the Democrats had control of one house of a bicameral legislature.
For the last two years, Democrats had control of BOTH houses of a bicameral legislature.
And there in lies the source of the pursetrings to the country's spending vs being responsible
-
No you said :
It sounds like a plan for more illegal underground activity to me.
And i think the reason there would be more illegal activity is that there would be a lot of immigrants who did not qualify for legal immigration and they would just come anyway.
So kinda like now. That is not really a case for accepting his plan.
And that is just one part of the problem.
Hanson suggests that we set requirements for immigration. One being having a skillset in demand that currently has a shortage in the candidate pool. I don't see that as being any more onerous than applying to a state college where requirements also have to be met before admission.
Where we disagree is your notion that labor is a human right that transcends national borders and i don't think you have offered up any arguments that would change my mind on that.
I'm sure I haven't. But you speak of "having a skillset in demand that currently has a shortage in the candidate pool." As decided by whom? I don't see why the government should be trusted with deciding that any more than it should be trusted with deciding what food or goods are in demand and should be produced in what quantities. Which is to say, the government should not be trusted with either one. But I'd be interested in seeing case made for why the government should be deciding such things.
-
So kinda like now. That is not really a case for accepting his plan.
Then don't accept it. However i would be interested in hearing your arguments in favor of allowing an onslaught of unskilled labor into the country.
I'm sure I haven't. But you speak of "having a skillset in demand that currently has a shortage in the candidate pool." As decided by whom?
The marketplace.
Have recruiting firms show they have exhausted domestic supplies and need to requisition talent from overseas. Since the government controls the immigration process, the requisition goes to them. It's a win-win, recruiting firms are good at evaluating people and the govt is good at pushing paper.
-
However i would be interested in hearing your arguments in favor of allowing an onslaught of unskilled labor into the country.
I don't remember taking a position that we need to allow an onslaught of anything. Oh I get it, you're exaggerating to make a point. Gosh, you're so clever.
Did we have an onslaught, an overwhelming outpouring of unskilled labor when immigration was easier? I guess that depends on one's perspective. I'd say no, but others would and did disagree. But let's consider for a moment. Part of the problem is immigrants coming here illegally and staying here. What happened before immigration laws made crossing the border legally more difficult? As best I can determine, a lot of the immigrants came here for a short time, say 4-6 months, and then went home again. They were hired for work (in the marketplace, mind you) they were willing to do, and often the farms and other businesses hiring such temporary workers would look for the same people each year because they learned who would do good work and who would not. So was that an onslaught of unskilled labor? Or was that the order of the marketplace finding people with needed skills without need for government to tell farms and businesses who they could and could not hire?
I'm sure I haven't. But you speak of "having a skillset in demand that currently has a shortage in the candidate pool." As decided by whom?
The marketplace.
Have recruiting firms show they have exhausted domestic supplies and need to requisition talent from overseas. Since the government controls the immigration process, the requisition goes to them. It's a win-win, recruiting firms are good at evaluating people and the govt is good at pushing paper.
I find your description of the process somewhat disturbing. Requisition talent from overseas? Demand people be brought to them for work? And yeah, 'requisition' means to require or demand, so don't tell me you didn't say demand. Aren't you the person who told me labor should not be treated like a physical property/good?
How are recruiting firms to show they have "exhausted domestic supplies"? How would that even be determined? Who sets the standards? This whole thing sounds like a lot of government control and very little actual marketplace evaluations. Your plan takes power away from the marketplace to decide who does and does not get hired and hands it over to the government to decide if a business or recruiting firm is allowed to hire an immigrant. Not to mention the fact that your plan will have allowed the government to interfere with a major part of the marketplace by preventing people from selling their labor freely.
Also, your plan seems like a huge hassle of which only the largest corporations will be able to make use, because this process will require regulations out the wazoo. Who gets hired under what terms and conditions, for how long, by whom. And the net benefit of this is what, exactly?
And your plan is a lose-lose situation. Your plan takes that part of the employment pool out of the reach of smaller businesses and farms, the ones with the most to benefit from it, gives the government more power over the marketplace, and either prevents poorer immigrants from being able to come here and find work to earn money to benefit their families or forces them to go further underground in their quest to provide for their families, which means more black market action and more abuses. The only wins there would be for the politicians and black marketeers who gain more power. Which is not a win for anyone else.
