Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Immigration arguments
Posted by: Jon Henke on Sunday, June 24, 2007

I concur.
Unless you are, like my mother's family, descended from the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who sailed for this country in 1621, or shortly thereafter, you are the descendant of people who had exactly the same charges leveled against them. [culturally too different]

The ancestry of every single one of my readers, those WASPs excepted, was the target of some native American group complaining that they were coming here with their funny language and their weird customs, keeping to themselves, taking jobs or land from good Americans. [...] Unless you're some kind of weird self-hating crank, you don't give any credence to this, even though it was just as true of your ancestors as it is of Mexicans today. They did lower wages for low-skilled workers, try to keep their children from assimilating, practice a strange religion, alter local mores (you can thank Jewish immigrants for the fact that children no longer recite prayers in school), and frankly, some of them, like the Irish and Italians, had a penchant for antisocial behaviour.
[...]
Your ancestors weren't welcomed; they were reviled. They didn't assimilate along the happy schedule outlined on saccharine television dramas; indeed, Mexican immigrants are much more open to assimilation than many groups, which is why early 20th century literature is so full of anguished dramas about immigrant parents trying to keep their children from losing their culture.*
[...]
If you think that you deserve to be here, despite the many costs, psychic and otherwise, that your ancestors imposed on the pre-existing citizens, then you have a pretty high bar to explain why other groups are different and special and don't deserve the same chance. The charges leveled against Mexican immigrants are overwhelmingly anecdote and calumny. The actual data shows they seem to be assimilating just fine—at least if we define what your grandmother did as "just fine".
I also find the "but they'll vote the wrong way" objection fairly uncompelling, in that it fails the categorical imperative test. Would I find it acceptable for my ideological opponents to argue against immigration because the immigrants are too favorable towards libertarian ideas and ideals? No.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Bring ’em in, bring ’em all in ONLY if the following takes place first (in alphabetical order!):

• Abolish as much of the welfare state as possible, and except for real emergency medical care, deny all benefits to illegals

• Cut off all Federal funding to cities that declare themselves "sanctuary cities"

• Deport all illegals who are in jail and prisons for felonies. Today. Deny all judicial review.

• Eliminate the "anchor baby/automatic citizenship" misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment

• Make English the official language of the US (all government functions and documents must be in English)

• Deny all Constitutional protections to those who are here illegally, and remove judicial review from anything having to do with illegal immigration (Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so)

• Remove all Federal oversight of businesses when parties in question include illegals (i.e. OSHA, labor laws, sexual harassment, discrimination, etc...)

I could go on, but you get the point. Eliminate as much of the magnet as possible. Oh, and if we really want to get creative, threaten Mexico with being put on the terrorist supporter list. Of course, if the Mexican government wishes to give us 10 million barrels of oil for every illegal we allow to remain, then we can relent of the terrorist option.
 
Written By: horatio
URL: http://
The charges leveled against Mexican immigrants
What about the charges leveled against ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I also find the "but they’ll vote the wrong way" objection fairly uncompelling, in that it fails the categorical imperative test.
As well as the converse, which seems to be motivating the likes of Sen. Graham.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
What about the charges leveled against ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants?
For the purposes of this point, we’re simply talking about "people who want to live in the US". The difficulty of legal immigration only makes assimilation that much more difficult. If you can’t legally enter and participate in US society, you’re left either unable to immigrate at all or working the in the shadow economy/unassimilated ghetto/self-segregated community of people who don’t (officially) "belong".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Unless you are, like my mother’s family, descended from the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who sailed for this country in 1621...
Oh, that is just so precious! Just about all of you, but not me, not on my mother’s side anyway...

Could that have been because they were the very very first to arrive?

No, silly! There were people here already. But they just adored Mom’s family. The language, the customs, the claims they laid on the land and the religion especially made every native American group on the scene practically fall down dead with joy and excitement. Because culturally, you know, we were just right.

Not like all the German Swedish Irish Jewish Russian rest of you. Particularly you Irish and Italian types, "famous for living like, eighty to a room in extremely unsanitary conditions." How on earth could my ancesters, on my mother’s side, have been expected to do anything but revile yours?

Wait, I mean it was wrong of them to revile your dirty immigrant forebears, just like it’s wrong — and racist! — of all of you — all of you racist hispanic haters — to revile all those Mexicans and lump them in with "my parents’ Ecuadorian housekeeper."

[Grrrrrrr]

In fairness to Miss Galt, she does note parenthetically that the early WASP arrivals did indeed draw some complaints, possibly for that cultural separatism thing, "but the indians tended to register their immigration fears a little more violently."

Well, okay then. And thanks for setting us all straight on the history of this country and for pointing us in the right direction for the future.

 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Linda, I’m not sure if this is a reading comprehension problem or if you just wanted to take some shots, but she didn’t remotely excuse her ancestors for their behaviour. She noted that it was somewhat different, that there was violent resistance and that her ancestors "practiced exactly the kind of cultural separatism that they’ve been complaining about in other enthic groups for the last 200 year".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Megan’s argument is a romantic one, not a rational one. The marginal utility of labor (and real wages) increased for the first nearly two centuries of the country’s existence. It’s been falling for more than a generation now. Said another way, the effects of arriving immigrants on the nation and its economy are different than they were 100 or 150 years ago. Times have changed and it’s rational for our immigration policies to change along with them.

Additionally, quite some number of those ancestors (not mine but those of most Americans) came to homestead the undeveloped land in the West. Is Megan suggesting that today’s immigrants are coming here to settle on undeveloped land? Of course not.

Again: times have changed.

Just to be clear: I’m in favor of increasing the number of visas we issue substantially (enormously) and enforcing immigration laws in the workplace (rather than at the border) seriously. Open borders are not a good idea.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
For the purposes of this point, we’re simply talking about "people who want to live in the US". The difficulty of legal immigration only makes assimilation that much more difficult
OF COURSE, after all my forefathers arrived LEGALLY, but if yours didn’t there’s no difference, for the purposes of this post....

An Engineer, a physisist and an economist were stranded on a desert island, with only a can of beans for food. They had no can opener and were arguing about how to best open the beans.

