YOOOOOOOOOOOO RAAAAAAAAAAAAY-CIST !!!!!!!!!

What next — a Mexican immigrant holding a big stalk of celery ??!?!?!?!?

I think that so many words shouldn’t be needed in order to say that you’re not a racist/classist/idiot. Also, that you think war is stupid. And that you’re questioning whether or not many Americans are.

First S,N! came for the immigrants —
I did not speak up, for I was not an immigrant.

Then S,N! came for the flamboyantly crazy and abjectly crooked black republicans —
I did not speak up, for I was not a flamboyantly crazy and abjectly crooked black republican —
Then they came for the CELERY LOVERS —
And I did not speak up, for I did not like celery.
And then they came for me…

HTML, I thought that was well said.

STOP RAPING ME with your so-called “rational discussion”, you FUNK-FILLED-BRATWURST-WIELDING PIECE OF CRAP !!!

I think the nationalist premise – that people who happen to be born 10 miles north of the Rio Grande are entitled to a whole set of rights that people who happen to be born 20 miles south are not – is far from obviously valid. But beyond that, and more immediately important, there is the question of the actual impact of immigration restrictions in the world we live in.

Immigration restrictions – border security, criminalization, raids – *do not* significantly reduce the number of undocumented immigrants in the US and *are not really intended to do so*. Even with massively stepped up ICE raids in the past year (2006 = ~7x 2005), they are nowhere near the scale required to deport 12 million undocumented people. The border patrol stops, IIRC, less than half of those attempting to cross.

What crackdowns on immigration actually do is increase the frequency and/or the cost of deportation, making the vast majority of undocumented immigrants who are not deported more vulnerable, more fearful, and, therefore, more tractable. This makes it easier for employers to get away with paying them far below minimum wage, providing horrific working conditions, etc. And, of course, this is bad for workers with citizenship, too – an injury to one is an injury to all in the labor movement.

Yes, I’m also not serious, but that’s otherwise, and chicken. CHICKEN.

I was RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYPED !!!!!

(pause)

(pause)

(pause)

(pause)

How do you like THAT ????!?!?!?!?!?!

Kalkin is making a run for the illegals, see? Which we should do. He has math/statistics/crackdowns.

Next time you are in a restaurant with your hipster friends, notice some of the Mexicans working to cook your meal, clean your dishes and pretty up your pristine bathroom. Why didn’t you call INS to report them?
When you stayed at that fancy hotel, why didn’t you call INS to report the maid and the guy who brought up your room service?
When you drove down the highway and saw those brown skinned people picking vegetables you will soon be eating, why didn’t you just call INS?
The right isn’t against illegal immigrants as long as they aren’t uppity or demanding a fair wage. They view them as servants, who should be spoken to and not heard; people who shouldn’t get health care or even a driver’s license. Grow up, pal.

OK, misters, let’s hear it.

I agree.

Um, are we being funny or are we being serious now?

I think, well, gosh, it’s a numbers game. There’s nothing different about someone from (Oh, let’s NOT use Mexico for an example) Nigeria trying desparately to get from their own impoverished country to Los Angeles where they can earn enough money by selling used cars and send the cash home to Lagos to their families, than there is from Ole and Lena travelling by train and covered wagon to South Dakota in 1890 to grow wheat and send the profits home to grandma in Stavanger so little Sven can be shipped out in three years..

But we have less room for Olatunji than we did for Ole and Lena. Our government NEEDED Ole and Lena to settle those deserted plains and keep a buffer zone against another group of disadvantaged people we wanted to disempower – the Sioux or the Nez Perce or whoever (pardon my lack of knowledge). And now, we dont need to populate the deserted plains. As a matter of fact, the Industrial Powers don’t know how they’re going to keep Festus and Cletus and Lester – our own home-grown immigrants – from getting restless while they’re jobs are being shipped out to Bangalore. So Olatunji,and Enrique, and Xian are suddenly persona non grata to Festus and Cletus, because they drive the hourly wage down to $7,25 from $7.40..

The US is doing the same thing it did inthe 19th century, but in the other direction.Instead of recruiting cheap labor to come to our shore to help the powerful save money, it’s shipping the jobs out to cheaper workers in other countries. Only the folks that are too poor even for those jobs aren’t gettingthe message.

Jeez. Does this make sense? I hope so. I’ve had way too much tonight.

But this whole thing is fucking depressing.

What crackdowns on immigration actually do is increase the frequency and/or the cost of deportation, making the vast majority of undocumented immigrants who are not deported more vulnerable, more fearful, and, therefore, more tractable. This makes it easier for employers to get away with paying them far below minimum wage, providing horrific working conditions, etc. And, of course, this is bad for workers with citizenship, too – an injury to one is an injury to all in the labor movement.

There’s a lot to that. But the alternative is …what? Seriously. I don’t want to fuck these people over. But what should be done? Please don’t say abolish the state. If everyone in the world is an American citizen no one is.

The left is not against those who serve, we just like those who do.

You abolish the state, then you reclaim it. Or, you abolish, then say whatever, or you whateves, come on, menc, you’re harming my buzz

Next time you are in a restaurant with your hipster friends, notice some of the Mexicans working to cook your meal, clean your dishes and pretty up your pristine bathroom. Why didn’t you call INS to report them?
When you stayed at that fancy hotel, why didn’t you call INS to report the maid and the guy who brought up your room service?
When you drove down the highway and saw those brown skinned people picking vegetables you will soon be eating, why didn’t you just call INS?
The right isn’t against illegal immigrants as long as they aren’t uppity or demanding a fair wage. They view them as servants, who should be spoken to and not heard; people who shouldn’t get health care or even a driver’s license. Grow up, pal.

Yes, and I’m just like a wingnut! I want more brown servants!!!

Seriously, though, I don’t go to hipster restaurants and have never called INS in my life not because I want a wage-slave to bring me my sweet tea but because it’s not these people’s fault that they want to come here and make money. Regretably, there’s not a neoliberal-fucktard deportation service that I can call when I see such people and their desires exploited by amoral pigs so that the race to the bottom can be ran in this country like the rest of the world.

In the 19th century, what eventually happened to the countries that supplied most of the immigrant labor to the US?

Just curious, from a historical point of view.

there’s always pressure and release. There’s bad conditions in Sicily in 1870, so suddenly a whole bunch of Sicilians come to the US.

How come they stopped coming, finally? What equalized it? How come we don’t have a massive influx of Sicilians now, but, instead, we have Nigerians; or Guatemalans, or Fujianese?

How do you make it better for people to stay in their own countries?

never mind

Next time you are in a restaurant with your hipster friends

Hello, whatever fucktard wrote this. Spanish speaking people working in kitchens (No, not JUST Mexicans!) are so ubiquitous now that it’s not just restaurants frequented by hipsters; it’s the Dennys and Jack-In-The-Boxes and Olive Gardens everywhere that also hire kitchen help from south of the border.

It’ ain’t that different from the old cliches about Irish cops and maids, and Filipino nurses, or Italian stonemasons. People find an entry to work, and they help their friends and family. Look in your own damn family tree, and see how your folks established themselves.

No you are not a racist. I don’t think the illegal immigrants here should be deported. But the solution offerred by the “sensible” types is to legalize them as a slave class. We should not stand for this in a democracy. Unless you advocate that they be legalized by being given green cards (which I would support), so that they will have the rights and protections of citizens and permanent resident aliens, you are the one who is the racist.

As a child of working class parents, I am also extremely offended by talk of “lazy” American workers, “jobs that Americans won’t do”. My father was a steelworker; I recall friends who’s fathers worked in contstruction. Back then, that was a good job with which a man could provide his family a decent, middle-class life style. Unions assured that they had adequate health insurance, etc. Go to any construction site now, and all the workers are illegals, working for slave wages and no benefits. I don’t know how anyone who considers himself a liberal/progressive can countenance this. I guess getting the yard-work and housekeeping and childcare done for a pittance must blind them to this situation. There “ideals’ are certainly cheaply bought.

I favor 100 percent full and unlimited immigration. It will help dilute all the inbred stupid shitheads we’ve got here.

HTML, you must stop. No one thinks this. stop it, Ew. You’ve never thought this, never, so stop. I don’t have servants, which helps.

here’s always pressure and release.

There was a place for that pressure to be released into then. You’re right in your other comment to say that this vaccuum was caused by genocide. What stopped was the frontier — there were no new natives left to slaughter, but plenty of other places like Australia and South Africa.

Immigration of the 19th Century sort depends on a frontier to accomodate it; none currently exists, though if we could just genocide the Iraqis like Charles Johnson wants, it would probably be a good candidate for pioneers.

I would totally love someone to clean my moldings, and then cut back my bushes.

All people who are born from immigrant stock should be deported to their ancestors’ home country.

oops … that wouldn’t work.

Oh fuck … let’s just be hypocrites and fuck the brown people over … again.

Charles Johnson? Please.

Kate, come on. Of course I do. I’m a wingnut! See? [Flaps chickenhawk wings, dons KKK hood] An inbreed shithead, that’s me.

Immigration of the 19th Century sort depends on a frontier to accomodate it;
—

Err … HTML … there was no “frontier” — It was all occupied by American Indians, who were all killed and forcibly driven off it by the United States Army.

If we wanted genocide and hate, we have options.

HTML, it’s impossible for me to tell you that you’re awesome, and for your to believe it, because I’m a total girl, dude.

I don’t think the illegal immigrants here should be deported.

Nor do I, nor do I.

I guess getting the yard-work and housekeeping and childcare done for a pittance must blind them to this situation. There “ideals’ are certainly cheaply bought.

Heehee. Ooops, I’m sorry — HEY! We will not speak of suburban neoliberal domestic arrangements here! We take the high ground!

you= you’re

Err … HTML … there was no “frontier� — It was all occupied by American Indians, who were all killed and forcibly driven off it by the United States Army.

Jesus, dude I just said it was because of genocide. You’re looking for a wingnut when none is here.

HTML, it’s impossible for me to tell you that you’re awesome, and for your to believe it, because I’m a total girl, dude.

That depends — what is your opinion on sammiches, Kate?

Photoshopped sammiches, I mean.

Me, I like pie.

Immigration of the 19th Century sort of depends on a frontier to accomodate it;
—

That doesn’t explain all of the immigration into New England during the 19th century from Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Scotland, Portugal etc. etc. etc.

HTML, if you study of the 19th century history of New England you will see that the Massachusetts textile mill owners in Lowell, Haverhill, Fall River etc. actively encouraged immigration (esp. from Quebec) to supply illiterate and easily exploited low income slave labor for their textile mills. There was no “frontier” in Lowell or Brockton, Massachusetts in 1880.

You need to reassess the historic validity of your statement above. Cheers.

Jesus, dude I just said it was because of genocide. You’re looking for a wingnut when none is here.

HTML — I know.

How about a dyed-in-the wool-neo-new-dealer domestic arrangement, cutie?

I’m actually against all that ‘assimilation’ crap — I think its a plus that what immigrants we do let in are culturally different from us. I’m happy that Mexicans, say, keep their language (though I don’t think they do any more than other immigrant groups have), culture, traditions. And while that doesn’t mean I’m thrilled with all of it — seriously, who in their right mind wants more machismo and Phalangist-style reactionary Catholicism in this country? — I’m sanguine that multiculturalism will sort all the rough parts out. I prefer the patchwork quilt to the melting pot.
—

Well said. I fully agree. I like people speaking other languages around me. Even if they really are calling me a poopy butt in Cape Verdean and then laughing at me.