-
I find your description of the process somewhat disturbing. Requisition talent from overseas? Demand people be brought to them for work? And yeah, 'requisition' means to require or demand, so don't tell me you didn't say demand. Aren't you the person who told me labor should not be treated like a physical property/good?
requisition: a written request for something authorized but not made available automatically
try to keep it honest prince.
If Company A is in search of a electrical engineer and they can not find a suitable candidate domestically with the particular skillset they need at the salary level they are willing to pay then they notify their states labor department who in turn notifies the federal Bureau of Labor, who crosschecks the database of foreign applicants who meet these specifications and notifies the company, small or large that they may have a candidate for them. If the candidate is acceptable the company becomes his or her sponsor. Much like in the old days when legal immigrants needed a sponsor. I see nothing onerous or difficult or exclusionary about this process.
-
The best reason to controll the borders is to catch criminals as they cross.
Can we purely do that , and allow anyone elese to cross as they pleased?
Or must we stop a lot of people for the sake of catching these few who are dangerous?
-
<<However i would be interested in hearing your arguments in favor of allowing an onslaught of unskilled labor into the country. >>
Every one of them needs a pair of shoes on his feet. Their kids need shoes. They need a lot of stuff. And it can all be made in America.
Large-scale immigration will depress wages for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, just the ticket for bringing back the clothing and textile industries to America. Grow more cotton, sell more cotton. Get Americans out of the brokerage offices and into the cotton fields, where they belong. America was built by hard work, back-breaking labour, which gave the people a certain degree of common sense sorely lacking in today's generation of couch potatoes. You can sell a ruinously expensive foreign war to a generation raised on video-game violence, not to a generation that performs migrant farm labour in order to live. Who will need mechanical cotton pickers when real live ex-insurance-salesmen are available dirt cheap for the job?
-
Considering we currently have double-digit unemployment, would somebody like to point out a "market" for labor that can't be accommodated domestically?
-
Every one of them needs a pair of shoes on his feet. Their kids need shoes. They need a lot of stuff. And it can all be made in America.
Or it can be made in their own country of origin and excess stock can be exported to the States.
-
<<Considering we currently have double-digit unemployment, would somebody like to point out a "market" for labor that can't be accommodated domestically?>>
Yeah, that's the beauty of immigration. They'll take jobs that Americans are too fat, dumb and lazy to want to bother with. Same thing in Canada. There are plenty of jobs in hospitals and kitchens, but guess who takes them?
-
<<Or it can be made in their own country of origin and excess stock can be exported to the States. >>
Yes, there will always be some who are happy with the status quo. I was thinking of a way to rebuild North American manufacturing and bring some abandoned factories back to life. But the Rust Belt has its charms, I guess. For some of us.
-
Yes, there will always be some who are happy with the status quo. I was thinking of a way to rebuild North American manufacturing and bring some abandoned factories back to life. But the Rust Belt has its charms, I guess. For some of us.
Don't know how you would do that unless you somehow managed to equalize manufacturing costs between third world countries and the US. The US is at a disadvantage because of labor costs and regulatory expenses.
-
<<Don't know how you would do that unless you somehow managed to equalize manufacturing costs between third world countries and the US. The US is at a disadvantage because of labor costs and regulatory expenses.>>
The problem is Free Trade. The solution is tariff walls. For a country with a large domestic market to satisfy, it will work.
Look at China. They sell to many, let in only a select few. Because their production costs are so low, even the countries shut out of their import markets (where they probably couldn't compete anyway) want to buy their stuff.
-
The problem is Free Trade. The solution is tariff walls. For a country with a large domestic market to satisfy, it will work.
I'm not sure if that is much of a solution. But if the wages paid for a pair of shoes are enough to live on in what passes for an American Lifestyle,aided by a tariff wall, then those jobs would be filled by domestic workers and there is no need for immigrant labor.
-
Don't kid yourself, I'm not making any representation as to where the wage levels would end up after massive legal or illegal immigration and there's certainly no guarantee that they'd support "American Lifestyle" but I'd also bet that there are millions of Americans already living well beneath the level of "American Lifestyle" right now. As long as you have a capitalist economic system, there is not going to be any one "American Lifestyle."