The physisist said, "Let us collect the scrap wood and build a fire using a fire bow. We shall place the beans in the fire and the expansion of the beans shall:
1) Open the can for us; and
2) Heat the beans."

The Engineer objected and suggested instead, that they use the abundant coral on the island to simply hammer the can open.

The engineer and the physist argued for hours neither convincing the other, finally they turned to the economist and asked HIS opinion.

He responded, "Let us ASSUME we had a can opener."

Your stipulation, Jon, is just as silly as the punchline of the joke! The argument is not about "immigrants", but ILLEGAL immigrants! And that changes EVERYTHING...if we can not control our borders our nation is in trouble! And this awful bill will NOT control our borders, the US has "talked" about controlling the borders since 1986, but never really done so. More PROMISES that "this time" we REALLY mean it simply don’t work.

So no, Jon, I will NOT accept your stipulation about immigration, this bill is about ILLEGAL immigrants and how to deal with them...and that’s the basis of so much of the opposition. My last name ends in "-ski" and I have no problems with Jesus, or Angel coming to America, but they ought to come here LEGALLY, not just simply walk across the border.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m not yet willing to equate the controlled and planned for immigration of the past with the uncontrolled, extortionist "immigration" occurring today.
Also I believe that one of the reasons for the reported lack of assimilation in the French banlieues-and Europe in general-is that welfare allows the immigrants to insulate themselves from the larger society. Secondly, something needs to be done about the criminality of many of the illegals. Stories like this abound. And this. Washington has just passed a bill for medical coverage for the poor that some say will provide better coverage to illegals than actual citizens receive. The area I live in is pretty immigrant friendly-not to be confused with friendly to immigrants-because of the vast fruit and vegetable farms, building boom, etc., but most people want actions taken on the above topics.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Jon, as someone who is attempting to put someone at the height of the Republican political apparatus, you can make no credible argument on this topic.

I need only observe that all the arguments made in favor of the amnesty bill—and it is an amnesty bill—have failed to persuade the public to support anything of the sort.

It is time for the government as a whole and the Republican Party certainly to make open the exit door to those who disagree with the public inveterately on this issue, and to take their marching orders from the constitutency.

And kill this bill and anything like it.

Enforcement first, against illegals whenever they are found, and with alacrity, and against employers.

When we have no redistributive state apparatus, then we can have open borders.

There is very little to be said on the topic which is more germane than that.

What part of 76% don’t you get?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Joe!
F COURSE, after all my forefathers arrived LEGALLY,
Uh huh. And when was that? Were there any immigration restrictions in the US when your forefathers arrived? If not, then your distinction is dishonest.

Horatio!
Bring ’em in, bring ’em all in ONLY if the following takes place first (in alphabetical order!):

• Abolish [snip]

• Cut off [snip]

• Deport all il [snip]

• Eliminate th [snip]

• Make English the official language [snip]

• Deny [snip]


• Remove [snip]

NO. Do you understand? NO. This ridiculous regime wasn’t in place when YOUR stinking ancestors arrived, and to change 200 years of legal history merely to satisfy your prejudices is an ABSURD demand

NO.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
A welfare state and open borders cannot coexist. The one positive thing about the immigration bill is that, eventually, it will kill the welfare state. I am, however, not optimistic about the pain involved in the process. First the welfare state will expand like an overinflated balloon until it pops. That overinflation will hurt, the pop will hurt worse. Zimbabwe is a model for what will happen to us, with the centralization of the government leading to the "tragedy of the commons." The pop will be violent, bloody and only necessary because of the insistence on trying to maintain welfare nannyism (actually nothing but a convoluted vote-buying scheme).

As for my bona fides: A great-grandmother that was a pure never-on-a-reservation Cherokee, the rest of that side of my family got here from Ireland as indentured servants, the other side were Germans that got here later on their own and share-cropped tobacco until my father made it into a military academy prior to WWII.
 
Written By: RRRoark
URL: http://soslies.blogspot.com
America of that period was not teeming with bleeding heart liberals that accomodated predilections for non-assimilation. The immigrants from a century ago did not have a choice but to learn English and comply with the laws and customs of the land. It was those inducements that allowed those waves of immigration to be the successes that they were.

What is truly uncompelling is the rhetoric that Americans cannot hold dear to their customs and attempt to perpetuate them. Why is that every other culture is to be admired for its tenacity in clinging to its customs yet, Americans are to be ashamed for the desire to do the same?
 
Written By: Dubya
URL: http://
Many platitudes in the post by Jon. Here is some data to help show why the proposed amnesty bill is a train wreck waiting to happen.


Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
Welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other services.... it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.
and

I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.
Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
This link is to a detailed review of the proposed amnesty plan and it shows what a disaster it would be.

I have spent a lot of my weekend reading the draft bill as was requested by both Jon Kyl and Tony Snow
There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. Even were it somehow to improbably make its way to the president’s desk, if it does so before these problems are aired and confronted, the Congress would be inviting a monumental distrust of the institution. There is simply too much here to say "Trust us," and move on. The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Unless you are, like my mother’s family, descended from the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who sailed for this country in 1621, or shortly thereafter, you are the descendant of people who had exactly the same charges leveled against them. [culturally too different]