HTML, if you study of the 19th century history of New England you will see that the Massachusetts textile mill owners in Lowell, Haverhill, Fall River etc. actively encouraged immigration (esp. from Quebec) to supply illiterate and easily exploited low income slave labor for their textile mills. There was no “frontier� in Lowell or Brockton, Massachusetts in 1880.

But this is another historical force that has no modern analogue. The mills representated a sea change in production mode that somewhat accommodated a huge influx of immigrant labor. There is no such corresponding thing going on today. And besides, do you really want to return to laissez-faire? Most people using your analogy do.

How about a dyed-in-the wool-neo-new-dealer domestic arrangement, cutie?

Ohhh. Hmm, well that’s fair game!

HTML, I appreciate that you’re approaching this in good faith, and that it’s a complex issue, and that you’re mostly asking questions and not proferring a solution…

…seriously, I appreciate that…

…but if you think that the United States of America is out of room, physically to absorb more citizens, you need to slap yourself, hard, and then go look at a damn map.

This country is empty. We have entire states which are physically larger than the Netherlands, but with roughly the population of one of those south pacific islands that makes all of its money by selling domain names. (And they still get two senators, ain’t democracy grand?) We could absorb Germany and not even burp.

Infrastructure, government services, budgets — all of these things are less elastic, and require careful planning to absorb migrants. But room? We have room.

The pressing question that everyone is so blissfully ignoring, perhaps in hopes that it will go away, is; “If brown people won’t mow my lawn in July heat, who WILL?” Won’t some one PLEASE think of the predicament of upper middle class house-wives and Nintendo-fed teenagers? Who’s looking out for THEM? Why should they be forced to toil the fields so that Paco McSiesta can get health care?

But this is another historical force that has no modern analogue. The mills representated a sea change in production mode that somewhat accommodated a huge influx of immigrant labor. There is no such corresponding thing going on today. And besides, do you really want to return to laissez-faire? Most people using your analogy do.
—
HTML — The modern analogue, certainly in southern New England, would be as you said above … “advice: find a candid roofer, landscaper, building contractor and ask away …”

It could be argued that the construction business in New England this decade has become the functional analog of the Lowell and Haverhill mills of the 1800s in terms of desiring and soaking up immigrant labor for the pure purpose of exploitation.

but if you think that the United States of America is out of room, physically to absorb more citizens, you need to slap yourself, hard, and then go look at a damn map.

I don’t. Here what I do think:

Back then, the glut of land resultant of ethnic cleansing and genocide was administrated by the government which made ‘settling costs’ for immigrants very cheap — even via snowball effect to the cities (all except the ultimate primo locations). Today there is no program to give immigrants freebie 160 acres at the sign of a dotted line; all land is owned and what possibly can come up for sale is in private hands. This is a huge qualitative difference in the ability of the country to absorb immigrants.

“If brown people won’t mow my lawn in July heat, who WILL?�

—

My brother, Tim Watts, will. He lives in South Middleborough, Mass. He’s got a boat payment so he’s highly motivated.

Me too. I live in Maine and have a wicked mortgage to keep up with.

Poor HTML is sitting here defending his thesis in American History against total, unsympathetic strangers.

But the kid is staying up and counterpunching !!! Like Chief Jay Strongbow, he’s coming back to life !!!

It could be argued that the construction business in New England this decade has become the functional analog of the Lowell and Haverhill mills of the 1800s in terms of desiring and soaking up immigrant labor for the pure purpose of exploitation.

I get the analogy in intent, but I’m not sure it’s the same in the sense of proportion and, therefore, effect.

HTML Mencken:
Today there is no program to give immigrants freebie 160 acres at the sign of a dotted line; all land is owned and what possibly can come up for sale is in private hands.
——————————————

So then all we need is a program, right? Just buy some of that there empty space offa the folks who ain’t livin’ on it, and share it out!

Not buying that plan?

How about this: remove the need for immigration. Invest heavily in Mexican infrastructure–cut INS patrols back down, and ship that cash to Oaxaca. Or closer to homeHelp turn the maquiladoras (those that haven’t closed up shop and shipped out to still cheaper places) into regulation factories with safety standards, decent pay, and environmental accountablility. But make it possible for people to earn fairly decent livings within their own country. If I’ve got a choice of $5 an hour in my hometown, vs. $7 an hour hundreds of miles away, following a dangrous journey, with no family for support, I might be able to countenance living in the old homestead a bit more.

But to get back to your original point (is it racist to say there’s too much immigration?) I’ve been thinking. It’s just one of those cases where all the wingnut (and further right than that) crap has made the concept so radioactive, that it’s very difficult, particularly in this political climate, to even talk about it. It doesn’t make you a racist, but it does require that you spend a lot of time carefully laying out your position to disentangle yourself from the racist motivations that would lead to a similar belief. You’re doing that now, and I commend you for it. I know it’s a pain, but it has to be done.

salvador dalai llama said,
May 8, 2007 at 8:59
—
What he said. Well said.

Frist, read the Codex Nezuensis.

Second, drop the “I’m just a dispassionate observer, teaching you the laws of economix, which are objective and inarguable…” stance. The Invisible Hand is giving most humans on earth the Finger.

Third, there is a racial component to the melting pot that some don’t want to acknowledge: sure the Irish and the Italians had their struggles when they came to ‘Merka, but the dark people from Africa who were here even before the non-WASPY europeans are still struggling. “Racism can and does inform anti-immigration macro-sentiment to some degree.” Please. That is entirely what motivates the current reactionaries. You don’t hear anyone bitching about the Russian Illegal Immigrant scourge, do you?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: mandatory (and strictly enforced) 10 year jail sentences for anyone (and any corporate officers) who employs a non-US citizen will bring illegal immigration to a standstill.

Sure it’s a fucked up solution to a fucked up problem. The only reason the problem exists is not parasitic dark people bent on exploiting Our Nation’s wealth, but rather a completely laissez-faire attitude by the US Government (for the last couple decades) towards any business that wants to save some bux by paying non-citizens less than the minimum wage. It’s in-sourcing labor for jobs that cannot be done overseas.

The Corporations and even small businesses are the parasites, but it’s much easier (and politically expedient) to punish different-looking, different-speaking and different-worshipping workers.

What is the solution? As far as I know, the US never rounded up and deported massive numbers of any ethnic group (like the Irish and the Italians) because they may have come to this country With Out Papers. They eventually integrated all of them into society as full Citizens.

So… make anyone who is in the US today a full US citizen and enforce (without mercy) the 10 year sentence on employers starting tomorrow. Everyone will be paid at least the minimum wage, they will have rights, and there will be no incentive for anyone to enter the US illegally because there will be nobody to employ them.

Third, there is a racial component to the melting pot that some don’t want to acknowledge: sure the Irish and the Italians had their struggles when they came to ‘Merka, but the dark people from Africa who were here even before the non-WASPY europeans are still struggling. “Racism can and does inform anti-immigration macro-sentiment to some degree.� Please. That is entirely what motivates the current reactionaries. You don’t hear anyone bitching about the Russian Illegal Immigrant scourge, do you?

No, not the wingnuts. But I’m not talking about the wingnuts.

Look, this argument is a lot like the Free Trade argument. A tactic the pro-Fre Traders use, sometimes in good faith but mostly in bad, is to say that the resentment felt by the disaffected American worker is *racist*. It is not. While it’s true that racists can be found anywhere in society, by and large the outsourced or outcompeted by illegal labor American worker is simply *pissed off that he’s lost his job.* Just because Pat Buchanan has awful motives and rationales doesn’t mean that every blue color American does. But you seem to *assume* that he does. How illiberal is that, shystee?

sdl : all that sounds fine to me.

And hell, maybe shystee’s plan will work. I dunno. All I know is that it’s a bum rap tell accuse people who are mad at being fucked-over to be happy about it because all their complaints come from racist motives.

shystee said,
May 8, 2007 at 9:03

__

We dyed-in-the-wool-neo-new-dealers whole-heartedly concur.

But i’m a one-man-woman and HTML got there first.

To add to Salvador dalai illama —

I, like Retardo Montalban aka HTML Mencken are of the similar post cold war, post civil rights era ilk. I understand exactly what he is wrestling with in his essay. I am from southeastern Massachusetts, the site of an extremely brutal and bloody war 300 years ago that people today still will not admit happened and people still do not feel comfortable talking about. It was between the Pokanoket and the Pilgrims. The same people who ate at the first Thanksgiving. For that reason the entire subject of immigration is a very funny joke to me, given that I was born and brought up on soil stained with genocide that nobody will admit occurred, even 300 years later.

Any discussion of immigration must begin with a discussion of American Indians. Anyone who wants to skip over this is a poseur or a loseur. The USA has never come clean nor come to grips nor apologized nor even admitted or been willing to freely discuss the genocide of American Indians that is still occurring. That said, HTML’s essay is one of the most refreshing takes I have seen on this thorny issue for a long time and I congratulate him for writing it.

You would open a huge complex can of worms for a goddamn comment thread, wouldn’t you?

I think there can be too much immigration, absolutely regardless of the immigrants’ national origin or ethnic identity. I don’t know if we are at the point of ‘too much’ now or not, only that it’s possible.

I think a nation’s government owes far more, qualitatively and quanitatively, to its own citizens than it does citizens of another nation.

I’m not sure how immigration quotas are determined in Canada, but quotas make practical sense because the population has to be sustained and supported i.e. provided with health and social services, housing, infrastructure, etc.

The vast majority (around 74%) who arrive in Canada apply for landed immigrant status under what’s called “family class.” Approx. 2% are refugees and 25% apply under “business class” (i.e. are investors with lots of cash).

On average, a family class applicant waits two years from the time they apply until the time they arrive. This two year period would be an optimum time for our government to teach them something about the Canadian labour market/culture, the cost of living, and encourage they learn English, but heaven forbid this should ever happen. Most immigrants arrive unprepared. Thankfully, Canada does provide a great deal of support to new immigrants, but it would probably cost the taxpayer less (and the immigrant less stress) if the gov’t assisted immigrants before they arrive (particularly in the area of credential recognition and English language training – or French, if they are planning to settle in Quebec).

Family class applicants must have a skill that is in demand in Canada. This has practical value for Canadian society and for the applicant, although, many professional immigrants end up not working in their field because their education isn’t transferable. Of course, they don’t know this before they come because nobody tells them. We need labour market analysts working in consulates and embassies overseas… (I’m not holding my breath).

Arriving with little English means not getting job interviews or failing job interviews. Many highly skilled immigrants end up in minimum wage jobs, unable to afford the rent (they didn’t realize was so high), etc. This does not help an immigrant feel as though they belong and it impedes their ability to settle and feel at home in Canada. Arrival is easier for immigrants who belong to large immigrant populations. The Chinese, for example, account for 35% of Vancouver’s total population. Anyone who is Chinese is going to receive greater support because the local community is already well established.

Because labour shortages are acute, governments are trying to solve some of the problems of credential recognition through internship programs and education programs designed to upgrade the skills of immigrants to meet Canadian standards.