-
I find your description of the process somewhat disturbing. Requisition talent from overseas? Demand people be brought to them for work? And yeah, 'requisition' means to require or demand, so don't tell me you didn't say demand. Aren't you the person who told me labor should not be treated like a physical property/good?
requisition: a written request for something authorized but not made available automatically
try to keep it honest prince.
I have. I know what requisition means. Look it up sometime. And you, Mr. "libertarians never do anything" have got no room to tell me to keep anything honest. And I'm waiting for an explanation as to why labor is not to be traded like a physical good but somehow foreign people are.
If Company A is in search of a electrical engineer and they can not find a suitable candidate domestically with the particular skillset they need at the salary level they are willing to pay then they notify their states labor department who in turn notifies the federal Bureau of Labor, who crosschecks the database of foreign applicants who meet these specifications and notifies the company, small or large that they may have a candidate for them. If the candidate is acceptable the company becomes his or her sponsor. Much like in the old days when legal immigrants needed a sponsor. I see nothing onerous or difficult or exclusionary about this process.
Rocket science is easy too. A cylinder with one open end is filled with fuel, and when the fuel is ignited away goes the rocket. See? Nothing difficult about rocket science at all.
Your example of how your plan works is laughable. You have assumed that this situation would somehow magically be legally this simple and straightforward and easy. Nothing exclusionary about this process? So you're not going to use this to keep unskilled labor out? I thought that was the whole point, which would make it inherently exclusionary. That only those people who are lucky enough to be chosen would be allowed in also makes it exclusionary. You see nothing onerous or difficult, but you have not explained what the foreigner has to do to apply, what regulations are in place to determine who is allowed to apply, does it allowing a worker in mean just the person or does his family get to come in too, what farms who would otherwise hire migrant workers are going to have to do to be allowed to hire immigrants or if they will even be allowed to hire immigrants at all. So while indeed the process as you explained it does not seem difficult, it only seems so because you have glossed over all the details that would make it seem so.
-
Considering we currently have double-digit unemployment, would somebody like to point out a "market" for labor that can't be accommodated domestically?
The one we already have where people who already live here are generally not trying to get the jobs that immigrant workers take.
-
The problem is Free Trade. The solution is tariff walls.
No, the problem is a lack of free trade. The solution is to get the artificial barriers out of the way. When farmers in other countries don't have to compete with cheap corn and grain dumped into their local market thanks to U.S. agriculture subsidies, they can do more to improve their situation at home, which means they'll be able to create jobs there, resulting in less reason for people to immigrate here to look for a job. And no insurance agents get forced into migrant labor in the process.
-
Considering we currently have double-digit unemployment, would somebody like to point out a "market" for labor that can't be accommodated domestically?
The one we already have where people who already live here are generally not trying to get the jobs that immigrant workers take.
Show an example. Every example I know of where illegals got axed, there were lines of citizens lined up the next day to apply for the jobs.
-
Show an example. Every example I know of where illegals got axed, there were lines of citizens lined up the next day to apply for the jobs.
I have not seen those stories. Feel free to show me some.
If there were so many citizens ready and willing to work those jobs, why weren't they applying for and working in those jobs in the first place?
-
<<No, the problem is a lack of free trade. The solution is to get the artificial barriers out of the way. When farmers in other countries don't have to compete with cheap corn and grain dumped into their local market thanks to U.S. agriculture subsidies, they can do more to improve their situation at home, which means they'll be able to create jobs there, resulting in less reason for people to immigrate here to look for a job. And no insurance agents get forced into migrant labor in the process.>>
Why won't it work in reverse? Why won't the abolition of farm subsidies leave U.S. farmers forced off the land unable to compete with third world agriculture on a level playing field? And what happens to your model when it's not farmers we're talking about but factory workers?
-
Look it up sometime.
I did
2 a : the act of requiring something to be furnished b : a demand or application made usually with authority: as
(1) : a demand made by military authorities upon civilians for supplies or other needs
(2) : a written request for something authorized but not made available automatically
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/requisition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/requisition)
And you, Mr. "libertarians never do anything" have got no room to tell me to keep anything honest. And I'm waiting for an explanation as to why labor is not to be traded like a physical good but somehow foreign people are.