The ancestry of every single one of my readers, those WASPs excepted, was the target of some native American group complaining that they were coming here with their funny language and their weird customs, keeping to themselves, taking jobs or land from good Americans. [...] Unless you’re some kind of weird self-hating crank, you don’t give any credence to this, even though it was just as true of your ancestors as it is of Mexicans today. They did lower wages for low-skilled workers, try to keep their children from assimilating, practice a strange religion, alter local mores (you can thank Jewish immigrants for the fact that children no longer recite prayers in school), and frankly, some of them, like the Irish and Italians, had a penchant for antisocial behaviour.
[...]
Your ancestors weren’t welcomed; they were reviled. They didn’t assimilate along the happy schedule outlined on saccharine television dramas; indeed, Mexican immigrants are much more open to assimilation than many groups, which is why early 20th century literature is so full of anguished dramas about immigrant parents trying to keep their children from losing their culture.*
[...]
If you think that you deserve to be here, despite the many costs, psychic and otherwise, that your ancestors imposed on the pre-existing citizens, then you have a pretty high bar to explain why other groups are different and special and don’t deserve the same chance. The charges leveled against Mexican immigrants are overwhelmingly anecdote and calumny. The actual data shows they seem to be assimilating just fine—at least if we define what your grandmother did as "just fine
MINE WERE LEGAL
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I suppose mine were legal until they crossed the Proclamation Line of 1763. Unless you count absconding with themselves from Scotland in 1747 as illegal, I’m pretty sure some of them were supposed to have turned themselves in.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
What is truly uncompelling is the rhetoric that Americans cannot hold dear to their customs and attempt to perpetuate them.
Nobody (here) is suggesting that you ought not perpetuate whatever culture you choose. What I’m suggesting is that immigrants, legal or otherwise, do not prevent that. Historically, they have altered the culture to some (positive) degree, but been far more altered by the culture. And speaking of non-sequiturs.
A welfare state and open borders cannot coexist.
...nobody in this post suggested open borders. But to the extent that we have a welfare state and we have millions of immigrants, legal and otherwise, already coming across our borders, I would note that our welfare state is coexisting with those migrants. The problems we have with our entitlement programs are not resolved in any serious degree by eliminating the migrants.
my forefathers arrived LEGALLY
Ah, so your problem is merely with the legal status of the migrants. Then I’ve a perfect solution: make them all legal, and grant legal status to future migrants. Problem solved!
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net

...nobody in this post suggested open borders
true but Megan’s demonstrably in favor of open borders and your post opened by approving of what she had to say. Are you introducing a caveat that, although you don’t agree with Megan’s position, she’s right in this particular case on the subject?
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Quoth Schuler:
true but Megan’s demonstrably in favor of open borders and your post opened by approving of what she had to say.
Quoth Megan, from the post I cited...
I am pro-immigration, but not pro-open borde[r]s. I think there’s a limit to how quickly America can assimilate immigrants. Luckily, I don’t think we’re anywhere near that limit.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Ah, so your problem is merely with the legal status of the migrants. Then I’ve a perfect solution: make them all legal, and grant legal status to future migrants. Problem solved!

Until ANOTHER 12-20 million come over the border expecting amnesty Jon...you can NOT, seriously be for controlled borders, but for amnesty....because we did that in 1986, just like we’re going to do it AGAIN today, if folks like you have their way...

And 20 years later we’ll have even more illegals here, expecting amnesty, and folks like you saying THIS time we’ll control the borders, let’s grant amnesty!

What you REFUSE to grasp, not that you don’t grasp it because we plainly state it daily, is that, WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU, OR REID, OR MCCONNELL, OR GEORGE BUSH WHEN YOU SAY YOU WANT TO CONTROL THE BORDER! First, restore the trust, CONTROL THE D@MN BORDER...erect the fencing, hire the border agents. THEN, crack down on employers using illegal labour. Here I’d propose not an ICE/Federal system, but a PRIVATE system akin to TRW’s or Spherion’s credit scores, or the d-base that landlords can access.

Once government has done those things and several hundred thousand illegals have been deported and several MILLION have self-deported, then the Wall St. Journal and the NYT and the LAT can begin to make their various cases, "Hey who’se gonna pick these brussel sprouts?" or little heart-tugging vignettes about Jose and Maria, their little son Jesus, who now are being forced to leave America, even though Jesus is an American citizen...Then I think "amnesty" or something that is amnesty, but has another name will fly with the public.

But until then, please don’t talk about controlling our borders AND granting an amnesty! Because that just doesn’t work and isn’t going to fly...it falls under Einstein’s definition of Insanity. What will be any different this time, to quote the Talking Heads.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Quite. Megan’s in favor of open borders now. At some hypothetical time in the future, i.e. when we have reached the limit of America’s ability to assimilate new immigrants, she’ll be in favor of closing them. Perhaps I’m being unkind but, again, I think that’s romanticism. I see no way of constructing a sane, effective, humane policy along those lines.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
She wrote:
One country, Ireland, sent about 1 million people to the United States during the ten-year famine period, at a time when the United States had a population of less than fifty million.
Actually, Ireland had been producing the largest number of immigrants every year from 1820-1850 until German immigration really took off. Specifically, over 42% of all new immigrants were Irish during the 30 years prior to the famine for a total of just over 1 million. And they were 35% of all immigrants for the decade after the famine with almost 1 million more.

The total population in America hit 50 million in 1880. It was half that in 1850 (including slaves).

In other words, the Irish were by far the largest group of voluntary immigrants for decades before the European famine and nearly the largest immediately after the famine. This majority group of immigrants over 40 years ended up accounting for about 4% of the total population of the time (not including their descendants).

If there are 12 million illegals in America right now, that accounts for about 4% of our current population.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Jon H., supra:
Ah, so your problem is merely with the legal status of the migrants. Then I’ve a perfect solution: make them all legal, and grant legal status to future migrants. Problem solved!
We could resolve all violations of our law using that approach, couldn’t we? Is your problem with the rapist merely the legal status of his conduct? Make rape legal. Problem solved!

You’ll understand if some of us think your view fatuous.
 
Written By: Paul
URL: http://www.rightrainbow.com
JWG, I believe 30 million are illegal, 10% of our population.

Surely you’ve noticed who’s shopping with you in the supermarkets? The proportions in my area are at least that.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Surely you’ve noticed who’s shopping with you in the supermarkets?
Yes, and I teach more and more ESL students.

However, that does not mean they are illegal. In fact, I’ve been teaching more and more non-Spanish speaking ESL students as well. I personally don’t have any way of knowing who’s here illegally.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
However, that does not mean they are illegal.
Given the very limited number of legal immigrants, it is overwhelmingly likely.

You are of course free not to acknowledge it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
VERY GOOD EXAMPLE!!!!!!!!

INDIANS HAD AN OPEN BORDER POLICY.