I’m actually against all that ‘assimilation’ crap — I think its a plus that what immigrants we do let in are culturally different from us. I’m happy that Mexicans, say, keep their language (though I don’t think they do any more than other immigrant groups have), culture, traditions.

Reasonable arguments can be made for assimilation. I’m thinking of the recent fight in Ontario against the proposal to establish Sharia courts to handle marriage and family disputes. Many of the people who fought against this proposal (by the Ontario government) were Muslim women who enjoy the rights women have in Canada. Ontario considered the proposal because its own courts are severely backlogged because of funding cuts and staff shortages. It would have been, in other words, an expedient move. The women would have none of it, and most Ontario residents said the hell with that bullshit. If you choose to live in Canada, Canadian law applies, period. I would agree with this for reasons I hope are obvious.

This is a touchy issue, but I believe anyone who moves here should be obligated to learn at least one of the official (and dominant) languages: English, or in the case of Quebec, French. If someone chooses to move to Canada, they should make an effort to learn the language before they arrive and the Canadian government could do a lot, through its overseas offices, to provide some ESL. Hell, I wouldn’t move to Quebec and not speak French, but many immigrants live here for years without speaking more than two words of English. It’s ridiculous. You cannot make it in the labour market without English and many workers who don’t learn English end up trapped in low wage ghettoes.

Anyway, I’ve probably mumbled and stumbled and could have said it better but those are my two cents.

All I know is that it’s a bum rap tell accuse people who are mad at being fucked-over to be happy about it because all their complaints come from racist motives.
—
If the CEOs of all the major U.S. corporations were black or hispanic females, then people complaining about getting “fucked over” might have a legitimate gripe about black and hispanic female CEOs of major U.S. corporations.

But given that all CEOs of all major U.S. corporations — who control everything, including the U.S. government, are white males — it is axiomatic that the only people who can be “fucking over” white males in the U.S. are richer white males.

They are the ones who need to be put in jail or “controlled” — not the poorest, most powerless people in the U.S. — illegal immigrants.

Talk about blaming the victim.

But given that all CEOs of all major U.S. corporations — who control everything, including the U.S. government, are white males — it is axiomatic that the only people who can be “fucking over� white males in the U.S. are richer white males.

They are the ones who need to be put in jail or “controlled� — not the poorest, most powerless people in the U.S. — illegal immigrants.

You’re preaching to the choir, dude. But that doesn’t solve immigration problems in theory. Let’s say we jail all the white crapitalist pigs (a glorious day); do we then dismantle all distinctions between US citizens and the rest of the world? Do we declare all our borders open to whatever amount of people want to come here, in perpetuity and forever? I’m not being an asshole here. Really, isn’t there a limit where the state and the economy simply can’t accomodate anymore?

P.S. Re the touchy ESL topic, I should add that my views on ESL apply to business and family class applicants, not refugees whose situation is altogether different. Thought I should make that clear before anyone rips my head off.

Do we declare all our borders open to whatever amount of people want to come here, in perpetuity and forever?

You know this is the kind of question a western industrialized nation would ask because it assumes it is the be all and end all of places to be. Which I suppose, for the moment, might be true for many people. But it’s also very much not true for many immigrants.

In any case, the short answer is no, for any country. You have to have the capacity, the infrastructure to accommodate people.

Any discussion of immigration must begin with a discussion of American Indians. Anyone who wants to skip over this is a poseur or a loseur. The USA has never come clean nor come to grips nor apologized nor even admitted or been willing to freely discuss the genocide of American Indians that is still occurring. That said, HTML’s essay is one of the most refreshing takes I have seen on this thorny issue for a long time and I congratulate him for writing it.

Well, thanks.

As for the Indians — what was done to them is the founding fact of my weltanshauung. All of America is based on the original sin of genocide.

But what to do? It looks like I want to pull up the ladder behind me; but believe me I know what that fucking ladder cost. I feel terrible about it. I think the government should make massive reparations for it — and I mean massive, in the form of buying out a whole state of the union and then granting what indigenous are left full sovereignty with it (ethnic nationalism is not for us, but it should be for native americans if they want it). But the ladder is rickety now; since it was wrong to put it up in the first place, is it right to keep it up now that it no longer works and that which gave it its strength is no longer extant?

Recovering and restoring American Indian languages in kids is the most important thing that can be done today. Indian languages are dying, especially in New England. Languages are the most precious possession of any culture. They must be saved at all costs. No language = no culture. This is why the U.S. spent all of the 20th century prohibiting Indian children from speaking their native language — to destroy the culture. It is incredible the amount of latent hatred and racism still in New England regarding Indians today … from people who have never even met an Indian. But right now the most important thing is preventing Indian languages from dying out. That is from a New England perspective, which is the only one I am familiar with.

Regarding the genocidal aspect of the old frontier, it’s also necessary to point out how much of this country used to BE Mexico. We didn’t just take the frontier from the Apache, Navajo, Sioux, etc. Spanish has been spoken in this part of the US for a lot longer than has English.

“it could be argued that the construction business in New England this decade has become the functional analog of the Lowell and Haverhill mills of the 1800s in terms of desiring and soaking up immigrant labor for the pure purpose of exploitation.”

I get the analogy in intent, but I’m not sure it’s the same in the sense of proportion and, therefore, effect.

I would think that the proportion and effect today are considerably less. The rate of immigration in the 19th century was about 10 times what it is today. I mean, you’re trying to compare our situation to the single largest mass movement of humans in history.

If we’re looking at, what, 12 million or 15 million people in a country of 300 million, then there’s just no comparison. We cannot expect our population to double in the next 2 decades as a result of immigration no matter what our policies are.

I don’t think immigration is a problem at all. The problem is in how we treat them. That’s a real humanitarian crisis. There is no excuse for it. We CAN absorb them and allow them to assimilate or not and it’s not going to hurt us. What hurts us is allowing them to be exploited and not allowing them, or anyone else lately, to organize- THAT’S why Joe Sixpack is losing out. But by playing to the racist imagination, it will just continue.

In the last week we’ve seen LAPD open fire with less-than-lethal weapons on a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, including small children, who were marching for basic human rights. The reaction from the left? Silence. The reaction from the right? Wishes that the LAPD had been using real bullets. Meanwhile, that redneck militia in Alabama arrested the week before got arraigned. The FBI says they were planning to machine gun incoming illegals. Nobody in the press is calling them terrorists yet.

You cannot separate racism from this issue. It is racist to the core to allow the situation to continue as it is.

Been to Jesus’General lately? The Unapologetic Mexican had a post a couple of days ago that YOU need to read, Mr. Mencken. It’s about you, indirectly- more like it’s about the blindness of us progressives to the largest progessive/humanitarian issue in our country.

Wow. What RobW has said is what I wanted to say, but wasn’t smart enuf to say. Thank you, RobW.

Anyways, I wanted to add that my wife, a goddamn Mick and a Paddy, named Keenan no less, states emphatically that every nation needs immigrants to keep the country from going inbred, stale and going to hell simply due to a lack of new blood and new ideas.

I also agree with RobW that the current situation is sick and has become a convenient and comforting cloak for overt racism of a kind not seen since the 1920s. What are the “Minutemen” except for the Ku Klux Klan without the white hoods ?

Strange fruit.

it’s also necessary to point out how much of this country used to BE Mexico. We didn’t just take the frontier from the Apache, Navajo, Sioux, etc. Spanish has been spoken in this part of the US for a lot longer than has English.

I’m torn about that. I know the reconquista movement exists only in Michelle Malkin’s fantasy life, but if it were real, a part of me would be very sympathetic to it. OTOH, I’m conditioned to think about ‘just titles’ and to assume that irredentism is teh suxx0r. So I dunno.

I would think that the proportion and effect today are considerably less. The rate of immigration in the 19th century was about 10 times what it is today. I mean, you’re trying to compare our situation to the single largest mass movement of humans in history.

You’re misunderstanding me, here.

If we’re looking at, what, 12 million or 15 million people in a country of 300 million, then there’s just no comparison. We cannot expect our population to double in the next 2 decades as a result of immigration no matter what our policies are.

Of course not. But what I’m getting at is — where is the cutoff? Is there a cutoff level at all, at least in theory? Why not? Is it racist to discuss how much may be too much?

As for the rest, dude, I’m not a wingnut. I don’t want to deport these people. I don’t think they are a danger.

But that guy at the General’s — he’s batshit. I mean, really: attacking David Neiwart???? If David Neiwart is a racist fellow-traveler, then I really am a fucking wingnut and this attempt to get through my blogging doldrums is for naught and I’ll spare my co-bloggers the pain by moving back to my old dump with 50 readers per day.

Anyways, I wanted to add that my wife, a goddamn Mick and a Paddy, named Keenan no less, states emphatically that every nation needs immigrants to keep the country from going inbred, stale and going to hell simply due to a lack of new blood and new ideas.

False dichotomy. No one here is arguing massive deportations; no one is arguing for *zero* immigration.

And for the billionth time, I don’t give a shit where they come from, only if they come in numbers that services can’t deal with and with skills that aggregate toward certain professions that results in a labor glut that destroys the native work force’s earnings and enriches crapitalist pigs. shystee’s right that this can be looked at as a subsidy for certain employers who don’t need it, something that I thought we were all against.

And for the billionth time, I don’t give a shit where they come from, only if they come in numbers that services can’t deal with and with skills that aggregate toward certain professions that results in a labor glut that destroys the native work force’s earnings and enriches crapitalist pigs. shystee’s right that this can be looked at as a subsidy for certain employers who don’t need it, something that I thought we were all against.
—
HTML — the most trenchant counter-argument you are getting here is that your premise itself is a strawman or at least a massive and irrational over-reaction. Of course, there is some population level X in the United States that could cause the problems X, Y and Z that you describe, but you provide no empirical evidence that we are even within an order of magnitude of that level.

Without such statistical and numeric evidence, you are putting up the “No Irish Need Apply” sign in the window of the United States just because … well … they’re Irish. You need to make the hard, evidentiary case that this country is literally going down the skids directly because of people coming here. You have not come close to making that case — which by definition is a quantitative, economic and statistical case.

But, no. You are definitely not a bigot.

What am I misunderstanding? You’re saying the immigration issue then was of different proportion and therefore different effect, right? I took that to mean you the proportion was lesser then. Can you clarify?

Obviously I’m not the only one misunderstanding if you thought that was an attack on Neiwart.

Here’s what Nashua said about Neiwart’s series on eliminationism:

It’s beautiful, right? Speaks to the time, to the issue, and to my heart. Here is a (white) man doing academic studies and discussions of an issue that I am tied to because of my lineage, my relatives, my family. Here he is doing a wonderful counterpoint to the very visceral and personal essays that we do in the “brown blogosphere.” I don’t need to go into “cockroach” jokes or how both these paragraphs could apply directly to today’s Human Rights struggle as embodied by the Mexican Immigrant issue. It’s all right there. As well as two posts reporting on the Hutto Concentration Camp for Kids, which makes great sense, given Neiwert’s work on the Japanese Internment camps in the past.

Some attack, huh? But wait, there’s more.

But only two posts? On such an “Important blog” as this? Yes, good work, driven by a good man, and a good writer. Will these attacks never cease?