You are the one who provided examples of what libertarians have done and the best you came up with is a bill languishing in committee.
And who says foreign people would be traded like physical goods. Registering to be on the skill list would be voluntary, who said anything about coercion, other than your dishonest portrayal of my example.
Your example of how your plan works is laughable.
It is not my plan. It is my explanation of Hanson's plan. Again your misrepresentation is blinding. But truth be known it really isn't Hanson's plan either as there are programs in place very similar to his ideas. Take a look at H2A visas for the unskilled and H2b for the skilled.
-
Show an example. Every example I know of where illegals got axed, there were lines of citizens lined up the next day to apply for the jobs.
I have not seen those stories. Feel free to show me some.
If there were so many citizens ready and willing to work those jobs, why weren't they applying for and working in those jobs in the first place?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/2008/08/after_immigration_raid_locals.html (http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/2008/08/after_immigration_raid_locals.html)
http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_fa0b0586-cadc-11de-ab38-001cc4c002e0.html (http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_fa0b0586-cadc-11de-ab38-001cc4c002e0.html)
-
Look it up sometime.
I did
Then don't accuse me of dishonesty.
And who says foreign people would be traded like physical goods.
Your description looked remarkably like it.
Registering to be on the skill list would be voluntary, who said anything about coercion, other than your dishonest portrayal of my example.
Indeed, who said anything about coercion? I am pretty sure I did not mention coercion. Not even one time.
Your example of how your plan works is laughable.
It is not my plan. It is my explanation of Hanson's plan. Again your misrepresentation is blinding.
Oh for the love of pizza... Fine. Your explanation of Hanson's plan is laughable. Though notably, I don't see Hanson posting here. What is blinding is this double standard where you say any untrue thing you like, and then accuse me of dishonesty. I am beginning to suspect honest discussion with you is not possible.
-
Am i being dishonest when i say that the two examples YOU provided of libertarian contributions were weak contributions at best? One in committee, the other a movement by a talk show host.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/2008/08/after_immigration_raid_locals.html (http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/2008/08/after_immigration_raid_locals.html)
http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_fa0b0586-cadc-11de-ab38-001cc4c002e0.html (http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_fa0b0586-cadc-11de-ab38-001cc4c002e0.html)
The story at the second link doesn't seem to have much to do with your position. That you posted the link to a story about a community facing economic hardship after a lot immigrants left it is interesting.
The story at the first link, says the plant began offering the community employment before the immigration raid. The article linked to by the NPR site quotes an economic professor as saying the area has a labor shortage problem. So I don't believe you've made your case.
-
Why won't it work in reverse? Why won't the abolition of farm subsidies leave U.S. farmers forced off the land unable to compete with third world agriculture on a level playing field? And what happens to your model when it's not farmers we're talking about but factory workers?
At least you admit subsidies are not about creating a level playing field. I doubt that ending farm subsidies would force all farmers off the land or leave them unable to compete. Farm and agriculture subsidies were eliminated in New Zealand and as I understand it, some farms then failed but others adapted and resorted a a strange thing called innovation, and now New Zealand farms are doing quite well.
Factory workers where? In the U.S. or overseas? What happens when corporations are punished less for opening factories in other countries and providing jobs for people in other countries? Maybe more jobs there and less reason to immigrate to the U.S? Perhaps you mean what about factory workers here in the U.S. I would hope they would learn to find new jobs, like the people who came before them learned to find new jobs when the U.S. began to move from an agrarian economy to one more industrialized.
-
Am i being dishonest when i say that the two examples YOU provided of libertarian contributions were weak contributions at best? One in committee, the other a movement by a talk show host.
You would not admit to your lie in that thread, so I have no reason to rehash it here. And now you're avoiding your new lies in this thread and the obvious flaws in your example of Hanson's plan. Which, according to you, isn't really Hanson's plan. So I guess we're done.
-
Are you claiming there are no h2a and h2b visa programs?
-
Are you claiming there are no h2a and h2b visa programs?
Did I say there were no H2A or H2B visa programs?