Look where they are now.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Until ANOTHER 12-20 million come over the border expecting amnesty Jon...you can NOT, seriously be for controlled borders, but for amnesty....because we did that in 1986, just like we’re going to do it AGAIN today, if folks like you have their way...
And what, things might be as bad as they’ve been this past 20 years? I fail to see the point. Indeed, I would suggest we simply up our immigration quota by approximately 1 million/year, thus allowing that 12-20 million to enter the US legally.
WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU...WHEN YOU SAY YOU WANT TO CONTROL THE BORDER!
It’s a good thing you don’t. I haven’t said it. At least, not in the way you would consider "controlling the border". I would, however, note that a fence will cost us billions of dollars and slow migrants down by approximately 3 minutes. Border guards would merely redirect them — to east/west, or to an overstayed visa. Entry is easy, and it would take a virtual police state to change that fact.
Megan’s in favor of open borders now.
You don’t really have any idea what Megan’s immigration policy is. Nor do I. Don’t assign to her an "open borders" policy view simply because she notes that our current intake rate of migrants is, from a historical perspective, relatively small.
We could resolve all violations of our law using that approach, couldn’t we? Is your problem with the rapist merely the legal status of his conduct? Make rape legal. Problem solved!
No, problem not solved. You don’t seem to have grasped my point at all. I object to making rape legal because rape is, in itself, objectionable.

Migration is not, in itself, objectionable. If you simply want people to migrate legally - "enforce the laws!" — then I suggest making the migration legal. That specific objection is resolved. If, however, your problem is with some other aspect of the migration, then that specific concept should be addressed separately. There is a distinction between the various objections.
INDIANS HAD AN OPEN BORDER POLICY. Look where they are now.
This is remarkably silly. But if you want to play that, I’ll see your non-sequitur and see you an "East Germany put up a wall, too! And see where that got them?" Neither has a great deal to do with the current matter under discussion.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
If you simply want people to migrate legally - "enforce the laws!" — then I suggest making the migration legal
But Jon, it already is...

We’re talking about people who forgo doing the legal migration, and opt for sneaking in...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
What I’m suggesting is that immigrants, legal or otherwise,
Sorry Jon, but for me you lose it when you start with ’otherwise’. What, exactly, are ’otherwise’ immigrants? Hmmm? Would they be illegal? Right.

Man - if you are presenting Thompson’s view on this, I’m questioning my early support for him.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
It is clear that the English-speaking countries maintained fairly liberal domestic policies during the century of totalitarianism. Many have noticed something special about the anglosphere. During the 20th century, various forms of tyranny gripped continental Europe and most of the rest of the world. Nations either embraced such policies or were too weak to withstand invasion. It was primarily the English-speaking nations that both maintained relatively liberal domestic policies while maintaining the military strength to withstand the threat of totalitarianism.

What is it about the Anglo-American culture? That’s a fairly involved question but it is not a sudden realization or momentary fluke; it’s the result of a tradition that goes back centuries. And we find that tradition isn’t easy to establish elsewhere on a sustainable basis, withstanding numerous crisis from economic depressions to foreign wars, on a scale comparable to the USA.

To guard our inheritance it is best that we maintain a conservative immigration policy consistent with assimilation. And that would apply to immigrants from the country of my grandparents, too. It is clear that my ancestors found adjustment difficult, which is has to be. It isn’t just a cognitive understanding that is difficult but a steadfast commitment to our core cultural values. That takes time to cultivate … of the order of generations if we are speaking of the various groups as a whole.

 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Given the very limited number of legal immigrants
Almost 1/2 million per year from South America, Central America, and Mexico out of about 1 million total legal immigrants doesn’t seem "very limited" to me. It seems like a pretty good chance that the new Spanish-speaking kid in class is legal.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
What I don’t like about the amnesty is that it is in a sense punishing legal immigrants who played by the rules.

I also think we could let in more immigrants from diverse countries than just Mexico and Central America to alleviate some of the cultural aspects of any amnesty.

I’d also suggest making all able bodied persons visit a recruiting center as part of their amnesty process.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Jon, if you truly see no difference between the East German wall to prison people within, and a wall built to keep illegals out, then we have nothing left to discuss on the immigration issue. You’re an idiot, and the fact that you support a candidate becomes a heavy strike against that candidate.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
I don’t think I’ve seen anything written this year about immigration that didn’t include at least one of the following:

1. they are a benefit to the economy
2. you’re an immigrant too
3. stop being racist

#1 is questionable at best and #2 and #3 are just tiresome.

I’m also amused to read in the comments:
...nobody in this post suggested open borders.

(a few sentences later)

Then I’ve a perfect solution: make them all legal, and grant legal status to future migrants. Problem solved!
The "future migrants" part sure makes it sound like you’re advocating open borders. That at least is more honest than those who claim (again) this is a one time thing as if they would tell those who come here illegally later, sorry you should have broken our laws sooner.

In the abstract I’m all for letting all honest hard-working people to become Americans, but I know that in the real world it doesn’t quite work the way it should.
 
Written By: abw
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
Any particular reason you didn’t include the sentence immediately preceding your excerpt?

"I was referring to a particular kind of objection to immigration: the "Oh my God, they speak Spanish!" objection, which goes hand in hand with the "they breed like cockroaches" and "they have a funny religion" objections (heard mostly in weirdo evangelical circles)."

Is this what you think the motivation is of the folks here who object to the currently proposed immigration "reform"?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
One last point Henke, One hundred years ago and earlier there was a vast underpopulated landmass with land available for homesteading. Now what we have are filthy crime ridden overcrowded cites. Furthermore, those periods of immigration in the past DID cause huge problems and so were followed by periods of low immigration to allow time for assimilation. No such thing has happened for the last forty years.