Look, my friend, please don’t take this the wrong way. I sincerely love your writing and respect your work. I’m just saying, or agreeing with Nashua anyway, that maybe it’s about time we got our white asses out from behind our computers and hit the streets with our compadres, dig? Or at least quit dissing those who fight against their oppression as “batshit.” That’s out of line.

(fuckety fuck fuckerino… Where’s the preview? Seriously, EVERY other blog has that feature. Let’s try this again.)

What am I misunderstanding? You’re saying the immigration issue then was of different proportion and therefore different effect, right? I took that to mean you the proportion was lesser then. Can you clarify?

Obviously I’m not the only one misunderstanding if you thought that was an attack on Neiwart.

Here’s what Nashua said about Neiwart’s series on eliminationism:

It’s beautiful, right? Speaks to the time, to the issue, and to my heart. Here is a (white) man doing academic studies and discussions of an issue that I am tied to because of my lineage, my relatives, my family. Here he is doing a wonderful counterpoint to the very visceral and personal essays that we do in the “brown blogosphere.� I don’t need to go into “cockroach� jokes or how both these paragraphs could apply directly to today’s Human Rights struggle as embodied by the Mexican Immigrant issue. It’s all right there. As well as two posts reporting on the Hutto Concentration Camp for Kids, which makes great sense, given Neiwert’s work on the Japanese Internment camps in the past.

But only two posts? On such an “Important blog� as this? Yes, good work, driven by a good man, and a good writer.

Will these batshit attacks never cease?

But only two posts? On such an “Important blog” as this? Yes, good work, driven by a good man, and a good writer. And yet…by itself, and without those other blogs I mention—the ones that connect his data, discussion, and analysis to a human experience—how “important” a blog is it to read “in this time”?

I looked for Neiwert’s take on the LA violence perpetrated on marching Mexican Americans and undocumented workers and found….nada. I looked for Digby’s take on it, and found…nada. I look on Firedoglake, and find…nada. I look on all these Big and Important Liberal blogs and find…nada. There are, of course, notable exceptions, and they matter. Especially when they tie in to the larger issues, which—again, I say—you would think would be on all our front burners

THAT is the point, which I guess you missed. It is about the taking the academic view and subsequently moving on as if this is just a Mexican’s problem, not ours. He singles out Orcinus for praise, not scorn. He does lump it in with the other Big and Important Liberal Blogs, which it is, and criticizes the group for doing nothing about it. He also says it is good to approach the problem from an academic view, while others take a more activist approach. His complaint is that it seems to ONLY be the “Brown Bloggers,� as he calls himself, who are taking the activist stance of “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

Earlier in the post, he compares the Big and Important Liberal Blogs to the hand-wringing liberals who stood on the sidelines cheering the civil rights movement. The cheering was good, and it certainly helped. But the movement needed bodies to face the cops- not enough of those bodies were coming from the sidelines with those cheers.

But go ahead and dismiss him and the rest of the activists as batshit. What the fuck does some Mexican know anyway?

(I swear sometimes, if it weren’t for the brilliant commentariat here, I’d have deleted this bookmark a long time ago for the way y’all so easily and airily dismiss anyone who would criticize you from the left, or dare to be passionate about the things you claim to care about. You’re like MoDo sometimes, I swear. But of course I’ll be back… Every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in.)

Look, my friend, please don’t take this the wrong way. I sincerely love your writing and respect your work. I’m just saying, or agreeing with Nashua anyway, that maybe it’s about time we got our white asses out from behind our computers and hit the streets with our compadres, dig?

Or at least quit dissing those who fight against their oppression as “batshit.� That’s just not cool.

ok, goddamit, I swear I put the tags in.

The following lines are mine, not his:
“Some attack, huh? But wait, there’s more.”
“What’s this? A criticism? But we can’t criticize a Big Important Blog like Orcinus, can we?”

Grrr… Well, ya’ll are pretty smart, I’m sure you can figure it out. Going to bed now. Obviously I’m too tired to comment.

Rob — I read that a while ago. I overstated the case. But there is crap in it, and it is batshittery. Re: Neiwart:

But only two posts? On such an “Important blog” as this? Yes, good work, driven by a good man, and a good writer. And yet…by itself, and without those other blogs I mention—the ones that connect his data, discussion, and analysis to a human experience—how “important” a blog is it to read “in this time”?

I looked for Neiwert’s take on the LA violence perpetrated on marching Mexican Americans and undocumented workers and found….nada. I looked for Digby’s take on it, and found…nada. I look on Firedoglake, and find…nada. I look on all these Big and Important Liberal blogs and find…nada.

*That’s* stupid. It smacks of sammichspeak.

Without such statistical and numeric evidence, you are putting up the “No Irish Need Apply� sign in the window of the United States just because … well … they’re Irish. You need to make the hard, evidentiary case that this country is literally going down the skids directly because of people coming here.

Christ, I’m not saying that it is going down the toilet because of X. I’m saying that there are problems resultant of X and what’s more, that I have never seen it *acknowledged* that X to the whatever power is not an ideal, much less a sustainable policy. That’s all.

Strawman? (empahsis added)

I think there can be too much immigration, absolutely regardless of the immigrants’ national origin or ethnic identity. I don’t know if we are at the point of ‘too much’ now or not, only that it’s possible.

Is there or is there not a point at which there is too much immigration? Not now, but in theory? Is it possible? Why or why not? Why is the very question itself ‘racist’?

Can’t be arsed scrolling back up, but I agree what someone said above, the tolerance of illegal immigration in the US (and the UK, for that matter) is a silent agreement to allow a good and services to remain cheap, particularly for the middle ‘chattering’ classes. Eating out, getting you laundry done, cheap hotels, all of these things are cheaper both in real and inflation adjusted terms than 10 years ago, and the tolerance of illegal immigration supports all of that. Both the right wing and the left wing are hypocrites on the subject, the right banging the drum for ‘send ’em all back’, while the left wrings its hands at the injustice of it all, but both are buggered if the Nigerian nanny asks for the going rate, or their Saturday night out starts costing what it should.

But what to do about it? Its uncomfortable for a wishy washy Guardian reader type, like myself, but there has to be limits of some sort on immigration, any ‘open borders’ suggestion is just stupid. It doesn’t make you a wingnut to want to limit immigration. Peoples have moved across continets, borders for millennia, and it is a good thing they have. Renewing and revitalising a nation is essential, and immigration is the best way of doing it. However, you can’t let just anyone in, but its how to decide who the gatekeeper is, and what his remit is. But what is the remit and who should be that gatekeeper? Very, very broadly, I would favour a some kind of points system, with a technocrat approach, with little or no political interference, Canada* or Australia being the best examples that come to mind right now. The randomness of the US systems, including the lottery shit and the politically influenced quotas (e.g. the Irish) has created more problems than it solved. Another good approach is the recent amnesty in Spain, legalise 1.5 million folk, turn them into taxpayers, and low, the immigration rates falls.

Does this make me a racist, no, and I don’t think you are either, HTLM. I do find that those opposed to immigration limits tend, in my experience, to live a comfortable life, doing work where there is little or no threat from immigrants. The solution is there, but like everything in life, its complicated.

*[It should be pointed out that my anecdotal experiences go against all of the above, which I suppose proves my maturity. Despite being married to Canadian, having a professional occupation, having two bloody degrees and no police record, I have been turned down twice by Canada for immigration. That’s why I have to travel the world like a modern day gypsy, selling to the highest bidder, and getting drunk in hot places with racist expats. No, I’m not bitter B*s*ard Canucks].

I’d have deleted this bookmark a long time ago for the way y’all so easily and airily dismiss anyone who would criticize you from the left

Ouch. Well, okay, but in my defense I don’t think these people are left of me. Left of me is a democratic socialist (not the same thing as a social democrat). Left of me are neo-Leninists like Zizek. That’s Left.

The brown sammich people (if I may coin a phrase) that you point to aren’t more left, they are simply more radical about a single-issue. Sure, I should get my boots on the ground more, but then that’s hard to do in my area and with my acess to reliable transport these days. So sure, there’s a point to that critcism. But brown sammich people *demanding* that other bloggers write about an issue with the single-minded devotion that they themselves do, well, that’s when I say go fuck yourself.

Puns at Feministe’s expense to the side, seriously, I’m a generalist. Even if I were brown or a woman or whatever minority I just couldn’t write about one issue all the freakin time no matter how crucial I thought it was. Nor read about it all the time. Look, big blogs are usually group blogs and so reflect a generalist subject matter. They also address issues that are universal in way that fat-acceptance, say, is not: like the Iraq War which, to be fair, I can’t even blog about all the time. So whatever. But what a gruesome blogosphere it will be when something comes up and those who do not blog about it IMMEDIATELY AND THOROUGHLY are suspected of being rank rodents, closet wingnuts, etc. Brave New World!

it’s about time we got our white asses out from behind our computers and hit the streets with our compadres, dig?

If you think it’s important, then do it. Don’t make assumptions about how much someone else is/isn’t/should be doing to support the grand struggle of la raza, do it yourself…. “dig”?

As for Nezua, he seems to be setting himself up as a left-wing version of Joe Lieberman — scoring points by attacking his own side (though not those big DLC bucks — sorry Nez, I guess you’ll have to wait for the reconquista to hit that big Joementum-stype payday).

Not that anyone is in a position to criticize you , god forbid — except maybe those Rwandan genocide victims who, if they could make it to a computer, might blog with righteous indignation that you had devoted not two, not one, but ZERO columns to the Rwandan genocide, or whatever else in the infinitude of conceivable worthy topics you’re also not writing about at any given moment.

And please, spare us the unctuous admission that you’re a “hypocrite” and you “haven’t arrived yet”. What’s the point of being an “unapologetic Mexican” if you’re going to get all apologetic, especially about a charge as vague as being a “hypocrite” who “hasn’t arrived yet” (though not nearly as stupid as charging a writer with not writing about what you think they should)?

Though if you want to apologize for being a silly, Joe-Lieberman-of-the-Left twat, go ahead.

Of course what I’m about to say will likely never happen,but what if we could,as a country ,multi-task? Since when can we only accomplish one thing at a time?

Apply penalties to anyone who employs an illegal immigrant. No exceptions,and make the penalty hurt.

Invest in and insist on Mexico improving conditions for their own workers. I say Mexico because it seems the largest numbers of people coming here are from there. I don’t know alot about Mexico,but my understanding is that there’s too much oligarchy/aristocracy and not enough work for the humgry masses(and maybe another look at NAFTA is in order here too),a mostly lousy infrastructure,and a really corrupt government. Give the people something to fight for rather than against and they’d be more likely to stay home.

I don’t buy that Americans won’t do these jobs either. They just don’t want to do it for slave wages,no insurance benefits,no retirement plan,no union to look out for the worker bees. These types of jobs used to be the backbone of middle class america;farming,industry,trades,etc. And stop paying CEOs obscene amounts of money when a company is losing money. Instead,invest that money in the workforce. (stop laughing,it could work,if anyone gave a rat’s ass)

Racism won’t leave us until we own up to it in our own history. Most of the land in this country is soaked in the blood of genocide,and it’s rare to hear an American even want to discuss that. Indian reservations are mostly brutally poor,hidden away in places with little resources where the rest of us don’t see. The answer is not casinos and tourism either. The reason we don’t see that reality is by design. It’s a continuation of the original genocide that could have ended long ago if there was a will to do anything about it. That there isn’t that will says alot more about this country than we care to admit most of the time.