-
Did I say there were no H2A or H2B visa programs?
Are we suddenly required to be literal now?
And now you're avoiding your new lies in this thread and the obvious flaws in your example of Hanson's plan. Which, according to you, isn't really Hanson's plan.
These programs mirror Hanson's plan.
-
Are we suddenly required to be literal now?
We? But to answer your question, no. I did not say or imply anything about anyone having to be literal. I also did not imply, suggest, insinuate, hint or say that H2A and H2B visas did not exist. All I did was reference your own words. Out of left field, you asked me if I was "claiming there are no h2a and h2b visa programs". What sort of response did you expect?
These programs mirror Hanson's plan.
Then, as the wise man once said, what the hell is his problem?
-
Then, as the wise man once said, what the hell is his problem?
I don't think he does. In the case of h2b those with the required skillsets are fast tracked for work visas.
In the case of h2a those seasonal workers needed for agriculture are brought in.
Both have provisions for converting the visas to naturalization.
So perhaps what Hanson was saying is concentrate on those immigrants who add needed value, and prosecute those who bypass the legal methods of gaining access.
And for those who are unskilled, as the wise man said, get a skill.
-
In the case of h2b those with the required skillsets are fast tracked for work visas.
In the case of h2a those seasonal workers needed for agriculture are brought in.
Of course they are. It's so easy no one ever crosses the border illegally to find work. Ooh, no, wait...
So perhaps what Hanson was saying is concentrate on those immigrants who add needed value,
As defined by whom?
and prosecute those who bypass the legal methods of gaining access.
Most of whom would not if the government just took its needless artificial barriers out of their way.
And for those who are unskilled, as the wise man said, get a skill.
They'd like to, but first they have to get past either mountains of red tape or the border guards.
-
they'd like to, but first they have to get past either mountains of red tape or the border guards.
No they don't. Are you telling me Mexico as just one example does not have trade schools and universities?
-
If that were a viable option for the poor people who come here for work, wouldn't they be taking advantage of it?
-
I don't know. What has been your experience with technical school education, better to get it at home? or better to crash the borders of a foreign country?
-
My experience is that it still costs money and being literate is a real help. And my understanding is that Mexico's public schools are more often than not worse than ours, and the poorer communities have bad schools and high dropout rates. They're apparently not enrolling in the trade schools in any significant numbers. The folks in the poorer communities that is.
-
According to wiki Mexico has a 97% literacy rate among school age citizens and a 92.8% literacy rate overall. And they have an extensive distance learning program to bring knowledge to rural areas.
The drop out rate in Mexico is about the same as the drop out rate of Hispanics here.
-
My experience is that it still costs money and being literate is a real help. And my understanding is that Mexico's public schools are more often than not worse than ours, and the poorer communities have bad schools and high dropout rates. They're apparently not enrolling in the trade schools in any significant numbers. The folks in the poorer communities that is.
All very nice, but since when is it our responsibility to be solving Mexico's problems? We have plenty of our own, and our resources, like anyone else's, are finite.
-
My experience is that it still costs money and being literate is a real help. And my understanding is that Mexico's public schools are more often than not worse than ours, and the poorer communities have bad schools and high dropout rates. They're apparently not enrolling in the trade schools in any significant numbers. The folks in the poorer communities that is.
All very nice, but since when is it our responsibility to be solving Mexico's problems? We have plenty of our own, and our resources, like anyone else's, are finite.
WE share any problem that creates pressure to cross the border.
Now and then It pays us better to solve their problem than to harden the border.
-
According to wiki Mexico has a 97% literacy rate among school age citizens and a 92.8% literacy rate overall. And they have an extensive distance learning program to bring knowledge to rural areas.
The drop out rate in Mexico is about the same as the drop out rate of Hispanics here.
And this means the poor and unskilled are more likely to go try to go to trade school there than come here because...?
-
All very nice, but since when is it our responsibility to be solving Mexico's problems? We have plenty of our own, and our resources, like anyone else's, are finite.
I did not say we should be solving Mexico's problems. But you are correct that our resources are finite. Which is why we should stop trying to get in the way of our accessing more resources.
-
And this means the poor and unskilled are more likely to go try to go to trade school there than come here because...?