So your argument is rather silly.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Man - if you are presenting Thompson’s view on this, I’m questioning my early support for him.
I assumed it was clear that I am not speaking "on behalf of Fred Thompson" when I blog here. Perhaps it will be best if I simply quit blogging again.
What I don’t like about the amnesty is that it is in a sense punishing legal immigrants who played by the rules.
I think we’re already punishing the legal immigrants who play by the rules. Which is why I believe we should dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants and dramatically streamline the process to make it easier to come in legally, rather than illegally.
Jon, if you truly see no difference between the East German wall to prison people within
SDN, the fact that you didn’t grasp the context of that quote — it was an absurd response to an absurd statement — doesn’t speak well of your reading comprehension. I explicitly said that "Neither has a great deal to do with the current matter under discussion." Did you not read that far?
The "future migrants" part sure makes it sound like you’re advocating open borders.
My only suggestion at this point is to dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants, and to streamline the process so that people aren’t choosing between a tremendously costly, time-consuming and risky legal process VS simply walking across the border.
Is this what you think the motivation is of the folks here who object to the currently proposed immigration "reform"?
No. If it was, I would have said so. As you noted, I did not include that sentence. My reason for posting this is that I believe the cultural arguments against more immigrants is based on a misapprehension of the way assimilation has worked and is working. I believe our culture is - in terms of ideals — better. As a result, I believe our culture is both capable of assimilating immigrants, and improved by what they bring to our country, in much the same way as it has been in the past.
One last point Henke, One hundred years ago and earlier there was a vast underpopulated landmass with land available for homesteading.
This is the sort of zero sum thinking I don’t find persuasive from the Left. It’s a land/economy equivalent of the "lump of labor" fallacy. What is the proper number of people in the US? Is it 300 billion? 250? 350? 310? I don’t know, but I am skeptical that anybody else does, either.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Perhaps it will be best if I simply quit blogging again.
If you’re going to be silly and disengenuous, and cherry pick* quotes like you did with Megan’s, yes.

*
From a post by timactual:

Any particular reason you didn’t include the sentence immediately preceding your excerpt?

"I was referring to a particular kind of objection to immigration: the "Oh my God, they speak Spanish!" objection, which goes hand in hand with the "they breed like cockroaches" and "they have a funny religion" objections (heard mostly in weirdo evangelical circles)."
I’ll ask again, what part of 76% don’t you get?

There is no fundamental human right to cross borders permanently without visible and sufficient support.

Do you propose there should be no public benefits provided to illegal immgrants, but that they should otherwise be permitted to reside here while they are paying all there own bills?

Oh, and Henke, as I told Megan, I have little trouble with the immigrants being largely Mexican, I’d be less happy—as a facet of demographics—with such an influx of Social Democrats, a la Sweden.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
JWG
Almost 1/2 million per year from South America, Central America, and Mexico out of about 1 million total legal immigrants doesn’t seem "very limited" to me. It seems like a pretty good chance that the new Spanish-speaking kid in class is legal.
You’ll have to back that up with an integrable timeline history showing that the 30 million I recall from other sources is innacurate.

At least before I credit it, anyway, and for all I know, your figure goes into the 270 million who are legal—and there are still 30 million illegals.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Mcardle also says:
I find the argument that the problem with immigrants is illegal immigration pretty uncompelling. First of all, it’s almost (not always) made by people who don’t want to let those people (or equivalent numbers of their more law abiding compatriots) in legally, and react against any proposal to do so with exactly the vehemence that they complain about the illegal entry of illegal immigrants. The people making that argument may not be trying to be disingenuous, but ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: their real problem is that they don’t want that many immigrants here, regardless of whether they entered legally or not.
I am so sick of being told I’m most likely opposed to all immigration.
And second of all, virtually no one who makes that argument is perfectly law abiding.
You have got to be kidding me. I can’t argue against REWARDING illegal behavior because I drank alcohol when I was sixteen? This has got to be the worst argument I have ever read.

I seriously would like to see which of the points made in that post Jon agrees with.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"I don’t think I’ve seen anything written this year about immigration that didn’t include at least one of the following:"

also,
4. It is impossible to enforce, physically or politically, current immigration laws, so we must legalize them.

This one always amuses me, since the same people also say enforcement of immigration laws will become possible just as soon as we enact a few other little immigrant-friendly laws.


"As a result, I believe our culture is both capable of assimilating immigrants, and improved by what they bring to our country,"

As has been pointed out by someone, I forget who, we are importing poverty. How much improvement can we afford when each illegal is a net drain on the economy? And what is it exactly that we need to import that we either do not already have or has not already been imported in sufficient quantity? What improvements are you speaking of?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I think Jon Henke does a great service by attempting to disaggregate the components of the Mexican immigration debate. The "rule of law" objection should be considered independently of the demographic/economic arguments. Obviously, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The question is: Does that alone warrant deportation? I have found over the years that Americans’ fealty to the rule of law waxes and wanes depending upon who has broken what law. Henke is right, therefore, to focus on the broader policiy implications of illegal immigration. Indeed, this is what Bush does. Bush comes out — as always — on the side of corporate America, mainly agribusiness in this case. You may agree or disagree with where Bush comes down on the issue but I do think his approach (and Henke’s) is more productive than simply demonizing illegal immigrants as "lawbreakers," thereby trumping the broader debate and short-circuiting the policy implications of a decidely complex issue. In the foregin policy realm, we have had enough simple-minded, black-and-white, good versus evil policy disasters to last us a hundred years. Let’s not import that approach into domestic issues, too.


 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
"The people making that argument may not be trying to be disingenuous, but ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: their real problem is that they don’t want that many immigrants here,"


Speaking of disingenuous, this certainly sounds like an argument for unrestricted immigration in spite of the disclaimers, since the people who wish to limit it are wrong.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"I do think his approach (and Henke’s) is more productive than simply demonizing illegal immigrants as "lawbreakers"

Sort of like the approach of demonizing those who oppose legalizing 12+ million illegals as either racists or simplistic. Perhaps you can also tell us what your definition of productive is.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Almost 1/2 million per year from South America, Central America, and Mexico out of about 1 million total legal immigrants
2006 Legal Permanent Resident Flow by Region and Country of Birth

Number of Illegal Immigrants Hits 12M
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG posted two links above.

The first shows that the average legal immigrant population influx is more like 600,000 per year averaged over 30 years, hence it does not speak to the number of illegal immigrants.

The second was a essay in the Washington Post based on a study of the Pew Foundation.
The Pew Hispanic Center used Census Bureau data to estimate that the United States had 11.1 million illegal immigrants in March 2005. The center used monthly population estimates to project a current total of 11.5 million to 12 million.
The most immediate of the problems with this study is, how many illegal immigrants are going to hang around and answer a census taker’s questions. garbage in, garbage out. I’d have that problem with it no matter who did the study.

The other immediate problem I have with it is that it was generated by the Pew Foundation, a left-wing cabal which among other crimes astroturfed support for McCain-Feingold.