You aren’t a racist HTML,your questions are just you trying to figure out the issue. I don’t know how anything gets figured out unless you ask questions. I think we’re at a resource max capacity myself,but that could be remedied by investing in infrastructure,becoming a society that actually produces things and is able to feed itself(is it really smart to depend on mostly imported food? IMO this is also related to national security),and if we could grow the hell up and encourage birth control,sex education,and knock off the idiocy surrounding abortion. This isn’t a simple topic,but we also,as human beings,tend to make it lots more complex than it ever had to be.

But,this is just MHO,I could be wrong.

Gov’t and employers who drive immigration policy are screaming there are too few people coming up in the labour force to fill the gap left by the boomers (who are beginning to retire). Population stats verify this. The future of the economy, governments claim, depends on increasing birth rates – (not going to happen unless women are given tax breaks and other incentives, like subsidized daycare or extensive maternity benefits like Sweden has) – and immigration.

So the outrage about illegal immigrants is a joke, really. Certainly we want to avoid people coming in unscreened, but the government should offer an amnesty to people who are settled, working, and contributing. There are at least 35,000 immigrants unaccounted for in Canada. Why not just make them an offer. God knows, employers are screaming that we need more people. It blows my mind every time I read that the immigration dept just deported someone who has been here for 12 or 20 years just because they didn’t follow protocol. Well ok, a slap on the wrist and sign the paper work. Let’s not be idiots.

As long as they’re not a war criminal, (like some of the senior citizen Nazis who’ve managed to live here for 50 odd years) or like that mass murderer from Rwanda who managed to sneak in a refugee claim, a member of the mafia, some psychopath, or corrupt businessman (we have plenty of those, too) just process their application and be done with it. Really, who cares?

Like the skilled welder from Portugal who worked here for 12 years. His employer pleaded with the government to let him stay. He has a child in school. He’s gainfully employed, never been dependent on welfare, a model citizen in every respect, and he gets deported. It’s ridiculous. It’s likely the employer had to bring in a foreign worker to replace him because there’s a shortage of welders.

Guest worker programs many countries have started, including Canada, essentially legitimize the conditions illegal workers already experience. Hundreds of workers are flown in every year to BC to work as harvesting labourers on farms and they receive no benefits. Several hundred have experienced appalling living and working conditions with no oversight and no enforced regulation. A large group of Mexican workers last year said to hell with this and left. Conditions were worse for them here than at home. The average age of Canadian agricultural workers is 62! Why isn’t the government encouraging settlement, overseeing the farm operations? Well, of course, they should and they could, but they turn a blind eye. This guest worker program should be illegal. If you need workers that badly, bring them here, house them, offer them landed status, treat them with respect. It’s disgusting.

If someone’s working in Canada, they should have the same rights and benefits as any other worker. But of course these workers are brought in, dumped in some shithole, they don’t know their rights, they don’t speak the language, there’s no one monitoring the situation and shit happens to them. Duh. How is this “the Canadian way” again?

The one province that’s seen fit to protect local wages is Alberta, and that’s ironic because Alberta is the most conservative of all the provinces. But the employers there decided they’d pay the wages and the benefits and the foreign worker program determines a minimum wage the employer is obligated to pay by occupation and they won’t negotiate that (unless the employer wants to pay more.) Now, why isn’t this a policy of the federal government? It could easily be but it’s not. Alberta’s unemployment rate is the lowest in the country, wages are the highest, and it’s my understanding that it’s one of the best places in Canada to work.

You are wrong. Sadly, I’m completely fucking stoned and can’t explain why. But two things; first, your third “given” is questionable — “citizenship matters” how much? And why? It matters in a pragmatic sense (it has benefits) but in the other sense of “matters”, why? When I read piece after piece about American (or British, my side in this) deaths, and not a word about Iraqi deaths, I shudder. I cannot sign up to the idea that my fellow citizens matter than citizens of some other place. My fellow citizens are nothing to me; not my family, not people I know. Just people born within the same borders. Second, immigration has benefits for everyone, not just people who acquire a new poolboy.

Here’s what I think. The solution to immigration is not making a stand over your economy, your jobs and your services that those filthy immigrants are stretching to breaking point. The solution is to make your stand over theirs. And the answer’s yes, you are. Thinking point three is a given and constructing your position from there make it very hard to avoid being one.

If the planet has a problem it’s too many humans consuming increasingly scarce resources. Actually, it’s the spoiled middle and upper classes in the industrialized west who are driving most of the environmental damage. These damn economies we’ve constructed that are driven by an insatiable lust for things things things.

We have a lot of uncomfortable changing to do and if people are still keen on blaming “foreigners” for everything that ails them – even now when jobs are going begging – they have a rude awakening coming. People who are incapable of recognizing that the vast majority of the world’s population isn’t pasty white might want to leave the planet altogether. In fact, please do, because really, humanity and the earth it depends on has a huge crisis on its hands and we need to EVOLVE beyond this racist crap.

Well, and here’s an example.

Today’s blaring front page headline:

CANADA BOOSTS PESTICIDE LIMIT: More residue to be allowed on fruit, vegetables, to match U.S. levels; current strict rules post “trade” irritant

How much more insane can it get?

If someone makes more than 50k a year, I discount their view on immigration. In general, they are too advantaged by having a large pool of unskilled labor to be trusted. They simply don’t see a problem with immigration because it has no impact on their lives (and point to studies that indicate there is a difference, and declare that difference too small because to them, it would be).

Illegal immigration is just one more way the elite keep the rest of us in place. They want that large skill of labor so that they don’t have to poor Americans the wages they should be earning. Instead, they pocket any extra proceeds and distribute them among themselves. We should not, of course, be blaming immigrants who are simply looking for a better life. Instead we have to blame the companies who hire them, and our elite, classist politicians who do nothing to punish these corporations. We should not be hiring people from other countries. The more you allow this, the less incentive the elite in this country have to better education in this country. Why bother helping a poor American get a good education, when you can import an elite Indian to do it cheaper than they would, and without opening up higher-incomes slots to competition. Why pay an American what you’d have to to get them to work, when you can pay a Mexican day laborer half of minimum wage to do the same job?

I’d ask people like Lesley and Dr. Zen how much money they make every year. What do they do for a living? Are they ever actually in competition with illegal immigrants for their jobs? Or do they simply reap the rewards of cheap service workers and reduced labor costs. I really do hate it when people argue from their own personal self-interest and pretend they’re trying to be good, noble people.

Is there any theoretical amount of immigration that could be seen as ‘too much’ by my fellow lefties?

Yeah. Illegal immigration. But as an immigrant, I want to kick Tancredo’s ass for comparing Miami to a Third World country. That plump motherfucker never saw his mother weep watching you squirrel away airline food (before they got cheap) so you’d have something to eat later. I doubt anyone capable of making such a vapid, opportunistic race-baiting comment has the balls to walk in the shoes of a Third World citizen.

Anyway, I vehemently disagreed with Chertoff giving border agents extra-judicial authority to decide who’s a real asylum-seeker and who’s not. This decision wasn’t about accountability; it was about saving money at the expense of justice. Duh, we’re deporting the wrong people.

I also think we’re going to have a “Mexican problem” as long as we continue pouring billions of subsidies into agribusiness and dismantling foreign markets, Mexico especially, where local farmers can’t compete without Mexican subsidies and working for $12/day makes no sense when you can walk across the border and make that much an hour as a construction hand. Re: “In Mexico, ‘People Really Do Want To Stay’”

However, neither party wants to confront the agrivote and do the right thing.

Soullite, first of all 50K is peanuts. If you think people who make 50K represent the elite, then the minimum wage must seem reasonable to you. Hell, considering inflation, 50K should be the minimum. Seriously, we’re talking a take home pay of about $24 an hour (in Canada). No one earning 50K who is single can afford to buy a 1-bedroom apartment where I live these days, so you might want to increase that cutoff rate by several tens of thousands.

Second of all, I’m neither a profiting corporation or the government, just another wage slave trying to make ends meet.

I’m not advocating for illegal immigration, I’m advocating for an amnesty and an immigration system that makes sense. Not a system driven by corporate greed and a government that pays lip service to Canadian values.

If you think for one second we don’t have the capacity to accommodate all immigrants coming in and to give everyone in this country equal access to education, you’re sadly mistaken.

The way I look at it, all would-be immigrants have to be understood first as victims of neoliberal policies.

Nobody grows up in their home country and then just decides they don’t like the food or whatever and want to go somewhere else (okay, creepy white anime fans aside): they leave their cultures and entire lives behind out of genuine economic or political necessity. And all too often, that necessity is rooted in the “free” trade policies championed by Western capital.

To me, it’s analogous to drug policy. You can say “there’s too much immigration” or “there’s too much drug use,” and those can be completely reasonable and unobjectionable statements (for the reasons you mention), but then to go from that idea to a policy where you punish immigrants or drug users is to completely miss the point and punish the victims of the injustice instead of the perpetrators.

With that framework, it’s easy to distinguish racist and non-racist concerns about immigration: those who harbor the former see immigrants as their political opponents in the immigration debate, whereas those with the latter recognize immigrants as allies.

And taking it the next step, the “what do we do about it” step, here’s what we do about it: lean on Mexico (and any other nation whose labor we use, whether via immigration or import) to implement the same kinds of minimal labor protections and human rights standards our own workers enjoy. Western corporations will howl, of course, which is how you’ll know it’s the right thing to do.

Immigration to the United States would come down significantly if the same economic and political opportunities existed around the world. To a substantial extent, multinational corporations and United States governmental policy support substandards wages and repressive governments around the world.

Often (for instance in China and Africa)., the repressive governments and substandard wages go hand in hand. Oil companies, textile firms, car companies, Walmart and others benefit from paying skinflint amounts of money to the average person outside the United States while getting a free hand in terms of their labor and environmental policies in those locations. The differences in economic, political and environmental health between the United States and places where many of our immigrants come from is a substantial part of the pressure driving immigration.

In short, the practices of multinationals and the United States abroad make the United States a comparatively better place to live, and as a matter of fairness we owe something to many of those seeking better lives here.

And yet, insidiously, the World Bank and the IMF insist globalization will result in bringing the standards up “eventually.” By the time all the struggles are fought and won, we’ll all be dead from the toxic melt.

Languages are the most precious possession of any culture. They must be saved at all costs. No language = no culture.

This is simply untrue. The idea that language = ethnicity is an outdated 19th century concept. Do the Swiss not have a culture? The Austrians? The Walloons? The Sicilians? The Cypriotes?

When it comes to illegal immigration, I’ve been called a racist because I don’t support anyone breaking the law, which is what illegal immigrants do when they come here illegally. I’m part French, English, and Scottish, and I would say exactly the same if the French, the British, and the Scottish were coming here illegally. I guess my bias is against law breaking.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: mandatory (and strictly enforced) 10 year jail sentences for anyone (and any corporate officers) who employs a non-US citizen will bring illegal immigration to a standstill.

I completely agree. I’ve been saying this for a quarter of a century, which is when I started paying attention to politics.

I also hate the argument that there are certain jobs Americans won’t take, for whatever reasons. During a recession many years ago, I filled out over a hundred job applications and the first job offer was from MacDonalds. I took the job because I like to eat, which keeps me alive. Who would pass up a lousy job if it means no food on your table?