Unless they have a student visa or some other means of legal entry then their entry is by definition illegal and they should be treated accordingly.
Now some congressperson who agrees with your position on immigration is free to introduce a bill to change current law, but i don't think the mood of the country right now would encourage passage of same.
-
Now some congressperson who agrees with your position on immigration is free to introduce a bill to change current law, but i don't think the mood of the country right now would encourage passage of same.
Yes, I know. The country is still largely afraid of immigration. And before anyone tells me no they are not, if you're not then why don't you support reducing the restrictions on immigration? On second thought, we've had that discussion before, so nevermind.
-
Now some congressperson who agrees with your position on immigration is free to introduce a bill to change current law, but i don't think the mood of the country right now would encourage passage of same.
Yes, I know. The country is still largely afraid of immigration. And before anyone tells me no they are not..
They're not. It's ILLEGAL immigration that is the issue. NOT immigration, in general. Just thought I'd provide that friendly reminder. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming
-
It's ILLEGAL immigration that is the issue. NOT immigration, in general.
You clearly missed the point of the question. And also, you're wrong.
-
Well, considering I have no problem with legal immigration, and even advocate such, that would make your claim about folks like myself being "afraid of immigration", wrong
I guess you can't be right, all the time ;)
-
Now some congressperson who agrees with your position on immigration is free to introduce a bill to change current law, but i don't think the mood of the country right now would encourage passage of same.
Yes, I know. The country is still largely afraid of immigration. And before anyone tells me no they are not, if you're not then why don't you support reducing the restrictions on immigration? On second thought, we've had that discussion before, so nevermind.
I am all for immigration that is actually beneficial to us. If there any rocket scientists or nuclear physicists looking for a place to land, I am more than happy to have them.
But you'd have quite a bit of talking to do to convince me that a massive influx of uneducated, unskilled laborers is a net plus. Sorry.
-
Well, considering I have no problem with legal immigration, and even advocate such, that would make your claim about folks like myself being "afraid of immigration", wrong
Then answer the question. Why don't you support reducing the restrictions on immigration?
I guess you can't be right, all the time
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
-
I am all for immigration that is actually beneficial to us. If there any rocket scientists or nuclear physicists looking for a place to land, I am more than happy to have them.
But you'd have quite a bit of talking to do to convince me that a massive influx of uneducated, unskilled laborers is a net plus. Sorry.
I'm still waiting for the proof that we would have a massive influx if we reduced restrictions on crossing the border. And I wonder who gets to decide what is and is not beneficial. But I can understand your position even though I don't agree with it.
-
Well, considering I have no problem with legal immigration, and even advocate such, that would make your claim about folks like myself being "afraid of immigration", wrong
Then answer the question. Why don't you support reducing the restrictions on immigration?
Because I believe the ones already in place are sufficient, which, don't blink, ALLOWS for orderly LEGAL immigration....thus refuting the notion that folks like myself are "afraid of immigration". Just because one doesn't support your notion of a near open borders policy, doesn't equate to not supporting immigration. That's like a leftest who doesn't support measures to decrease an expected increase in a budget, though it still is increased, calling it a cut. And I know you're not one of those, right?
-
Because I believe the ones already in place are sufficient, which, don't blink, ALLOWS for orderly LEGAL immigration....thus refuting the notion that folks like myself are "afraid of immigration".
You're still missing the point. If you lessen the legal restrictions on crossing the border, you'd still have LEGAL immigration. If the status of legality were the only issue, then you would have no objection to reducing the legal restrictions and allowing people to more freely cross the border. If you oppose reducing those restrictions, then you believe the current restrictions are needed for some reason. Therefore, it is not just about legality, it is about immigration.
-
The point being missed here is by you Prince. Supporting legal immigration is not "afraid of immigration". If you wanted to qualify your claim as refering to being "afraid of your version of open borders-like immigration", then you might have a leg to stand on.
-
Supporting legal immigration is not "afraid of immigration".
Yes, if you want immigration heavily restricted, it is. I advocate legal immigration too, yet you clearly do not support what I advocate. So the issue has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with immigration itself.