I can’t trust them.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
My only suggestion at this point is to dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants, and to streamline the process so that people aren’t choosing between a tremendously costly, time-consuming and risky legal process VS simply walking across the border.
I think the error you make with this statement is assuming the run of the mill, average Mexican is going to believe they can go through the ’legal process’ or that they will be able to afford it.

You want to increase the number of legal immigrants? Awesome. How many are waiting in line to legally get here? Let’s start with them, and let’s talk about stopping the flow of illegal border crossers.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
The first...does not speak to the number of illegal immigrants.
Of course not. It speaks to the number of legal immigrants since you asserted with no evidence that legal immigration was "very limited." In fact, it is now over 1 million per year with half coming from Latin America.
The second was a essay in the Washington Post based on a study of the Pew Foundation.
And it backs up the commonly accepted assumption of about 12 million illegals.

On the other hand, you have provided NO evidence that either:
1) current legal immigration is "very limited" compared to illegal immigration, or
2) there are 30 million illegals
it was generated by the Pew Foundation, a left-wing cabal
Yet, I suspect that if you ever bother to provide "evidence" that there are 30 million illegals, it’ll be generated by a "right-wing" group. So your own argument defeats any evidence you produce.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Just to be clear, I support increased immigration as long as it is legal. I only dispute current immigration as being "very limited" in regards to assuming that a new Spanish speaking student is probably illegal.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
It does back up the notion there are 12+/-3 million legal immigrants. It simply says nothing about how many illegal immigrants there are.
"Yet, I suspect that if you ever bother to provide "evidence" that there are 30 million illegals, it’ll be generated by a "right-wing" group. So your own argument defeats any evidence you produce."
Now that’s logical rhetoric. Anticipatory tu cocque.

And you’re right, if you play the with that hand, I can’t bother to respond to you any more than I do Erb, who also backs his comments up with weak evidence and baseless assertion.

So I’m going to quit looking for the original cite.

I suppose you dispute that the Pew Foundation is a left-wing cabal which among other things engineered the passage of McCain-Feingold?
"I only dispute current immigration as being "very limited" in regards to assuming that a new Spanish speaking student is probably illegal."
As you’ve provided no evidence as to the proportions of illegal immigrants yourself, you have no basis for that counter assumption.

Incidentally, I find a plethora of cites for a figure of 20 million illegals, quotes of the same people in the national legislature who have an interest in minimizing the issue. I find myself further convinced 30 million is a plausible number.

And to further impeach the credibility of your Pew study, have a quote from the man who issued it:
Dr. Passel admitted that the government typically uses indirect means to estimate how many illegal aliens are in the United States. "Basically, we subtract the legal foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population that’s in the survey, to get an estimate of the unauthorized migrants who appear in the survey," Dr. Passel told us in a telephone interview.
They don’t count illegals.

The lowball estimate of the odds one of your students is illegal starts and 50/50 and the odds they are illegal go up from there.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
So I’m going to quit looking for the original cite.
Evidence provided by me: 2
Evidence provide by Tom: 0

Tom can’t trust my evidence by claiming it has a left wing bias, but then claims I can’t look for any right wing bias from any evidence he might eventually, one day, if he gets around to backing up his repeated assertions, provide.

Weak sauce, Tom.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Actually JWG the evidence you’ve provided doesn’t prove much.

Your first evidence is a chart shows only that there are probably around 6 million legal immigrants here who have not yet become citizens, and it says nothing about how many immigrants are illegal.

Your second piece of evidence is from a group that admits they did not count illegal immigrants, they infer the number from suspect data fro which they provide no rigorous estimate of error. NPR reports Mr. Passell to have said, "...illegal immigrants are surprisingly forthcoming when interviewed anonymously..."

I’d be surprised if 1 in 10 owned up to it. It isn’t reported what surprises Passell.

At best you’ve supplied two sources of varying relevance, one of which is quite demolished.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Is the Heritage Foundation part of the left-wing cabal? They seem to accept around 10 million illegal immigrants:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

How about the Federation for American Immigration Reform?
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research9605#illegal

I’ll look at your non-partisan, non-political, non-cabal influenced evidence anytime. Just post it. You don’t seem to have problems making assertions, so I’m not sure why posting evidence is so hard...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
it says nothing about how many immigrants are illegal
Again, I don’t understand why you keep trying to find evidence of ILLEGAL immigration in a report I provided to demonstrate the number of LEGAL immigrants. When 1/2 million Spanish speaking people enter the US legally every year, I don’t know why you think I should assume a new student is illegal.

I’m starting to see Jon’s point.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, the linked Heritage Foundation source doesn’t say there are only 10 million, it says 10 million will be given amnesty. Big difference. Are you this careful all the time?
Again, I don’t understand why you keep trying to find evidence of ILLEGAL immigration in a report I provided to demonstrate the number of LEGAL immigrants
Because it’s illegals who may be given amnesty the post is about? Like I said you graph is fairly irrelevant to Jon’s post (to be fair, Jon’s post and cited piece is pretty irrelevant to the issue as well).

And here’s the Heritage Foundation saying there’s 12 to 15 million of them.

Keep throwing darts, JWG.

You’ll do my research for me.

Thank you, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
When 1/2 million Spanish speaking people enter the US legally every year, I don’t know why you think I should assume a new student is illegal.
I’m not saying you should assume that, I’m saying you should at least every other to every two out of three of them are.

I suppose you’ll get that wrong again later.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And here’s the Heritage Foundation saying there’s 12 to 15 million of them
Yes, they use the range from the Pew study and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

They must be part of that nasty left-wing cabal.
Like I said you graph is fairly irrelevant to Jon’s post
But it’s relevant to your point that I should assume my new Spanish speaking students are illegal. Except I demonstrated that the number of legal immigrants is not "very limited."
I’m not saying you should assume that
Now you’re sounding like Erb. You originally said (emphasis mine):
"Given the very limited number of legal immigrants, it is overwhelmingly likely."

Words have meaning. I was responding to what you wrote.