Philosophically, the whole notion of citizenship period irks me, because it assigns priority to people simply for being born on American soil, which I think it’s fair to say they had no control over. In general, it seems that most groups that you would want to be a member of ask for you to contribute something to the betterment of the group. Work, knowledge, money, whatever. The group works because everybody chips in. Using that framework, doesn’t it stand to reason that a lot of American citizens do not deserve to be citizens? This country has plenty of people who contribute nothing to society, yet are given more esteem that people who work their asses off, simply because the former dropped from the womb onto American soil and the latter did not. Americans seem to enjoy priding themselves on being a society that values work, but the whole “okay for me, but not for thee” mentality on immigration makes me think that applying for citizenship needs to be ridiculously easy, or America needs to start weeding out some of its own losers before they erect fences to keep others out. Disclaimer: I’m biased (child of immigrants who grew up around rednecks). But isn’t the whole notion of citizenship itself a little bit racist?

Beebles: “But isn’t the whole notion of citizenship itself a little bit racist?”

Citizenship is the natural outgrowth of the concept of nation-states. If you want to say citizenship inherently racist, then you should call patriotism, and every expression of statehood, including acts by the state justified in the name of sovereignty, as racist.

I don’t think it’s racist. In fact, I think it’s a healthy development in horizontal integration, a concept capable of stitching different ethnic, religious, and economic identities together.

Can there be too much integration? Depends on what consequence you dislike. But this question should follow understanding how much immigration there is/will be. Your discussion and the comments assume the US government and society (hereafter referred to as “we”) have some control over this number. Consider such very repressive methods as citizen and legal resident registration on a “Allowed to work” list, intrusive employer inspections, leg bracelets to monitor visitors (so they don’t over-stay their visas), and the construction of the US-Mexico moat. Without these measures, we will continue to have large numbers of illegal immigrants stay and enter. I think this is a sub-case of the Invisible Hand, capitalism working itself out. It is a limit on the actions of the nation-state. Just as East Germany could not stop people leaving, we can’t stop immigration.
Starting from that understanding, your question would be more usefully phrased as, What do we do to minimize the negative consequences of immigration? For example, one negative consequence is the increase of immigration as workers bring their families in, since it is so hard for an illegal to return if they visit their family in their home country. So, making it easy to register for a work visa may actually decrease immigration.
Of course, the country is closely divided on this policy debate, with many believing that just because we have a government, we get to decide how large immigration will be. So, in typical American fashion, we will muddle along with minimal change in the laws till change is forced on us. I hope those in this discussion will see that acceptance of immigration and improving it is the best way forward. I hope that this understanding gradually moves out into our society.

As a Californian, I have a different perspective. We here in California have a wealth of apologies to make for the way we treated Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the 19th and 20th century, and we’re as murderous to Indians as any other state, historically.

Our problem is that we have limited resources–water, chiefly–and we’re very close to carrying capacity for humans. We’re basically part of Mexico–the name of the place comes from a Spanish novel, after all–and so I (and most of us in California) have little enough complaint with immigration from our southern neighbors.

No, our complaint is with our eastern neighbors. During the dot-com boom, it seemed as though all of Nebraska had taken a shit on the Bay Area, that all of North Carolina had barfed up its least desirable elements into our streets. And that’s just the “N”s

You want to do something about the impact of immigration? Close California’s borders to the rest of the US. Podemos ayudar a nuestras amigos Mexicanos y Salvadorenos y Peruanos; the rest of the country can take care of its own offspring for a decade or so.

Funny you should mention water. The US is eager to get its paws on Canadian water (which currently isn’t exported). Meanwhile, 10% of the earth’s population is served by private water companies, according to Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook. “The figure is far higher in urban areas and the proportion is growing fast.” In parts of China, citizens spend up to 40% of their income on water (whose management has been outsourced by inept local governments – who can’t be bothered to clean up river pollution – to private multinational “water management” companies that sell it back for a premium). – The Rise of Big Water – Vanity Fair, May issue)

The Greedy Water Barons

There are only a handful of major corporate players now operating water utilities for profit. The two biggest are both from France – Vivendi Environnement (renamed Veolia Environnement SA on April 30, 2003) and Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux. Between them, they deliver private water and wastewater services to more than 200 million customers in 150 countries and are in a race, along with others such as RWE AG–Thames Water (German-British merger) and Bechtel-United Utilities (U.S.), to expand to every corner of the globe.

Like many other sectors of the global economy, the water industry is afflicted with merger mania as the European giants buy out a number of domestic water companies in order to control and penetrate new markets. In 1999, there were more than $15 billion worth of water acquisitions in the U.S. water industry alone, and all the big water companies are now listed on the stock exchanges. In the U.S., Vivendi now owns USFilter, Suez operates through its subsidiary United Water, and RWE-Thames functions by way of American Water Works. A number of communities, such as Lexington, Kentucky and Felton, California, are shocked to find out that their local utilities have been taken over by a multinational entity which is pushing for rate increases in order to pay off enormous corporate salaries, shareholder dividends and huge acquisition debt. Concerned residents are now organizing to reclaim control of their private utilities and place them in public hands.
Who are the major water companies?

good lord — html is right — we need to have a discussion about this without cries of ‘racism’ after every 5th syllable…

i have this same problem… i have relation who are virulently anti-illegal immigration, one of them said “let’s debate this.” i said, “ok, but i don’t know much about this, but i know b.s. and bad facts when i see them.” he proceeded to send me to some wacked-out video saying that immigrants are going to ruin the country, but the numbers didn’t add up (like, a 10% increase in immigration would account for a 100% increase in consumption of schools, water resources, etc.) i told him these facts didn’t make sense on their face, and to explain them, and he told me, in effect, that he doesn’t have time to explain them because: CAN’T I SEE THAT WE ARE IN PERIL? THEY ARE SPEAKING SPANISH DOWN AT TEH WALMART!

these tactics i dismiss as racist. but i really wanted him to give good arguments, or at least good facts for me to draw conclusions from. and it is hard.

i work hard for liberal causes. i am thoroughly disgusted with the corruption and ignorance of the republican party/conservative mindset. and, i am worried about immigration. we do need to ask questions like, “is there a line where there is too much immigration? and, if so, what dictates it?” we need to ask, “if it is about economic justice, would we be better served to help change the economics of countries who send us the most immigrants (legal and illegal), and in the meantime, enforce our immigration policies?”

i think when the conservative party implodes upon itself, leaving the democratic party standing in the dust, the next big schism in the party will be between the pro-immigrant part and the environmentalists. because one of the tenets of environmentalism is to not environmentally overtax watershed systesms. we do that today, and adding population, whether through birth rates or immigration, worsens that. furthermore, working to create better conditions in, say, Mexico, in good faith, is better environmentally in the long run. with people fleeing here, who cares for the environmental impact in Mexico? people need to be vested locally to fight for good environmental policy where they live. It seems better economically and environmentally to leaven the quality of living between countries to lessen the migration pressure than it is to just ignore the problem and either throw all our resources into walling ourselves off, or allowing a free flow of migrants.

it’s not an easy question, and motivations of preservation of a great system of government and quality of life is not inherently racist. it can and devolve that way, but that doesn’t mean that the original question is not without merit.

I’m more worried about the level of employment opportunity here for folks who don’t have advanced degrees and well-connected friends. I think immigration is a red herring. If our way of doing things aimed more at creating jobs and less at funnelling wealth upward, we’d have more jobs to share around and less argument about who gets them.

I just don’t see the answer, but I don’t see an answer in restricting legal immigration so much. It might restrict itself at some point. Labor creates value, and immigrants bring labor, no?

I say we just annex Mexico.

That’s* stupid. It smacks of sammichspeak.

You’re really good at pointing out exactly why rightards are stupid. I don’t get why with Nezua (misspelled it last night, oops) you don’t feel a need to explain it; you can just say it. What is stupid about it? Seriously, I don’t get you.

And what the fuck is sammichspeak. Anything said by a radical? Or anyone who is tired of being dismissed because “their issue” isn’t important to you?

Why doesn’t he have a right to complain that people who say they are on his side aren’t actually writing about it? How is that different from, say, Digby or Greenwald’s continuous, and necessary, criticism of mainstream pundits?

Ok, so he’s not to your left. His point is still valid. What the fuck is wrong with being a radical anyway? Or an activist? If it were your own life and family and class that were being so abused, you’d be radical too. I hope. Single-issue? Really? I thought there was plenty of evidence that it isn’t a single issue- it’s directly related to every other issue we care about- labor rights, minimum wage, social welfare, racism, police brutality, etc. If it takes outrage over the maltreatment of a substantial fraction of our population to make progress in all these issues, then get outraged. Oh, but that’s the key, isn’t it? “OUR population.” These folks aren’t really our population, right? They just live, work, raise families, and pay taxes here.

It looks like since it doesn’t seem to directly affect you, you’re ready to dismiss those who are directly harmed with terms like “single issue” or “batshit” or “sammichspeak”. Not your problem.

Anyway, he didn’t demand anything from anyone. He pointed out that few of the left blogs, and none of the big ones, even mentioned that LAPD opened fire on peaceful protestors without warning. Slipped right by their radar. Or it didn’t matter. That’s an observation and a judgement, but it’s hardly a demand. Nor was his criticism of Orcinus, et al, anything like an attack. Hey, I love Neiwart and Robinson and Digby. I read them all every day. But they kinda did drop the ball by not even mentioning this incident- it was more important to, say, deconstruct Jonathon Chait, while people are being shot at by police. That’s a fair criticism. If you disagree with that, make your case. “Batshit sammichspeak” isn’t a case. What you wrote is an attack- you basically just called him a poopyhead and didn’t feel any need to give any rational response to a rational criticism.

But go ahead and coin the phrase “brown sammich people” and then get all, “racist? moi?” on us. I’m sure that will convince “them” that you’re really on their side after all.

Moron- criticizing those in your own party isn’t Liebermanism. If it is, we’re all Liebermans, unless you really think the Democratic party is supposed to be an ideological monolith. Liebermanism is dismissing the people who are passionate and active in pursuing social justice, because that sort of thing is just not how we do things in the rarified world of genteel politics. It’s so uncivil. At least that’s what it means to me; it’s what pissed me off about Lieberman in the first place. I suppose you could also call it “Broderism” or “Chaitism” if you want to keep it about punditry.

Are you trying to say that people should have blogged more about Rwanda? In 1994? Or are you just being a moron? It’s hard to tell sometimes.

But you know, that is an interesting comparison- I remember 1994 pretty well. I remember a whole lot of people, dirty fucking hippies mostly, warning about it beforehand and international press reporting about it when it happened. I remember talking about to anyone who would listen that something needs to be done about it now. I remember being greeted with blank stares- it’s not our problem, why do you care? I remember the complete indifference to it as well from the government AND the centrist media. It was just an African problem, nothing we should worry about. Not our problem. Until the machetes started swinging toward French heads. Then it mattered, to the French.

“Does citizenship matter?” To a nationalist, it’s all that matters. To a humanist, no it doesn’t. And in terms of human rights or civil rights, no it doesn’t. As far as I recall, the protections we enjoy under the Constitution are extended to all persons within our borders. Not just to citizens.