-
Good, we're both for LEGAL immigration. My version simply is more orderly and less problematic to the country. Glad we have come to some concensus, in that neither of us are "afraid of immigration" in general
And yes, it has everything to do with legal vs not, since support of legal immigration is support of immigration, and NOT "afraid of it"
-
My version simply is more orderly and less problematic to the country.
In my opinion, the facts do not support that statement.
And yes, it has everything to do with legal vs not, since support of legal immigration is support of immigration, and NOT "afraid of it"
Support of significantly restricting immigration is not support of immigration in general, because support for significantly restricting is support for limiting and inhibiting immigration with intent to keep people out. And every argument I have ever seen for so restricting immigration are arguments of fear of what might happen if immigration were not so restricted. So yes, it is about being afraid of immigration.
-
and i guess fire code building capacity restrictions are actually simply a fear of people.
-
My version simply is more orderly and less problematic to the country.
In my opinion, the facts do not support that statement.
IMHO, they do. The fact you've applied your own "version" of immigration, to largely be cross our border pretty much anytime one wants, and to apply support of "legal immigration" as simply a massive reduction (if not abolishment) of current laws, and whaalaaaa, its "legal immigration" you support, simply promotes this discussion as one of twisting semantics. Facts are on my side, as it relates to the massive amounts of financial drain to this country by the massive amounts illegal immigrants. And simply changing the term to so that its a massive amount of legal immigration, is hardly going to change that hardship on our country
Pre 911, you might have a leg to stand on, Prince. Post 911, I'm afraid you don't
-
and i guess fire code building capacity restrictions are actually simply a fear of people.
touche' 8)
-
and i guess fire code building capacity restrictions are actually simply a fear of people.
If I had said the support for restrictive immigration laws was a fear of immigrants, you'd have a point. I didn't, and you don't. Fire code building capacity restrictions are about fear of the results of too many people in a single structure. Not of people. And I said people are afraid of immigration, not immigrants.
-
And I said people are afraid of immigration, not immigrants.
What's the difference?
-
The fact you've applied your own "version" of immigration, to largely be cross our border pretty much anytime one wants, and to apply support of "legal immigration" as simply a massive reduction (if not abolishment) of current laws, and whaalaaaa, its "legal immigration" you support, simply promotes this discussion as one of twisting semantics.
You're doing all the twisting. You're implying here that I am not supporting legal immigration because I don't support the laws you want. Your argument is totally bogus and rests entirely on your attempt to use semantics to pervert what I'm saying.
Facts are on my side, as it relates to the massive amounts of financial drain to this country by the massive amounts illegal immigrants.
Actually, that is why the facts are not in support of your statement: "My version simply is more orderly and less problematic to the country."
And simply changing the term to so that its a massive amount of legal immigration, is hardly going to change that hardship on our country
That assumes that making crossing the border easier means nothing else changes, which is highly unlikely. Many of the people who come here and stay choose to stay because going back and returning when the work is available again has become too difficult. Relaxing restrictions on letting them come and go is far more likely to result in an overall reduction of immigration than is the obviously failing current attempt to keep them out.
Pre 911, you might have a leg to stand on, Prince. Post 911, I'm afraid you don't
And yet you want people to believe you do not fear immigration. If you do not fear immigration, then why are all the arguments for restricting immigration based on fear of what will happen if we do not?
-
And I said people are afraid of immigration, not immigrants.
What's the difference?
Don't be stupid. Look it up. http://dictionary.reference.com/ (http://dictionary.reference.com/)
-
I know the difference. Immigration is the act. Immigrants are the subject.
How can you fear one and not the other.
Commence the parse, smartass.
-
Prince may be completely out to lunch on the "fear of immigration" tact, but I understand his point on the difference between the act and the people. For instance, I can, at best, tolerate the act of homosexualty, but can fully respect, and even care for someone who's a self proclaimed homosexual (my brother for instance). I wouldn't use the term fear, but the idea's the same
-
Immigration is to immigrants as incarceration is to prisoners.
One is the process, the other is the subject of that process.
-
Yes,....but.....you can enjoy/respect/love/support one while disliking/disrespecting/hating/afraid of the other
Or you can chose to hate both or support both. The issue being you can choose to seperate the subject from the process, as I did with homosexuals & homosexuality.
In this case, we seem to all agree to support both immigrants and immigration. The difference being in how we personally might twist immigration to fit our notions of what should be "legal". I think we're on a similar path, while Prince wants a far more lenient, if not unrestricted path. Neither of our versions have any notion of being scared of immigration. If anything, I may be inclined to be scared of his version of immigration
-
I know the difference. Immigration is the act. Immigrants are the subject.
How can you fear one and not the other.
I will start by borrowing (after a fashion) from one of your previous statements. How can one fear the result of too many people in a building in case of a fire, but not fear people? Can one oppose, say, mob rule, but not oppose people? Can one have an aversion to homosexual action but not be averse homosexuals themselves? Can one dislike abortion and yet have compassion for the women who chose to have abortions? Is there honestly in your mind no difference between the act and the person?
smartass.
Better that than to be a dumbass.
-
Immigration is to immigrants as incarceration is to prisoners.
Um, no, but I'll guess for now you simply made a bad word choice.
-
Immigration is to immigrants as incarceration is to prisoners.
Um, no, but I'll guess for now you simply made a bad word choice.
Immigration is to immigrants as shoemakeing is to cobblers?
Immigration is to immigrants as wrestleing is to wrestlers?
-
You're closer, Plane. At least the actions you describe are voluntary. How about this: immigration is to immigrants as interstate travel is to interstate travelers.
-
You're closer, Plane. At least the actions you describe are voluntary. How about this: immigration is to immigrants as interstate travel is to interstate travelers.
Would this be so if one of the states enacted tolls for out of staters just for crossing.......like Florida.
-
I suppose that depends on how specific you want the comparison to be.
-
The majority of prisoners are incarcerated because of voluntary acts.
-
Incarceration, however, is generally not a voluntary act.
-
Incarceration, however, is generally not a voluntary act.
However it is the end result of an illegal voluntary act.
-
As players are to baseball there is not one without the other.
It is the game that makes a person a player , and players must play for a game to be.
Where immagrants don't want to go , it is the lack of them that is the problem , the simplest solution to immagration therefore is odvious, lets trash this place untill they would all rather stay home.
-
Incarceration, however, is generally not a voluntary act.
However it is the end result of an illegal voluntary act.
That hardly makes it comparable to immigration. Will you next compare conscription to grocery shopping?
-
Where immagrants don't want to go , it is the lack of them that is the problem , the simplest solution to immagration therefore is odvious, lets trash this place untill they would all rather stay home.
I hope you're joking.
-
Will you next compare conscription to grocery shopping?
Why? does one follow the other?
-
Does incarceration inherently follow immigration in your mind?
-
Does incarceration inherently follow immigration in your mind?
Did I say it did?
What i said was A is to B as C is to D
-
Does incarceration inherently follow immigration in your mind?
Did I say it did?
If you had, I probably wouldn't have needed to ask the question.
What i said was A is to B as C is to D
Yes, you're very clever.
-
Where immagrants don't want to go , it is the lack of them that is the problem , the simplest solution to immagration therefore is odvious, lets trash this place untill they would all rather stay home.
I hope you're joking.
We are not really doing this?
What is it that makes this end of the trip so attractive?
Lots of Americans visit countries in Central and South America , but much fewer going south are seeking work.
AS our unemployment rattes rise our ileagal immagration problem shrinks , it is happening right now.
Unfortunately Americans seeking work in Mexico are going to face very tough barrier laws .
-
That the country is facing a rough spot hardly means the the solution is to ruin the country.
-
That the country is facing a rough spot hardly means the the solution is to ruin the country.
Illeagal immagration is down , because employment is more scarce.
Which problem is worse?
You can cure a rat infestation with a suffecient number of cats, but then you have too many cats.
You can cure a cat infestation with a suffecient number of dogs, but then you have too many dogs.
You can cure a dog infestation with a suffecient number of catsTigers, but then you have too many Tigers.
You can cure a Tiger infestation with a suffecient number of Elephants, but then you have too many Elephants.
You can make the Elephants leave with a passel of rats , but then.....
-
So your point is that doing something is futile?
-
So your point is that doing something is futile?
Of course not , you can't get perfection , but you can pick your problem.
I am going for the dogs myself.