Still waiting for 30 million...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I’ll quit wasting my time until you can stop blathering assertions (and cries of left wing cabals) and finally provide some evidence.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Yes, they use the range from the Pew study and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Sometime they do, sometimes they don’t. They aren’t any more careful than you, the Pew bunch, or the Census people are.
They must be part of that nasty left-wing cabal.
So you dispute the Pew Foundation is a left-wing cabal?
But it’s relevant to your point that I should assume my new Spanish speaking students are illegal.
Your graph is relevant to one part of the equation, it’s part of the denominator. You have said nothing meaningful about the numerator yet.

And looking at the charts deeper in the linked article (with the graph), the figure isn’t "half-a-million", it’s 360,000. Considerable, but a far cry from 500,000.

Again, are you always this careful?

"Still waiting for 30 million..."
1) Keep on throwing crap out there. Eventually, you’ll accidentally provide my cite for me.

2) You’ve claimed left wing sources for your evidence, and I’ve shown your "right wing" sources have a range higher than you will acknowledge. Do you propose to give a right wing source I cite equal weight to your own?
"I’ll quit wasting my time until you can stop blathering assertions (and cries of left wing cabals) and finally provide some evidence."
Please quit wasting mine, JWG, until you learn fractions.

numerator / denominator = fraction


Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Good to see you around, Jon. Why are you working for Fred Thompson, with beliefs like these? Fred Thompson’s support bubble will collapse as soon as he even hints that he concurs with you. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is writing the story right now.

You do know that the Bush-Admin’s libertarian-esque rollback of income redistribution, corportate regulation, and hard-charging open-market doctrine has created the stagflation that has created this massive immigration backlash, right?

You know that?

The problem with factor-price equalization theory is that no democratic country will sign off on its own economic decline. Migration is the lowest-hanging fruit, politically, of the ongoing collapse of the value of labor. It won’t stop there.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
And looking at the charts deeper in the linked article (with the graph), the figure isn’t "half-a-million", it’s 360,000. Considerable, but a far cry from 500,000.
Mexico = 173,753
Central America = 75,030
South America = 138.001
Cuba = 45,614
Dominican Republic = 38,069

TOTAL = 470,467

or

North America = 414,096
Canada = (18,207)
Haiti = (22,228)
Jamaica = (24,976)
South America = 138,001

TOTAL = 486,686

Either way, it’s NOT a far cry from 1/2 million.

Now you not only don’t provide ANY sources of your own (30 million, Spanish speaking children "overwhelmingly likely" to be illegal, etc.), but you can’t even read the ones I provide for accuracy.
I’ve shown your "right wing" sources have a range higher than you will acknowledge
I’m not acknowledging 12-15 million? Who knew? I guess every time I used 12 million and provided evidence you must’ve skipped over that.

Members of the left-wing cabal: Pew Hispanic Center, US Census Bureau, INS, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Heritage Foundation, etc...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Please quit wasting mine, JWG, until you learn fractions.
I originally claimed that I didn’t know if my students were illegal or not.

Tom countered that it was "overwhelmingly likely" that they were, but provided NO evidence.

It is Tom’s responsibility to back up his assertion.

Here is how scientists (my background) use the word "likely" to represent statistical information:

"likely" = 66-90% chance
"very likely" = 90-95% chance
"highly likely" = 95-99%
"virtually certain" = 99%+

"Overwhelmingly likely" is going to fall into which category? According to Tom it would have to be greater than a 66% chance that a new Spanish speaking student is illegal. "Overwhelming" would probably mean in the "very" or "highly" range.

Go ahead, Tom...provide us with the data to back up your claim that Spanish speaking children are "overwhelming likely" to be illegal.

Go ahead, Tom...keep teaching me about fractions. And start (just once) backing up your assertions with any piece of evidence. Give it a try.

Or keep sounding like Erb and twisting your own words to mean something new when you are provided with real data.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Cuba = 45,614
Dominican Republic = 38,069
One, the policy is that no Cuban that gets here can be deported, whether they come legally or not—they aren’t exactly a standard case—I am not sure how they could be counted, but I’ll give them to you. The Dominicans bring you to 416,000. Dance, JWG, dance.

You’ve acknowledged 10, 12, and 15 million. I have sources stating 20 and 30 million, you claim—if I do not misunderstand you—that you will dismiss their numbers because they are right wing in origin, where I have pointed out a real problem with your proffered "evidence".

Your sources are either in contradiction to themselves or to each other, and in any case, the one you’ve much of, the Pew Foundation study, is obviously fatally flawed because it relies on voluntary reporting of illegals of their status to the poll taker—this same poll implicates the lower government body supplied estimates in likewise flawed methodology. Not coincidentally, those government bodies have a institutional preference for minimizing the issue, because they have been instructed not to enforce the law in the main, hence they can’t benefit from exaggerating the problem (or they’d be doing that). Also, from previous experience reading of them, which I’ve mentioned, I know the Pew foundation is not above fraud to support it’s case.

You might consider that closely, if you’re honest.

If you have a reason it should be taken as reliable anyway, please share.

If you think the Pew Foundation is not a left-wing cabal, provide actual counter-evidence as opposed to saying, essentially, that because some right wing groups sometimes agree with them occaisionally, they can’t be left-wing. Now that’s weak sauce.
"I’m not acknowledging 12-15 million?"
You seem to be firmly fixing the upper bound at 12 million, I suspect you would prefer 10 million when it comes to the number of illegals, because anything larger than your 12 million illegals strongly begins to defeat your assertion. In any case, you do not seem willing to recognize the serious damage done to your argument when there are grounds for such large discrepancies as 10 to 15 million, and some government sources claim only 7.5 million.
I originally claimed that I didn’t know if my students were illegal or not.
Yep. But in the context of illegal Hispanic immigration, which was the context of the post, and in the context of my dismissing that claim of yours, if a large fraction of the Hispanic immigrant population is illegal, and if that fraction is larger than 1/2, then it is more likely than not that any given student of Hispanic extraction is illegal—certainly so if your student population is representative* of Hispanic immigrants overall.

*They may not be. Make that case then.

And here’s the crux of the disagreement:
"likely" = 66-90% chance
"very likely" = 90-95% chance
"highly likely" = 95-99%
"virtually certain" = 99%+
I am using it in the colloquial sense of "more likely than not".