Obviously, there’s no single solution to the problem, precisely because it is NOT a single issue.
1. Amnesty would be a good start. A fast-track path to legal status and eventual citizenship.
2. Strict enforcement of existing laws penalizing employers would help, but only if it goes with amnesty. Otherwise, it is only punitive and would mostly hurt those we’re trying to help.
3. While we’re at it, strict enforcement of ALL our existing labor laws would be a damned good thing. Those laws protect every worker, but only if they’re enforced.
(Egregious violations of the law in the exploitation of labor is the key problem here- the illegal immigrants are those most exploited, precisely because they have no rights. It is greatly facilitated by racism and indifference.)
4. Enforcement of corporate accountability across the board, actually. Labor, environment, discrimination, taxation, etc.
5. We could also quit pretending that our ability to provide social services is completely tapped out. What, we’re such a generous welfare state? We could provide more if we were willing to actually pay for it. See, there’s this thing called taxation and it can be applied to wealthy people and corporations at a much greater rate than it is currently applied.
6. Sure, we can probably do something in Mexico that would help Mexicans there, thus helping us with our immigration “problem.” But our house is so fucked up, I think that’s a bit of a reach.

“Single issue” indeed.

But in the immediate present, we really need to stop the abuse by police and the feds. And we need to call out the anti-immigrant racists for what they are.

That’s not the kind of thing that happens if people who do enjoy the protections of citizenship don’t start getting outraged, or at least writing about it… This “single issue” of immigration could easily be the catalyst for much greater social change, a whirlpool of issues revolving a nexus of a genuine humanitarian crisis at home. Yep, it’s contentious as hell. That’s kind of the point.

it’s not an easy question, and motivations of preservation of a great system of government and quality of life is not inherently racist. it can and devolve that way, but that doesn’t mean that the original question is not without merit.

Well, the question loses merit if its premises don’t hold up. The greatness of our system of government is debatable, for one. And too many seem to define our quality of life in cultural terms. It’s not inherently racist, but it is kind of reactionary.

RobW —

could you elaborate on which premises don’t hold up, and what you mean by ‘defining our quality of life in cultural terms’?

i’m saying the country is great because we have a justice system, jury of peers, right to vote, and others (this is not a discussion of what parts of that gwb has eroded, so perhaps we could take it as a given, at least in the meantime…).

unless i’m being dense about something, i define my quality of life in cultural terms, in that this country allows me to have lutefisk as a way to celebrate christmas (ok, for me, this takes away from my quality of life, but the rest of my family enjoys it). if you are referring to people who hate other people for having a mexican flag on their car, then that is racist. but i believe we need to separate that ignorant hatred from honestly asking the question of whether or not we can reasonably support current immigration rates with our infrastructure. Maybe the answer is yes, maybe it is know, but either way, I want it asked and answered with evidence that support the argument one way or another.

like i said in my original post, i don’t consider “WERE DOOMED! THEY’RE TALKIN MEXICAN DOWN AT TEH WALMART” a reasonable argument. But there could be one out there, and we should entertain it when we find it.

last sentence of my last post should have ‘no’ for ‘know’… stupid lack of preview button.

wait — don’t we already have a “limit” on immigration in place? Like is that an end of the discussion we even need to have? If employers stopped hiring illegals — whom they hire b/c they know they can treat them like dirt — people would stop coming here illegally. Enforcement would not have to be racist, would not be about going after vulnerable people, wouldn’t involve “gotcha” dragnets of young families, kicking kids out of school, none of it. It could look like: enforcement of existing laws, with *very big fines* for hiring undocumented workers or not trying very hard to verify documentation. The end. Of course immigrants come for opportunities that don’t exist at home. Of course this is bad for people already in-country who do, in fact, want a shot at those same opportunities. But the answer is to crack down on the exploiters, not the exploitees.

ozma —

well-posed… i have thought the same thing myself. i would think that the next logical step, though, would be to ask, “now that we’ve got the current thresholds enforced, do we have them set correctly?”

maybe that’s the cart before the horse at this point, though…

So far, there have been two sides to the issue of people from south of our borders coming into the country without benefit of formal permission by the government, both of them wrong. At least wrong in the sense that neither of them have been able to offer an agreed solution.

Maybe it’s time to begin reexamining our assumptions.

For example, the lure of US jobs is often cited as the magnet drawing the “illegals” into the country. However, this can just as easily be turned around and seen for what it really is, the failure of the countries from who “illegals” are drawn to nurture an economy that provides employment opportunities sufficient to the needs of their citizens. Given the opportunity for jobs that can sustain families in their own countries, the vast majority of “illegals” would never cross the border. Canada provides the example.

Why are countries like Mexico unable to create or sustain viable economies? One can point a lot of fingers here, but if we focus on things we can control on this side of the border, the obvious answer lies in the real world effects of such misguided US-led policies led by NAFTA, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund.

There is no country that has endured the tender ministrations of the World Bank and/or IMF that has not seen it’s economy worse off as a result. None. The obvious conclusion for a reasonable person is that we’re doing something wrong.

I’ll leave it at that. I’m sure others have useful ideas that fall outside of the failed tit for tat the country has been locked into over this issue.

gordonsowner-
it’s not an easy question, and motivations of preservation of a great system of government and quality of life is not inherently racist.

Hmmmm… What exactly was the question again…? ; )

The premises of the question, whatever it actually is, are that our system of government is great and that our quality of life is worth preserving.

I meant that it is debateable that our system of government is “great”. It’s pretty good, but it’s not as good as it could be, not by a long shot: the two-party system that denies any chance of proportional representation, is the biggest problem. The winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college, hell the very existence of the electoral college, is another. Combining the head of state and the head of government into the same office, the President, is problematic- that makes it too easy for partisan defenders of the President to attack the patriotism of the President’s critics. There are, of course, plenty of institutional problems with corruption, election fraud, etc. Those aren’t what I mean, exactly; those could be addressed… but they won’t be, because of the structural flaws.

I’m just saying that there are other ways of structuring a constitutional democratic republic- ours may well be outdated. It may be better than many others, but it is possible that it is not nearly as good as it could be.

As for our quality of life, it is not worth preserving if it is inherently unjust. Quality of life, as I see it, has a lot more to do with things like fair wages, reasonable costs for the necessities of life, access to health care, equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law, that sort of thing. The quality of life I’m talking about has nothing to do with the languages or cuisine or music, etc.

What I meant by defining it in cultural terms is: defining “Americanness” as being somehow related to the quality of life. Embrace of diversity or rejection of diversity is another matter entirely. Some consider their quality of life to be degraded by multiculturalism, as in the example you give. Others, like yourself, consider their quality of life to be enhanced by it. I think both are errors, IF one defines, as I do, quality of life in more concrete terms that apply whatever languages or cuisine or music you encounter in your daily life.

I think it’s a conflation of “our quality of life” which is a matter of how well we live in concrete terms like health care, wages, security, crime, education, civil rights, etc. and “our way of life” which is a cultural matter. I’m probably not being too clear here…

Remember when Cheney, seeking to provide a rationale for the GWOT, said something to the effect that “our way of life is not negotiable?” By that, I took him to mean that he was referring to our conspicuous consumption, in particular our gluttonous energy consumption. It’s bullshit- that is entirely negotiable. We don’t have to drive Hummers and run the AC all day, etc. We could take steps to conserve energy and it wouldn’t have any negative effect on “our way of life” UNLESS one defines our way of life as being dependent on cheap gas. Conservation would enhance our quality of life, but his conflation of consumption with our culture precludes even the possibility.

I always thought “our way of life” had a lot more to do with equality and individualism, often at odds, and essential liberty. There’s nothing about America that necessarily HAS to wastefully consume every resource in the world.

Ok, this has been fun, but I really need to get back to studying… Finals week, dontcha know…

gordonsowner — I don’t know anything about contemporary U.S. immigration law, or what it says about limits; maybe the legal limits should be higher than they are right now. But definitely hiring illegals is already …. illegal. Just not enforced.

Sam T: I’m not sure you are right about Canada being a perfect example. I live in Edmonton, Canada, where every service industry you can think of is looking to hire. People are coming here in droves from all over Canada (such that there is a serious housing problem — speaking to the infrastructure issue raised above) & I would think that lots of Americans would be willing to come, too — but as far as I can tell, Canada enforces documentation laws more effectively than the U.S. does. The unemployment rate in Canada, and in Alberta in particular, is WAY below what it is in most of the U.S. The border should be leaky — especially b/c of the lack of a language/culture barrier — if “employment osmosis” were the only factor in play (density of jobs on one side higher than on the other side of the barrier). In fact, I think the U.S. has a lot of undocumented immigrant labor “by accident on purpose” — it is policy to not enforce laws on the employer side, and then to periodically crack some po’ Latino heads, all for show.

well-posed… i have thought the same thing myself. i would think that the next logical step, though, would be to ask, “now that we’ve got the current thresholds enforced, do we have them set correctly?�

Also an excellent question. Perhaps the answer is no, and the presence of 12 million illegals is evidence of that.

In fact, I think the U.S. has a lot of undocumented immigrant labor “by accident on purpose� — it is policy to not enforce laws on the employer side, and then to periodically crack some po’ Latino heads, all for show.

Nailed.

It’s not only necessary to enforce existing laws across the board, it’s also necessary to quit the head-cracking. That’s what’s got me all riled up….

RobW — shouldn’t you be studying? 😉

RobW —

I won’t expect further comment — I remember that finals were important to me back in the day… I hope this discussion comes up again here because I think it needs to be hashed out sooner than later.

I’ll say this — yeah, our government isn’t perfect — hell, even gwb instituted a parliamentary gov’t in iraq, and not a copy of our own. and yes, the two-party system sucks and health care needs higher priority — i think i agree with all that you criticized. but our form of government still provides for us to change all of these things within its structure. i think the fault here, dear brutus, is not in our government, but in ourselves, that we are complacent. that is not structural, but behavioral.

I’ve been gone for a few weeks. Please enlighten me on the meaning of the references to celery and Twisty Faster, kind madams and sirs.

I dunno, but I’m beginning to suspect I’m a bigot for hoping the new Indian restaurant down the block goes out of business before it starts getting hot and I can’t open my windows during the day without the smell of curried onions making me want to barf. Maybe I should just hope they’ll do really well and move to a better neighborhood.

Illegal immigration is in fact illegal.

The problem is that most people who complain about illegal immigration *are* in fact thinly-veiled racists who want to keep lazy Mexicans out.

I’m against illegal immigration but I almost don’t like saying that because it lumps me in with those loonies.

Fisty Twaster said,
May 8, 2007 at 6:59

STOP RAPING ME with your so-called “rational discussion�, you FUNK-FILLED-BRATWURST-WIELDING PIECE OF CRAP !!!
———–

That was beautiful…

(cries)

Oh, I’m so sorry…were we being serious?

“Ah the Army, free food, free lodging, and all the brown people you can rape.” – Peter Griffin

Next time you are in a restaurant with your hipster friends, notice some of the Mexicans working to cook your meal, clean your dishes and pretty up your pristine bathroom. Why didn’t you call INS to report them?

Why would I assume that every person of Hispanic descent is a) Mexican or b) here illegally? That sounds pretty racist to me. (Especially since I live in Texas, where millions of people never crossed the border: the border crossed them.)

I think you raise a legitimate and difficult question. Right now we have the worst of all possible worlds. Millions of illegal immigrants who cannot assert their rights to decent treatment in the workplace. As someone with strong allegiance to the working class, I see the harm that is doing to citizens involved in industries like construction, meat packing, landscaping. There would be a huge demand for these workers absent the illegal presence and wages would be forced upward, possibly substantially.

On the other hand, I can’t bear taking sides with the nativists. It’s so obvious that they are motivated by hatred of the other and to ally myself with them would be against everything I hold dear. So it is a real conundrum.

I think we need more legal immigration. Enough to fulfill the legitimate needs of society for more workers who would then be fully protected by law. I am not sure exactly where that balance lies.

But I can’t and won’t join the haters.

After skimming about half of the 120 long-assed comments here, I’m just going to note that any government should treat the people it claims jurisdiction over equally.

And since U.S. Federal agents have arrest powers in Mexico, I think that means at least everyone in Mexico deserves full citizenship rights within the U.S.

Offhand I’d be surprised if U.S. “interventions” weren’t typically followed by large influxes of immigrants from whatever country we’re fucking up lending a helping hand to this week.

I think the nationalist premise – that people who happen to be born 10 miles north of the Rio Grande are entitled to a whole set of rights that people who happen to be born 20 miles south are not – is far from obviously valid.

Of course those 20-miles-south people are entitled to the same set of rights, at least if we believe in the concept of inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and which the Bill of Rights tries to embody.

The difference is, those people were born 20 miles south of the border, in Mexico. The US is not responsible for enforcing their rights, the Mexican government is, and all of international law and tradition says so. We just don’t have jurisdiction. If the Mexican government isn’t up to the task of securing those rights, that is a tragedy but not a reason for the US to intervene. Unless you think the US should be the world’s policeman, forcing nations to conform to the way we think they should do things. Worked real well in Iraq, didn’t it?

Of course, this doesn’t address the issue of what to do when Mexicans, or others, leave their government’s jurisdiction to come here illegally. But let’s keep clear on what the issue is, and avoid straw man distractions.

There is no country that has endured the tender ministrations of the … IMF that has not seen it’s economy worse off as a result.

Georgia from 1994. Go ahead, look itup.

It always surprises me that all the angry anti-IMF screeds I read don’t address the real problem of the 70’s-90’s IMF, that they survive on interest from usurious loans to brown sammich people (to use a phrase coined by a slightly right-of-neo-lennonist ‘oh my god am I a racist?’ white american hippie ).

Back to the point, we live in a world were capitalism rules. You say the IMF has never succeeded, I’d offer Mongolia, Laos, Georgia, Philippines, even Argentina. I could go on. All failures according to the screeds, but all successes in their way. The IMF offers a cover for local politicians to do the necessary evil, the evil required to be part of the grand capitalist world, and then blame the hard changes on the IMF.
The IMF is, in this way, almost christlike. They sacrifice themselves on the cross of public opinion for world good.

Of course, if we are arguing from the point that capitalism is evil and unacceptable,
we should stop right now and discuss what would be better (I have the answer, but that’s not the point here)

I don’t think you’re a bigot, but I think you need to explore the issue more.

First, there is the issue of human rights. Or more precisely stating human rights as derived from conceptions of natural rights. No matter that the U.S government is obliged to respect the rights of its citizens first and foremost, it is also true that we have also obliged ourselves to respect the rights of all human beings regardless of their citizenship. This is a long-standing part of the American tradition, dating back long before the codification of modern human rights law in the post WWII era: the Declaration of Independence was couched in universal terms, “all men are created equal…and guaranteed certain natural rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the Bill of Rights is famous for the fact that many of its important protections are accorded to “persons” not to citizens.” Thus, the argument can and should be made that the United States should extend certain rights to all peoples no matter their citizenship. This is a classical liberal perspective.

Second, from a historical perspective, America had open borders for peoples arriving to the US from within the Western Hemisphere up until the 1965 immigration reform. Mai Ngai’s Impossible Subjects is a very good take on how essentially the U.S’ illegal immigration problem, in so far as it extends to the Western Hemisphere, is one we created by changing legal definitions.

Third, assimilation is not a necessary part of immigration. Accommodation is. Assimilation takes the position that the immigrant must surrender their culture and heritage and take on the culture and heritage of their new country. Accommodation takes the position that the immigrant can maintain their culture , as long as they add to that certain key values of their new country within that idom. A great example of this would be the experiences of German-Americans before and after WWI. Before WWI, German immigrants had a lively German-language community, with its own press, social organizations, political clubs, etc. – all of whom were dealing with key aspects of American culture and belief in their own way; notably, the national anthem, the U.S Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, among other important national documents were translated into German. This same pattern was true for many other ethnic/language groups, including Polish, Yiddish, Hungarian, Czech, etc. After WWI broke out, many of these groups were put under extreme pressure to “Americanize” by disbanding or de-emphasizing these groups, learning English while abandoning their mother tongue, and shutting down any interest in European politics. Randolph Bourne, in a famous article titled “Transnational America” argued that America should pursue a path of accommodation of immigrant groups, since the core ties of the United States were uniquely not cultural or ethnic in nature, but rather a shared commitment to universal political ideas, which could be shared across languages and cultures.

Fourth, the issue of the impact on the American economy is double-edged. On the one hand, it can be argued that increasing the supply of labor has a depressing effect on wages; however, it can also be argued that illegalizing that labor has a depressing effect on wages all of its own, since illegal workers don’t have the same kind of bargaining position as even non-union legal workers. Would open borders depress wages? Probably, to an extent.
Would legalization of illegal aliens increase wages? Probably, to an extent.
What would be the end result? Hard to say, but my guess is that it would be a wash, trending in the direction of a positive effect, especially once you factor in the fact that many immigrants come from nations with strong left-wing pro-union cultures and would be good candidates for unionization.

Finally, the question of if you have quotas, who should get in. This becomes problematic because asylum takes on a huge problem of what you consider to be worthy of asylum from: wars? how bout famine? epidemic disease? Wholesale deprivation? Lack of economic opportunity? Any way you slice it, either you are leaving out people who deserve a place or accepting in huge slices of the world’s population such that any semblance of quotas becomes absurd. One issue that is tangential is the means in which quotas are often handed out – today, we hand an equal number to each country, which doesn’t make much sense when you consider that the effective demand to go to the U.S in a country like Mongolia is different from the effective demand to go to the U.S in a country like Mexico.

Dude, I explicitly said that I’m against ‘assimilation’.

I appreciate the rest of your comment, but I still can’t understand how you expect to have categorically open borders as well as demand that the U.S. Government equally apply human rights to even *non-resident* aliens and this not be a dissolution of the American nation-state.

Look, aside the morality of the argument that there should be no distinction between American citizens and the rest of the world population with regard to government responsibility, there’s also the practical issue that at some point this does indeed become a zero sum game. The government’s — any government’s — resources are finite. You really mean to say that these resources are just as appropriately used to serve & protect & provide for citizens of another country as they are for a citizen of this country?

I don’t at all mean to insult you at all with this because I’m glad you care about what I think enough to take the trouble to give such a lengthy reply, but I have to say it: transferred to foriegn policy this is *exactly* the Trotskyite Internationalist-cum-neoconservative rationale for.. doing what it does. I mean, I’ve read Christopher Hitchens say the exact same thing — as when he attacked John Kerry for arguing that the money blown supposedly on Iraqi Firehouses would have been better spent here since we need refurbishment of that kind of infrastructure. Hitchens called this chauvinist and parochial and denied that zero sum games ever apply to government funds.

Lselsey, the fact that you think that 50k is peanuts says all I need to know about you. Most Americans make less than that. Until you’re capable of looking at this from the perspective of most Americans, you should acknowledge that your views are biased by your social class in the extreme. Perhaps you would do well to examine the place economic bias’s have in your ideology before you accuse others of racism. Looking down on people for making less than 50K a year is no better than looking down on people because their skin is brown.

Look, it seems a little too convenient that you personally benefit from illegal Immigration, and yet you just happen to be supporting it on the moral merits of the matter. It’s extremely annoying that everyone else is racist for looking at their own personal self interest, and yet you think of yourself as a wonderfully liberal human being when you so clearly advocate keeping lower class Americans in their place and you speak so condescendingly of economic matters.

Well, I would argue that it’s an expansion of the nation-state, based on the international premise of its origin. You look at the writings of Tom Paine, for example, an immigrant from England, writing and working for the American Revolution, and he argues “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind…we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand…Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her–Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.”

To me, this suggests that part of the spirit of America was the idea that a nation founded on universal principles would open its citizenship to all who applied. Such that once they’re on our soil, sharing in the labor of the country and the responsibilities of republican government, they’re our citizens.

Just to touch on your point about infrastructure – this a major area where I see much less of a zero sum game. Fixing our roads, improving the quality of the air and the water, improving our schools and hospitals, etc. is something that benefits immigrants and citizens equally.

Well, I’m not an expert about immigration matters but I do note this:

In my experience, it seems that most of those vehemently opposed to immigration usually start off ranting about immigrants not learning the language and that any increased crime rates are directly attributable to immigration. This has recently been shown by several studies in different states to be a false assumption. And, recently, Lou Dobbs has been spreading an unsupported story that there has been a huge increase in leprosy in the United States caused by immigrants. Minimal research through the reports of the CDC and other agencies has shown this to be false.

So these things could lead one to think that the anti-immigration folks view immigrants as disease-ridden criminals who “won’t talk english good” like us “Real Amurricans” ALWAYS do. Which sounds pretty racist to me, but, hey. Whadda I know?

I have also noted that most anti-immigration folks generally tend to froth at the mouth mostly over Asians and Latinos. I never hear anything at all from the anti-immigration folks about immigrants from Canada or the former Soviet Union. So do Canadians and former Soviet citizens speak “gooder” english or something such that the anti-immigration folks don’t mind them so much? Hell, if speaking coherent english is the be all and end all of criteria, Bush must be deported immediately even though he is a “Real Amurrican”.

I also believe that employers must be held accountable for hiring illegals at sub-standard wages and sub-standard work conditions. Which they can then use to subtly, or not so subtly, intimidate “Real Amurricans” with the not-so-veiled threat that any “Real Amurricans” who might complain could easily be replaced with illegals. It is a win-win situation for employers. Yet any propopsed sanctions against the employers who hire illegals is rejected time after time by our so-called government representatives.

Another thing that bothers me about this immigration thing is that it isn’t like the 12 million, or whatever the number is, illegal immigrants just suddenly showed up today. This has been going on for decades. Why is it suddenly perceived as a monumental problem? It seems to me that this is a smoke-and-mirrors diversionary setup purposely created by a couple of talking heads on television. It is fear-based garnering of ratings and money and I don’t think the perpetrators care one way or the other except as to the bottom line of ratings and money. A mind paralyzed by fear cannot think rationally and is easily led into becoming the angry mob of villagers with torches going after the perceived enemy. So what if a few legitimate immigrants, or native born citizens who LOOK like immigrants, get caught up in the fever? They are just collateral damage right? Not OUR fault!

I don’t know the answer to this problem. I do know that I cannot blame anyone for wanting a better life so badly that they will pay big bucks to cross into the country and risk being murdered and/or left in the desert locked in the trailer of a semi-truck by the coyote to whom they paid thousands to get here.