I regret we didn’t discuss definitions before now.
Go ahead, Tom...provide us with the data to back up your claim that Spanish speaking children are "overwhelming likely" to be illegal.
I believe the sources I have seen, that the polls taken which are in the usual range which you have quoted of 10 to 15 million for illegal immigrants are quite flawed, and for the reasons I have already given.

You can acknowledge those flaws or not, I believe they show your evidence is quite tainted.

If as I have read there are 30 million illegals, then if your students who are Spanish speaking are a random sampling of the Spanish speaking immigrant population, and if your lower bound figure of 10 million is correct, then one of your students has a 3 out of 4 chance of being illegal.

If the respective figures of legal to illegal numbers are shifted to 15 against 20 million, the odds are still against half of your Spanish speaking students being legal, though at that point the odds aren’t overwhelming. They are that at the 10 and 30 million figures.
Or keep sounding like Erb...when you are provided with real data.
Erb, for example, has yet to respond in detail to my last post addressed to him, and I expect he will not.

You responded to my 30 million with a counter figure which is derived from unmistakably flawed procedures.

The Pew data is not real, neither is data collected in like fashion. Coming from someone employing a highly technical usage of "likely", I’m surprised you are satisfied with their methodology. Unless you’re just moving the goalposts wherever you need them to be.
"and twisting your own words to mean something new"
I twist nothing of my words, I wrote "overwhelmingly likely" thinking of the 3 out of 4 figure, which I think of as overwhelming odds.

Even at the 4 of 7 figure, it is more likely than not any given one of your students is illegal.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The best thing you’ve got is, according to your own figures, many of your Spanish speaking students—more than half at minimum—are illegal if they are representative of the average spanish speaking immigrant.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Or keep sounding like Erb...when you are provided with real data.

Erb, for example, has yet to respond in detail to my last post addressed to him, and I expect he will not.
Huh? Where’s that? I try to respond to what’s addressed to me, but I can be absent minded. What thread is that in?

JWG: Well, I have to give you credit. Your comment I’m sure was considered an insult by both Tom and myself — I’m sure neither of us wants to be compared with the other!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The Dominicans bring you to 416,000.
I provided the numbers and got 470,467 or 486,686. I can’t see how you got your number (again, you didn’t show your work) no matter how many different ways you mangle the numbers.

Add, Tom, Add.
You responded to my 30 million with a counter figure which is derived from unmistakably flawed procedures.
I responded with evidence accepted by more than your left wing cabal. Everyone in the mainstream on the left and right must pale in comparison to your genius. I am in awe (especially after your demonstration at simple addition).

You have responded with no evidence what-so-ever. How many comments have you offered and still no evidence?
I am using it in the colloquial sense of "more likely than not"
Well, I have never heard "overwhelmingly likely" used as an equivalent to your definition, but so be it.
If as I have read there are 30 million illegals, then if your students who are Spanish speaking are a random sampling of the Spanish speaking immigrant population, and if your lower bound figure of 10 million is correct, then one of your students has a 3 out of 4 chance of being illegal.
You are assuming for some unknown reason that there is an equivalent percentage of children in both the legal and illegal populations.

The legal incoming population contains just over 11% school-aged children every year according to the census data I provided.

Are you making a completely new assertion, without any evidence once again, that 11% (or more?) of the illegal population is school-aged children?

There are 50 million school kids. Are you arguing that at least 6% (3 million) of them are illegals?

Let’s tally your assertions so far (without any shred of evidence offered):
- 30 million illegal immigrants currently in US
- new Spanish speaking students more likely than not (at best) to be illegal
- at least 6% of school children are illegal
- a left wing cabal has tricked the Heritage foundation and has found a way to infiltrate the US Census Bureau, the INS, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform in order to provide similar numbers

Feel free to pick any of the four in the list and offer a citation. Just once for fun. Give it a try...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Jon
I think the general rule is that how you feel about legal immigration largely determines how you feel about illegal immigration here. If you are for legal immigration, illegally immigrating isn’t that large a deal: its only a civil penalty, and hell, people want to pardon Scooter Libby who did much worse. On the other hand if you are against legal immigration, its a high crime that has been committed here - one that we can’t turn a blind eye to. Amnesty only will encourage more of it, and that just simply can’t be tolerated.

Personally, I just don’t see the merit of the anti-immigration argument. Points like "They took our jobs - dirka dirka" seem strangely like a bad south park socialist parody. As for Robert Reich’s math for heritage - even if you trust it, the answer would have been for him to get in on the bill debate, not disingenously sandbagging it. As for the 24 hour waiting period - that is a bs line too, because it is a revokable probationary status, and without it, an amnesty would be unworkable.

Oh well, I have lost a ton of respect for the Michelle Malkins and Cornerites of the world. They could have seen these arguments, but demonizing a bill made much better press and sold more radio ads/print ads now that Iraq is going south. Truth be told - I’m kind of ashamed for thinking so highly of them for so long.


 
Written By: Elliot
URL: http://
Or maybe, Elliot, one can be a strong proponent of legal immigration and be opposed to rewarding illegal behavior.

But you stick to the "they must be racists or nativists to oppose illegal immigration" argument. It’s easier, and it makes you feel morally superior and all warm inside.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Elliot, I have zero problem with legal immigration. I love that people want to come here and become a part of us. It’s why this country is so damned great...

But people who come here illegally demonstrate an inate disregard for the rule of law. They don’t care about the process, they only care about what they can get for themselves. They don’t contribute to the funding of the government which provides them the benifits they enjoy. They only take.

Illegal Immigrants need to be booted out of this country. The legal ones I wecome with open arms.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott,
Question about your support of the rule of law - Do you want to see Scooter Libby pardoned? Did you stand by the impeachment of Clinton? Did you support Bush for president even though he committed a felony as a young adult (smoked cocaine, albeit without a conviction). All violated the rule of law - yet the underlying violation matters just as much as the rule they violated. My point was that if you feel the underlying violation was not a large problem, then forgiveness of it isn’t a large deal, even if it is likely to occur again.
 
Written By: Elliot
URL: http://
"Personally, I just don’t see the merit of the anti-immigration argument."

That puts you in agreement with everyone else here, although I fail to see the relevance of that statement. If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss illegal immigration....
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider