Here's yer controversy
In her comment on why I've not had many other comments lately, msblackandwhite said I should be more controversial so, here's something that has been on my mind for quite a while. The border - specifically the southern border. I will take a stand and see how the responses pour in... what is the big deal about having migrant workers, or any kind of workers? They are here to work - let's make it work for us, as well.
I think a guest worker program is a great idea. The immigration laws are not working so they need to be changed to reflect today's labor environment. I am concerned, though, about the lack of assimilation of the legal Mexican immigrants and the Chicano movement needs to be watched. Any organization which promotes the overthrow of the US government must be monitored.
I think a guest worker program is a great idea. The immigration laws are not working so they need to be changed to reflect today's labor environment. I am concerned, though, about the lack of assimilation of the legal Mexican immigrants and the Chicano movement needs to be watched. Any organization which promotes the overthrow of the US government must be monitored.
posted by OurayDreamer at 8:08 PM
17 Comments:
We just need to be careful about it. In Europe, there are a number of guest worker programs that have simply resulted in large portions of urban areas being segmented off from the rest of the population. These migrants are poor, they are marginalized, and they have no means of getting into the European way of life. Then you see the sort of rioting that we saw in France last fall.
I don't think it's a bad idea, we just need to be careful! Learn from the mistakes of Europe, and ensure that we maintain our historical position of being a land of opportunity.
I think people confuse not wanting illegal immigrants with not wanting Mexicans. I am most definitely in favor of ridding the country of all illegals whatever their race. I've got no problem with guest workers or anyone else who's "here" legally.
The point, One, is well taken. I think there are two issues - those who come to the US to work and those who come here to hide and take advantage of the system. And, as b&w said, we have to think carefully to a way to legitmize the workers rather than to marginalize them. We can no longer have only a legal/illegal status. But, the workers need a path to citizenship based on their labor.
Well, personally (as opposed to impersonally) the great laughing stock in the entire amnesty program is this:
If you have been here illegally for more than 5 years you can stay.
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, suddenly every illegal in this country will have arrived prior to 2001? These folks have no regard for the law so I would bet my bottom dollar that they just might Lie to stay here. dur!!
I have also heard a lot of folks talking about "They do jobs Americans won't do" & our economy would fail if we didn't have them. These are two of the arguements that the Southern states used in the mid 1800's. Illegals, the new slaves.
The Feds just had a big raid on illegals. Hoo hah, that was fun. According to Michelle Malkin over half were released to come back later. I'm currently drooling on my shirt in amazement that the government thinks this is a good viable plan.
I'm to the point now that I can't even discuss this without waving my arms over my head in a manner not unlike one would use to try to ressurect Cortez, but as One said, the problem isn't with Mexicans, it's with Illeagals (as well as every group that attempts to use them to bring down this country, That's right, I'm talking to you Mr Commie, Mr. Terrorist, Mr. I-Own-a-business-&-I-want-cheap-labor, Mr. Ted Kennedy, Mr. George Bush, Mr politician-that-can't-make-a-stand-&-makes-me-wish-that-zombie-Reagan-would-crawl-from-his-grave-&-kick-their-collective-@$$es-out-of-the-country.)
Like I said, I can't talk about it in a rational way anymore.
You might want to register with blogoklahoma.com or start leaving comments on Okiedoke.com. I'm gonna calm down and eat a damn quesadilla.
Canoe - thank you for the tips, I did register with BlogOklahoma. And, I hope your quesadilla has lowered your blood pressure.
So, we send every illegal packing. Sounds like a plan but how? Many of these people have been in the country for a very long time and the powers that be have winked at their illegal status. Now, we are saying "go home."?
Tell me how we 'round-up' 11 million people and push them through the door. That would seem to be the most clear-cut answer but it is one with no real way to be implemented.
And, though I understand your reference to a new type of slavery, I think a wider perspective is necessary. If the illegals thought they were not being fairly recompensed for their work, why do they stay? Is it because a 'shadow' life in the US is better than what they left behind?
Illegals come here & stay here because here is a heck of a lot better than the sucky 'there' they came from.
My comparison to slavery was not so much from the perspective of the workers as it is from the 'owners'. The people that talk about cheap labor, jobs Americans won't do, how we have to help these poor poor people, I put those people in the same category as the slave owners of the old South. They actually like having cheap labor that they can take advantage of.
How do you get rid of 11 million illegals? The same way I would get rid of 10 thousand cats in my back yard. Put up a big fence and start tossing them out one by one. Of course it would be better if I could toss the cats over the fence 10 or 20 at a time, but if I just sit & lament about how long it would take to rid my yard of cats by doing it one by one, I'll never empty my yard of cats.
Therefore, the next illegal caught is NOT released on his own to return later. He is sentenced and jailed. Once the fence is up, he's tossed back over. One at a time, just like they came over. And maybe by 2030, we'll have a handle on this.
But, during this time, we should also review or LEGAL immigration policy & procedures. Is it too hard? I don't know, but I hope that they don't make it easier. When you lower the standards, you get worse results. Keep the standards current and that way we'll get folks that are willing to legally enter this country, follow the laws and become immigrants, not colonists crying and screaming that we took their country and they want it back.
PS, start leaving comments on Okiedoke.com and Audienceof1.blogspot.com. They run weekly lists of what they read.
John, A few quick thoughts. I really liked your explanation about the differences between cultures and how there can be conflict there. I always assumed that the legal procedures that are in place to become a LEGAL immigrant are there to educate the people coming into this country about the country in which they will now reside. They have to learn the Constitution and the history of what this country was founded on. Without that I'm sure a lot of folks would end up doing whatever they thought was right.
I have no problem with people coming to this. Heck, half of my ancestors helped dock the boats for the other half that came here. (You're looking at a guy that can trace roots back to Charlemagne and the Cherokee/Blackfoot/Crow tribes). The problem is that, once laws & procedures are established, there are folks that will not follow those procedures. You can find some of the info here:
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm
It mentiones coming to this country LAWFULLY, having NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER or AGGRAVATED FELONY or:
* has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude
* has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more
has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
* has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more
has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses
is or has earned his or her principal income from illegal gambling
* is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice
* is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States
* is or has been a habitual drunkard
* is practicing or has practiced polygamy
* has willfully failed or refused to support dependents
* has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
These seem like good things. Everyone is crying that we are "making it illegal to want to eat" (No, honest to God, I actually heard that arguement) and there is a lot of economic impact, but you have to realize that some of these illegal immigrants are a drain on this society that should not be tolerated.
Are some of the illegals good people? You're darn tootin they are. Hard working upstanding people that couldn't see any other way for a better life and had nobody to help them get into this country legally. Those are the folks that we need to keep. But first, we have to round them all up and then see which ones we want to keep (the good ones) and toss all the others back into the yard they came from. Just handing out amnesty because we haven't been able to find you for 5 years becasue we haven't been looking for you is totally & completely 'whacked'.
Also, I want to know what is the statute of limitations on anything? We can't pass a law about immigration because this country was founded on colonization? Heck, why don't we change the laws so only American Indians can vote (I get a half vote)?
The posts reiterate to me the need for a fresh look at the problem. Rather than chosing a knee-jerk reaction in one or the other direction, we should understand what the problem actually is and what outcome we, as a free society, want to produce. Simply put, if someone wants to come to America to work, I think we need to make it possible. If that person becomes a productive member of the community in which he/she is temporially residing, I think we should embrace them and allow a working path to citizenship. So often I hear the whining about the taxes we are losing but I am most concerned that we are allowing, no - forcing, the people who would make a positive impact on our country to find an illegal way to be here.
Canoe - I absolutely agree that we must stop the bleeding of our borders - we have to be as secure as we can but as a member of a free society, I do not want to live behind a wall.
We live in a nation that has always risen to a challenge set before it with courage and compassion. I cannot believe that is impossible now. We should reward work and penalize laziness and crime.
In reading about the economics of several South American countries, I 've learned about the bureaurcracy that prohibits people from taking a legal path to home and business ownership. But, to quote Malcom from Jurrasic Park, Life finds a way. People who know they could live their whole lives by the rules and never achieve ownership of their own home band together with others in the same way and create "informal" communities. They literally move in over night and build a shanty town in a city park. Certainly this is not a good thing but the point is that men and women who want to work, want to have a cahnce to be something more than desperately scratching out a meager existence will use their initiative to find a path to a more prosperous life. If they find the legal path closed to them, they will find another way. I am not talking about illegal business but good, hardworking men and women who are selling homemade tamales or mowing lawns or gathering aluminum cans from dumpsters. Can we not find a way to bring them in to the light and let them work?
I read the comments from all of you, the "bleeding hearts" and the hard core conservatives, but I hear no solutions. Our country will not survive the status quo, at least not as we know it.
The illegals, and let's call them by what they are, are only a symptom of a larger problem; a bloated, out of control and unresponsive congress. Until we deal with that problem your comments, while some are interesting, are meaningless...
I told you, mom. A little controversy...
Anonymous, I hope you enjoy your dreary life of defeatism. If we have a bloated congress, it's because we raised these men and women as they are and then voted them into office. If that offends you, raise different people with different values and then vote them into congress. What would we replace them with, though? That, my friend, is what debate is for: we debate, we decide, we enact, and we benefit. (What John said in fewer words.) Sometimes we lose, so we go back to debating. We're losing the immigration issue, but we can't tell congress that it needs to act differently until we know how we want them to act differently. So, that's what we're here to decide. We're deciding national policy in our minds, sharing it with our friends, and hoping that the rest of America will learn with us so we can get something done. Democracy is such an amazing thing.
If you want to discuss a bloated congress, not a problem. But don't label this discussion as meaningless simply because other larger problems exist.
Before you go off on debate to vote to policy doesn't work, I would remind you that there is a reason so many people would rather be cheap labor here than cheap labor in Mexico. Our system of public debate and democracy has afforded us a great many luxuries that others envy. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are a number of illegals that would gladly trade you places. Maybe after they learned some English, they might contribute to this debate more than you have.
More to the subject, though. I ride a bus every day to school, and there is this one young man, who is studying abroad from Africa. Every time he gets on the bus, he just stares at the bus driver and says, "Do you remember me?" My bus driver gets really red in the face and says, "Of course I don't remember you. You know the rules. In order to get on the bus, you have to show the sticker on the back of you student ID that you get at the Transportation office that confirms you are a current student." He responds, "But you see me every day. Surely you remember me." She replies, "I see over 250 people every day. I don't remember you." Every day they have this debate. Every day after arguing, he pulls out his ID, flips it over, shows her the sticker, and rides the bus.
What's the moral of the story? There is no nation in the world that is as obsessive about paper work as the U.S. Good God, I've already been warned that I may never legally live in France for my stay because their system does not process paperwork as efficiently as the US. And that's a modernized Western nation like us! The African Bus rider has a point. Of course she remembers him. If she didn't, she'd not get angry everytime he asked her, "Do you remember me." We Americans are just adjusted to flipping our cards, so we don't even think about it. Most cultures do not feel this way.
Let's talk about the legal system and political culture of Mexico. It is still a developing nation and in many cases, a piece of paper means nothing. Internet access is unreliable and you can spend years just trying to get local officials to tell you how you can legally immigrate to the U.S. And that's given that you somehow have developed a value for paperwork that doesn't come naturally in Mexico. Just because we have easy access on how to immigrate legally into the U.S. does not mean others can find it easily.
So, that's all these people are: they are people attempting to get into the U.S. without filling out the proper paperwork. There are a few reasons why: they didn't know how, they were wrongly convicted of any of the offenses that prevent entry, or they were correctly convicted. Even if they were correctly convicted, there is nothing to say that, like many U.S. citizens, they are not reformed.
When we catch these people, most of them are not guilty of any crime except for having the misfortune of being born into the wrong nation and the wrong culture. Although we want them to learn the value of our paperwork system before becoming a part of our culture, I hardly think that this one level of misunderstanding is justification for complete denial of entry and imprisonment. Throwing illegals into prison will only criminalize them and exacerbate the perspective that Americans are hypocritical elitists. They're just trying to get on the bus and they don't understand why we think they are bad people.
A friend told me a story last night about becoming a Jew. He said that you will be rejected 3 times by a Rabbi before you are allowed to convert. That is, if you go to a Rabbi and ask to convert to Judaism, he’ll straight up tell you, “You’re kidding, right? You’d never last.” You come back and he’ll say, “I’m busy. Go away.” You come back again, and he’ll tell you again, “Get a clue!” It’s only on the fourth approach that he’ll talk to you. Why? The Jewish faith believes very strongly that they don’t want people converting on a whim. They want to give people time to really think about the consequences of their decision and if it’s right for them to be there. I know, Mr. Canoe Guy, that you see us releasing prisoners as a bad thing, but I see it as a rejection from the Rabbi. Think about it some more before you come back. Do you really want to become American? Are you just here for the job or do you genuinely want to become a part of our culture? Are you will to take the risk again?
This process is a means of discouraging immigration, but not making it impossible. We could build fences, kick all the illegals out and in 25 years sort through everyone. In the long run, those people who would have immigrated illegal will learn how to immigrate legally. However, I learned a really important lesson this year in economics. It’s a statement by the economist Keynes: In the long run, we’ll all be dead. In that 25 years we get everything in order, a man will get married and have children. He doesn’t know the American system, but he can’t risk trying to migrate illegally. His eldest son is kidnapped and murdered at the age of 14, and his daughter is raped by one of the local officials. He searches from place to place to find jobs, and is a hard worker, but the local economy isn’t stable and he can’t hold a job for long. He gets into criminal work to make ends meet, and when 2030 rolls around, he’s no longer eligible to enter the U.S. because of his criminal history. Maybe in the long run it would be more convenient for the U.S., but I’m more concerned about the short run. I want to help that man right now who wants to move to the U.S. to find a better life. I hope that his INS agent has the decency to flirt around the law a little to help him get back in after he entered the U.S. illegally for the first time.
Unfortunately, though, I realize that I can’t help every man who wants a better life for his family. I disagree with John that our economy will respond well to any increase in labor. If labor increases while our capacity for production is maxed out, we will have excess labor. For you who have been keeping up on basic Macro Economics, that’s called unemployment and it sucks ass. So, we have to say “No” to a lot of people. But I think we can help our neighbors. I think we can help our neighbors when they show a genuine desire to become a part of our culture. Heck, I even think we can help our neighbors that have the potential of becoming a part of our culture.
So, what are our solutions?
1) We need to increase international cultural awareness. Perhaps a little less “self-esteem” education and a little third world country culture 101 would do us well. Rather than making ethno-centric assumptions about the people around us, we might actually be able to find truths that we can work with.
2) This increased cultural awareness and understanding of the obsessive compulsive nature of our paperwork system in America might make our INS workers a little more educated and a little more capable of responding to the situation as it needs responding to. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could find ways around the system that aren’t necessarily policy so we could help the good people get in here when they try at a reasonable rate?
3) We need to continue helping other nations become stronger so there isn’t such a strong desire to move here. Wouldn’t it make things easier if Mexico was like Canada? Once again, a stronger internationally aware American culture will be more capable of finding solutions to such dilemmas as, “How do we stabilize Mexico?” They’re on their way. We just need to encourage them politically and economically.
I’m tired. I can’t solve the immigration problems tonight because I have to solve religious and ethnic violence tomorrow morning.
To miss b and w, your mom was right, a little of the "devil's advocate" can stimulate the debate.
As to the defeatism, maybe, and maybe with a few more years on you, you might see more of the realism and less of your idealism.
You see, I'm at the point in life that not a lot of what is happening is going to change my way of life much; but...what worrys me is, without a change in direction, how is it going to effect your future and the future of my children.
I don't have time tonight but I'd like to address some of your points. I note an element of naivete in you arguments.
To John G, I enjoyed some of your response, somewhat humerous but a bit verbose, don't you think?
John - Sometimes triplicate is best. Why, we make laws signed in triplicate, do we not? The executive, the Senate, and the House of Reps. But not before it's ammended in the House, passed, ammended in the Senate, sent back to the House, passed, sent the President, vetoed, sent back to the legislature to fail to receive the 3/4 necessary to pass. All the paper rolled up and sent to a recycling factory to make Starbucks cups.
Yum, coffee.
Yes, an increase in the labor force does mean an increase in the productions possibilities frontier, but you only reach that frontier if you are working at full employment. Just because we could be better economically doesn't mean we will be better.
My point was that I don't promote unlimited entry of immigrants to the U.S. Unregulated entry could result in sudden bursts of new labor, shifting the supply schedule down the demand curve. Not necessarily in the entire U.S. labor market, but certainly local labor markets, like Texas. In normal markets, the price for the product goes down, but in the labor market, we have a price floor ($5.15 per hour). I don't know if this is what you mean when you say the market moves to equilibrium without government regulation, but the minimum wage is not likely to go away. The supply shift results in excess supply = unemployment. Not unemployment for Americans, most likely, but unemployment for the immigrants. If they are poorly educated, non-English (or poor English) speaking, and not readily capable of searching for job opportunities elsewhere.
I sincerely doubt that our economy would adjust to the problem. Either we'd have to lower the minimum wage (yeah, right) or increase demand of labor. However, unless all of these new immigrants rush out and get degrees, it would be an increase in cheap labor. But why get cheap labor in the U.S. at $5.15 an hour when you get get it for $5.15 a week in Mexico (if that!)? If we want to talk about American "slave" labor, we should start in China and Mexico, not within our own borders.
My God, I'm about two steps from joining the Democratic party. I probably would if they didn't seem as ill-informed as the Republicans.
Anonymous - Your points are well taken and I look forward to your criticisms. Nothing wrong with the "devil's advocate," but you must be aware that most people dislike the devil. :-)
I'm registered Republican because I like voting in primaries, so I need to choose between Republicans and Democrats.
In my first post, I was stating that immigrants are marginalized in Europe much worse than they are here in the U.S. It was a warning that if we are not careful, we could end up in the same situation. In that case, it is the Europeans who are to blame for the marginalization on the immigrants both in Europe and in the nations from which they originated.
Remittances from all Mexican immigrants resulted in $10-20 Billion per year returned to Mexico, but there is no clear idea of how much of that is from legal or illegal immigration. I don't believe that it's the U.S.'s fault that the Mexican economy is weak, but I also believe that the Mexican government is working to strengthen the Mexican economy through a free market and free elections.
My story about the bus had nothing to do with ethnicity, it had everything to do with culture. To the bus driver, there was nothing more important than the sticker. To the student, there was nothing more important than being remembered. To him, she was being rude. To her, he was being rude. Neither took the time to realize they were just from different cultures. Perhaps if either of them had had patience, they could come to a compromise. If they had, the wouldn't repeat there stupid daily tradition.
I don't think that we are too paper concious, it's just a known fact that we're more paper conscious than any other culture in the world. Paperwork is not a natural value to humanity, it's a natural value to the U.S. And before we go off throwing people in prison for not filling out the proper forms, we might keep that in mind.
"Stop the flow no matter what." That's the sentence that gives me shivers. No matter if it puts a permenant divide between the U.S. natives and legal mexican immigrants? No matter if it means unjust treatment of those who do attempt to cross the borders? No matter if we turn our back on being the nation that says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free" and become a nation that says, "We'll shoot your wife, your children, and throw you in prison the moment you set foot on our land illegally."
I want a solution to illegal immigration, but I do not want it at any cost.
Under your line of reasoning, I wonder if you would have refused Jews entry into the U.S. during World War II. It wasn’t our fault that the Germans were marginalizing them. Would you have turned away a run away slave in Pre-Civil War America because it wasn’t your fault that his African tribe sold him into slavery? These are not attacks against your character, rather I think it shows that your stance on this issue is probably a contradiction to your character. What is the difference between offering safe harbor to a marginalized African slave who ran away illegally in the 1830s and to a marginalized Mexican who crossed the borders illegally in 2006?
If I seriously felt that it was at the expense of my way of life or the American way of life, I would be more hesitant. But I don’t think they are. I’ve spent the past few hours researching Chicano Threat, Chicano Movement, Chicano Terrorism, and I have found nothing. What I have found are statistics from the Economist stating that immigration since 1980 has at most affected lowered wages for Americans by 8% over the last 20 years! And only for high-school drop-outs. That study was done by Harvard, but many people think that it is too conservative in those figures. The University of Bologna too into account the offsetting impact of extra investment and the fact that immigrants end up taking different jobs that high school drop-outs take lowering that figure to 0.4% over the last 20 years.
I also found an article from the American Journalism Review about a woman named Gloria Rubio living in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She had three children and was a member of the local PTA. She volunteers at her local church, at the local drug-free program, and other community organizations. She, however, was not a properly documented citizen of the U.S. She was caught because she was interviewed the the Tulsa World for recommending a certain tax agency that assists both legal and illegal immigrants. “The intent of the story was not to find an illegal immigrant, but to showcase this service that helps immigrants to assimilate and pay taxes.” Assimilation programs run by immigrants! This is what America needs. Gloria was a tax paying active member of her community. A month later she was arrested and deported because someone anonymously sent a copy of the article to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I read another story by the Washington Monthly about a police force in southern California that refuses to report illegal immigrants after they’ve pulled them over for traffic violations or impounding their cars. What idiots? They’re law enforcers, they should turn them in! Why would they do such a thing? The police captain said, “Sometimes folks are here illegally and they’re the victim of a crime. We want them to call us. If someone is a witness, we want them to trust us.” Wow, they’re attempting to decriminalize the illegal immigrant lifestyle. But, what if they’re bad people? “We care about behavior,” the captain says, “it’s not where you’re from, it’s what you’re doing.”
I read another article about the fact that an estimated 65,000 undocumented children of immigrants graduate from high school and have no access to in-state tuition, and no guarantee they’ll be able to stay in the U.S. after they graduate. The thing is, most of these students only know the U.S. and are highly assimilated. I’ve never felt so proud of Senator Orrin Hatch as when I learned he worked to pass legislation to provide these students conditional citizen status so they can go to college and continue working towards a path of full assimilation to the U.S.
And see, many of these Mexicans are sending money back to Mexico to help try to build up the Mexican economy. There are proposals to try to funnel this money more efficiently to capital growth and infrastructure. You seem a little behind the times on Mexican history. You see, the party that had party for 71 years no longer has power. They’re still around, but they have to compete with other parties in elections. The PRI, the party in control for 71 years, was a dictatorship that tried to get international legitimacy by faking elections, but it accidentally lost one. And then it was downhill from there. During the 1990s, the PRI lost the majority in congress, and in 2000 they lost the Presidency. The hegemony has ended. Within the past 10 years, Mexico has joined the free peoples club. They are still a Third World country because this change has only occurred over the past 10 years. And unless we pull a Marshall Plan or do what the European Union did for Eastern Europe, they’re never going to be as strong as most Second World nations. It’s our responsibility because they’re on our side of the ocean.
You say you don’t mind “at any cost” because we’re talking about illegals. Yeah, we’ll now when I think illegals, I think Gloria Rubio, whose sense of living quietly and attempting to assimilate in the U.S. is more the rule than the exception. I know there are bad people out there, but any worse than the Americans living here? Show me a credible source that shows illegal immigrants from Mexico as a true threat, and then I might believe you. From what I can tell from my reading, we’re still jumping from 9/11 scares and we’re taking it out on illegal immigrants from Mexico that have nothing to do with it.
As to shooting, you’re the one who suggested we send the National Guard to the southern border. I don’t know what you think trained, armed soldier will do to stop the flow, but I highly doubt it’s passing out stickers.
Yes, there is a difference between idealism and realism. Ideally, I wish everyone had read the books I’ve read about difference between cultures and how misunderstanding different cultures can lead to violence that never needed to happen. Ideally, I wish everyone could understand that the creation of the third world was the result of violent legacy of colonialism. Ideally, I wish everyone had written papers about neo-colonialism. Ideally, I wish Americans would start listening to our other Western counterparts that are warning us not to make the same mistakes they did.
Instead, and realistically, I’m afraid that Americans are going to keep buying into this “There’s a terrorist around the corner, so pull out your guns” propaganda to the detriment of our international legitimacy, our ability to enforce a semblance of change for the better in third world nations, and weakening of the West’s ability to defend freedom and democracy within our own borders. Every lecture I’ve been to at my school from leading thinkers on Islamic Fundamentalism to general International policy, I watch them beg me, “Please, we can’t make these changes in our generation, but you can make them in yours. The violence of America must come to an end.” I will try to end it when I have political power, but I’m not so foolish as to pretend that there will be any positive change in the next 15 years.
It always surprises me when people attack my youth, but then again, it is always much easier to attack a person than the ideas that they are speaking. Thus far, I have not attacked you, Cynic, despite how easy that would be. I ask that you would not repeat your patronization again.
I’m scared of my future, but it’s not the same thing we’re frightened of. I’m afraid of struggling Mexico, which is currently teetering, being forced back to oppression and dictatorship when U.S. policies begin treating Mexicans like criminals and terrorists when they have done little to nothing wrong. Their current economic growth will be sent in reverse because America has tightened its policy to make sure American money stays in the U.S. I am afraid of the growth of the Chicano movement in the U.S., not because we we’re too soft of terrorism, but because the Hispanic community feels like it’s under constant scrutiny by the U.S. government and the American people. It will be a military state, but not for everyone, just for a certain part of the population that happens to look like they’re from the wrong area of the world.
You ask me how much I am willing to sacrifice. In the European Union, the organization frequently refers to a topic called “enlightened self-interest.” That is, they understand that the stability of countries around them will lead, in the long-term, to the security of Europe. So, even though the European Union spends a great deal of time and money focused on issues outside of Europe, they feel it’s justified because it actually is in their self-interest. So, how is helping 50 million illegal immigrants in my “enlightened self-interest”? For the hope of stabilizing a country that is on our borders, potentially lower the costs of border security, offering a larger market closer to our production sites, providing security to our neighbors, promoting equality, democracy, and liberty to Mexico and all her citizens, regaining some level of legitimacy from the international community that America does care for other humans outside of the U.S., setting a standard of democracy that could lead into the rest of central America and possibly Latin America, and forever changing the lives of millions of people… why, I just might be willing to give my life for that.
In my first post I did mispeak; something I corrected in my second.
We are still a free-market because the market for the most part still is able to calculate prices despite limited government interference. In the labor market however, there is a price floor as the always astute Ms.B&W has pointed out which distorts the image of labor's valuation (price) and creates general inefficiency in the labor sector, stemming to all other sectors. (though limited in scope)
As stated in my second post, only an "efficient" economy can maintain full or nearly full employment. Furthermore IMMIGRATION is not the cause of long-run employment. The MINIMUM WAGE does and actually is the creator of UNEMPLOYMENT.
Commentors representing the confusion and distorted understanding of the masses of men and women that make up the American electorate and labor force, can continue to CRY FOUL and DEMAND government action. For as long as you fail to understand the issue, we are all doomed. If the ideology of the electorate is false, if they are uninformed, so will be there politicians.
"No unpopular government can exist in the long-run." (Mises)The government at any time is generally a reflection of the commonly accepted ideas of the times, a reflection of the common masses.
The majority of ills that are currently cried about by the masses, and politicians are the results of the political fix to the previous cries of the public. One policy of government intervention in the free-market is applied to fix the damage created by the first.
1. Immigration is not a drain on the economy. Minimum wage over prices labor, thus causes less people to be hired than could have been at the real value of their productivity.
The next person who says that immigration is a drain on the economy, or implies an economic negative should qualify their response. This is an ECONOMIC fallacy. (OkieCynic/anonymous)
2. There is nothing moral or immoral regarding fencing off the border if it is intended as protection of private property. Private property is the basis of civilization, and civilizations progress or fail based on their acceptance of this concept. Furthermore it could assist in the next decades regarding the prevention of terrorism.
3. There groups of white US citizens in this country that would like to see the US government fall. (West Virginia, Arkansas) The previously mentioned groups think the US government is to powerful and intervenes to much in their lives (in the economy) while the Chicano (thats not really the name of the movement) movement hates the government because they are marginalized and forced into an illegal pocket of society without reason. THOSE ideas are not without merit. (albeit that movement is a fringe movement of wackos, the same uneasiness is felt by the larger population. Read their website. Its funny.)
4. OkieCynic, I've seen you committ a serious logical fallacy nearly a dozen times. You attempt to discredit what Ms.B&W says by referring to her age, her idealism, her gender, and to her family. You give yourself credit because of experience, age, gender, and your same appointed title of "realist".
You believe that her idealism is a fault, and I believe it is a virtue. The vast majority of people will never be exceptional, they will never understand the issues at play hear with a fine understanding, they will never master their own lives. Idealism...the strength to fight for one's most cherished ideas is what drives the minority of men in this world to achieve. The difference to be asserted is that they have a varying degree of truth to them. The fault to be found in a person is whether they are adaptive to new information, whether they choose reform their ideas based on reality as they rediscover it. Realism and idealism are not opposites, they should entirely coincide in harmony.
"Idealy there would be no disadvantaged in this world, no starving in the African nations, no poverty in Latin America. But there is. Life isn't always fair. You were born here not Africa. Why? You weren't born a Kennedy or Melon; why were they?"
Idealy means the best, most just, most perfect situation. Perfect ideas only exist abstractly are useful as mental tools for grasping ideas. We as finite beings live in a world governed by natural laws that we cannot alter, facing these forces with imperfect knowledge, always within a limited amount of time.
The world exists as it does, and buried within human nature seems to exist the tendancy to work to improve one's situation, and satisfy the uneasiness we will feel at any time. Into this world are born human beings who lack the standard human faculties since birth or disaster. These are the truly disadvantaged. No action of theirs no matter how determined can alter their situation. We as human beings tend to be charitable to them if only because their misfortune reminds us of our own mortality. However we owe them nothing. In a world without civlization these men and women would quickly perish. We form civilization because the division of labor benefits everyone and by virtue of the wealth it creates, and the compassion human beings possess for those of our own kind, a safety net is possible. We dont join part in civilization in order to become debtors and slaves to strangers.
However what you mean by disadvantaged..as you later say and imply is poor, unemployed, and homeless. What these words ultimately mean is the portion of the national or world population which has the smallest material wealth.
You describe the very real fact that human beings are born unequal in both body, mind, environment (wealth) as some sort of negative that must be acknowledged and remedied. This is ridiculous. Men are unequal and we cannot even conceive of a state of affairs that is different. Men are unequal, and will always be unequal until they die. All attempts to make man equal have failed, and wasted precious resources that could be used for voluntary advancement of civilization, better providing for all men. The "poverty problem" is akin to stating "that school bus is yellow, how tragic".
You ask how much are will to sacrifice to make the world a better place? The invention of capitalism made it possible for men to prosper without sacrifice to others. Market immigration does not force anyone to sacrifice, on the contrary it is good for an efficient, unhampered economy. It will force men to adapt to new prices and labor circumstances but then again, at no point in time does the human state of affairs remain the same.
The question is not whether we are willing to sacrifice so that immigrants can improve their lives by draining our wealth...the question is whether we will allow voluntary immigration of cheap labor to make us wealthier by eliminating the price floor and mass of regulation in the labor market.
5. Influencing the state of affairs in Mexico for the improvement of their economy must be part of any long term solution. If the American people can be reminded that socialism is a dead idea, perhaps we can export capitalism to Mexico. Mexico does not have to be poor.
This will probably be my last post on this topic. Work is going to make me unavailable.
Let me try to piece this together. People in Western democracies are generally apathetic if not ignorant to issues of governance. Apathy and ignorance are bred by the all-pervading tendancy toward instant self-gratification. Politicians on the other hand are informed of the issues of governance, involved, and maintain their position over the passive masses by throwing scraps of theirs or other people's money right back to them.
Instant self-gratification is the source of widespread apathy and ignorance in western civilization? I can't imagine an industrial society, a free-market (a fragile balance now) continuing to function with the type of general carelessness and lack of forsight of such magnitude. Everything about our society and our desire to fullfill our most urgent wants (self-gratification) is based on long-term planning. Wreckless self-gratification (which is what it must be for such political results) would lead to an entirely different state of affairs. Each successive generation of Americans experiences a general improvement in standards of living, technology, education, stability, and safety that can only be brought about by long-term planning.
Here is the kicker for you. It is self-gratification, the fullfilling of the most urgent wants of an individual by an individual, as soon as possible (time-preference) that leads to man's obsessive long-term planning. Hunter-gatherer man posessing the most primitive tools of economizing could gaze into the uncertain future planning only for the next seasonal migration.
You make these implications regarding western democracies which presupposes the question of whether other peoples are generally apathetic or ignorant of current issues of governance. You will find in an honest search, that people outside western civilization (mainland asia, middle-east, africa, parts of South America)know far less of value in history, economics, and government than westerners. What they do possess, sometimes quantitatively superior, is tainted beyond reasonable objectivity with theocratic and nationalist poison. Iraq is the most highly educated nation in the Middle East, and yet you would be surprised the ridiculous fallacies that they have been taught. The exceptions to the rule in this world being nations in which recent and long-term violence or threat of it keeps apathy at bay. (Kurdistan, Israel)
So the negative to your statement is untrue, placing the whole statement in doubt. As to your statement itself, in a society based on long-term planning for short-term consumption, it remains doubtful indeed whether a wreckless desire for instant self-gratification can be the cause of the failings of our government. Political affairs are not exempt from the human endeavors which have built such wealth and prosperity. Voluntary long term investment of capital into production for ASAP self-gratification has built our economic progress, only for us to fail in the preservation of metaphoric political capital? I think not. The Law of Causation points for me, to somewhere else.
It is not self-gratification which leads to apathy, and apathy to the dark-side (hehheh), but an indefinate, inconsistant, unconnected, and confused ideology in the world which subjugates man to political apathy. What is the cause of this indecisive ideology? Why are men who seek reasonable certainty in the area of ideas unable to find them?
One ideology is that of capitalism, and the other of statism. One creates peace and general prosperity for the whole, while the other builds an institution which robs man of his wealth until there is nothing left to take. Capitalism benefits all those who realize they must labor to survive, and statism benefits only the largest gang which is in power, and the smaller gangs which it bribes with stolen wealth.
Men who wish to grow wealthy and or powerful outside of the merit of the free-market and the government that should be resigned to protecting it, have learned that they can do so at the expense of the people if they convince them it is for their own good or at least confuse them enough that they dont understand what is happening to them. These men both by purpose and implication have prevented men from educating out of their plight through an educational system that they control.
Where as statism was dominant in one form or another for all of man's previous history, capitalism and the inter-related philosophies of human freedom gained ground for a century and thusly gained the world. The thinkers of the European and American Enlightenment however failed to acknowledge a concept of deadly importance. They camed to believe wrecklessly in the idea that truth once discovered would remain self-evident to the common man who's reason they felt was also inviolable now discovered. They believe that true ideas would surive by virtue of their being right, and true. They confused reason with reasonable, and ascribed to the masses a power they never possessed.
Man's actions are governed by natural laws just as the planets are. The source of their thought and action is unknown, but man has a certain nature. In this way, he is rational. His nature is tailored to his survival. Living man is acting man. Human action is purposeful. Man always acts to alleviate his uneasiness and always prefers this satisfaction sooner than later. Yet man is finite and lacks perfect information and certainty of the future, and often chooses the wrong means to alleviate that uneasiness. Man, and the masses are often wrong. The market place however assigns to men position based on how right they are.
There are those who hate the market because of this, and would choose to gain position by circumventing it through the use of government. Many men, those most benefited are fully aware of what they do, and others are mere pawns, but they have created a new statist ideology to at the very least confuse the masses; so they do not understand what is happening to them, nor what is right.
The battleground of this ideology has been the last century. It this confusion, this lack of information, this unknowing of right from wrong, or progress from destruction, of cause and effect that has arrested the masses in the area of their own governance.
So why are men political apathetic and not business/finance apathetic? In truth, all affairs of human action are economic, but abstractly we seperate them in order for our mind's to grasp them. Apathy is a feeling of hopelessness. Ignorance is obliviousness. Why are Americans oblivious and hopeless in the affairs of governance? Because they confused as to what is right and wrong related to laws and the governance of man, because one man in the masses feels alone, and in that aloneness if he knows that something is wrong, he doesn't know what to do about it. For peaceful men, welfare governance is less tangible than his day-to-day economic affairs. As the statist regime grows, it becomes more of a burden, but man is also more confused. Something is wrong in the world, and he doesn't know what. The most tangible draws his attention more, until the day he has nothing else to see.
So apathy and ignorance caused by self-gratification? No. Not hardly.
As to illegal immigrants being a drain on the economy:
You presuppose the existance of welfare policies and the redistribution of income my friend. Welfare policies which by their nature spend increasingly more capital (from taxes) on bureaucratic current consumption as opposed to market investment ARE a real and existing drain on the economy. Structurally and naturally the system destroys wealth, without mentioning the millions of citizens who abuse that system.
All of this exists. Then consider immigrants. Those we allow to be legal at least contribute to this waste, but the 11+ million immigrants we deny legal status to abuse a self-destructive system that the American government and it's citizens created. The idea that, "Only the US government and further, those US citizens who abuse that system, can destroy/waste wealth that was created by others who will never see a dime." I hope that puts the existing sytem in perspective.
Immigration does not drain the economy. Even if we marginalize their position in society by making them illegal, it's not until welfare policies exist including minimum wage, the actual and specific "welfare" program, and tax-payer funded medical care guaranteed to all, that they become an economic drain. By then Americans have already beat them to the spoils.
As far as ideals and idealism...Webster and I are well acquainted though he is an often ignored friend of mine as my spelling professes. However you will notice that idealistic as you define it, "one that places ideals before practical consideration" uses the word practical. You see, this is an important word. Practical does not mean true. Practical does not mean right. Practical does not mean certain. Practical in the most basic way, means "what is practiced" "or what is in practice."
I just spoke on the issue of the ideological battle which has left the electorate mass of men ignorant and apathetic. What do you think is practical for an apathetic and ignorant mass of men?
As I said, if the ideal conforms to reality, or the individual's mind is open to new certainty then idealism is a virtue. The trouble for someone using idealism as a negative, is to prove how that ideal does not conform to reality.
Nothing you said was a direct insult to the other commenter. However, in an intellectual discussion of political policy the burden is on the idea, and not on the environment that someone is raised in, not their gender traits, not their age, and not their idealism. By mentioning these things, by shifting the conversation toward them, you did her a discredit. Indirectly it is an insult to have those things brought into an intellectual. They are a logical fallacy and in more formal circals unprofessional because they not only distort the issue at hand, but they place credibility and motive baggage onto a person regardless of the ideas which should be the focus. (except when there is factual and historical evidence of a lack of credibility, than that is entirely acceptable)
For myself, I felt insulted as well. I'm young. I am damn idealistic. Destroy my ideas, I'm here for nothing less.
Thankyou for trying.
I've got two more days of boredom than I thought I would.
First...on structure.
A logical fallacy is a negative literary device. Such as Ad Hominem (argument against the person), cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation proves causation), post hoc (coincidental correlation), circumstantial ad hominem (attack on personal circumstances, environemnt) ect ect. Instead of acknowledging the logical fallacies in your argument, or at least trying to explain them away, you revert immediately to finding errors in my own writing. While you are at liberty to do so I accept that as surender to my point.
When you immediately move to find "fallacy" in my writing you confuse the literary device "logical fallacy" with Webster’s definition of the word fallacy itself, and begin to look for anything in my writing you consider not true.
You attack my spelling and verbosity. On the issue of spelling I have stated in my own writing that I am well aware that there are spelling and grammatical errors in my writing. Most of the computers I have access to at this location do not have Microsoft Word or a comparable spell checker, and as you have pointed out I write at length. I don't value this discourse enough to spend an extra hour manually spell-checking.
It's quite easy for Republicans and Democrats to argue with each other. They both believe basically the same things, and their divergance are based on whim and preference. They both believe in government intervention in the free-market, they both believe in restricting individuals private lives, and property, the difference lies in degree and method. However when an individual believes strongly in an idea that is entirely opposed to the entire political/media establishment, a discourse on politics is going to require a more thorough exchange then, "I'm right", "No I'm right". These blogs also provide me a literary outlet where my work is mostly physical and outdoors. You may argue for a third party but your words sound so much like the one party system that we already possess.
The spelling isn't perfect, I beat you to it. Lengthy writing? Absolutely. I would prefer you to write even less, if you could guarantee actual substance.
Next. Substance.
Man in western society acts selfishly, greedily, reckless for the immediate moment of satisfaction, and this is the cause of our political problems. THIS is what conclude from your last two posts.
Tell me...how can our recent progress as a civilization compared to the last 8000 years be accounted for if man's nature is so reckless and faulty. I do assume you consider it part of his nature, since you attribute no cause to these characteristics.
Man's actions are always based on relieving uneasiness. He does this both in the long-term and the short-term, and plans the long-term in order to achieve fuller, more continuous satisfaction in the future. This is a rough statement of economic law. (I could cite references from Praxeology and countless textbooks, but then I would be regurgitating right?)
I will not refer to the area of politics. I did that in my last post thoroughly, and you ignored it. Politics is the immediate battlefield of opposite ideologies, and thus will suffer the most confusion, ignorance, and apathy. Political means are the means by which everything else is manipulated.
As far as reckless immediate action on the part of CEO and Corporate Boards go, your implication does not jive with reality. How many corporations failed last year, and how many new ones were created on top of the ones that succeeded from last year? Does economic growth continue in this country at rates far higher than the rest of the western world? Has ever generation of Americans up to the present experienced a standard of living far greater than their predecessors? The answer to all those is a very certain yes.
The free-market is the one economic system in which failure, recklessness, apathy, and ignorance are not rewarded. Chronically erring companies fail unless bailed out by government. Incompetent employees are fired unless protected by government backed Unions. The degree to which business in a free-market can get away with reckless behavior is the degree to which the government regulates, interferes, and uses tax money as a safety net. Absent of government interference the consumer is sovereign over what is produced, how, and at what price and the consumer does not tolerate failure. Lavish advertising will only fool the consumer until the second purchase.
The consumer is ruthless and unforgiving of companies producing the inferior or what does not satisfy them. Yes, just as I said in my last post, man IS a creature of selfish desire, man ALWAYS desires satisfaction as soon as possible, immediately if possible. Sometimes he fails in his pursuit of his satisfactions through bankruptcy and unemployment, but more often than not he does tend to succeed. Man's survival tool is a logical faculty applied to his thinking which he uses to formulate and adjust his action toward the fullfillment of his desires.
The examples you present are the exceptions to the rule, business that failed because of overt mismanagement as opposed to simple failure. For every ENRON there are a thousand companies that are succeeding and providing for consumer satisfaction. (and Enron wasn't even an example of overt mismanagement.) Furthermore the savings rate only refers to savings and spending in a single year, and does not refer to previous years.
Durable goods are said to account for the majority of that spending which make sense considering the rise in housing value in many areas and the automotive discounts offered by major companies. The reason why a person saves is to buy “stuff” in the future; people don’t save just to save. Last year turned out to be a good year in general to buy cars and tvs.
The average family? My parent’s hand picked the city and school system they wanted me to grow up in. The picked a place with a big yard and lots of trees to climb on before I was able to walk. My dad was a cop, and because of the problems that him being a cop in the same town that I will be going to high school in, he chose instead to be employed in a nearby town. My parents started a savings account before I could walk that helped me buy a car when I was about 16. My family has had uninterrupted medical insurance for my entire life. My family arranged before I could walk, to use our neighbors tornado-shelter, an arrangement we maintained until we moved years later. They enrolled me in preschool to prepare me for kindergarten; they enrolled me in Cub Scouts to prepare me for Boy Scouts. I knew every relative of mine in Kansas and half as many outside the state. During my adolescence I had never faced hunger, storms without available shelter, a difficult to treat disease, or experienced a near-death moment. I am only referring to the first years of my life, and the most general and easy to recollect planning. Do you realize…the stability, security, and wealth that we possess in America? If you’re as old as your constant reminders lead me to believe, you must see the contrast. One-hundred years ago it was not uncommon for children to die at birth. Survival to the age of 8 wasn’t highly certain. At 8, children worked for the good of the family wherever they could find employment so that they could possess what little stability and security that was possible. The most infections could easily be deadly. Millions starved or hovered just at the subsistence level. It was uncommon for men to never set foot outside the city of county of their birth.
Our progress as a civilization is based entirely on desire for self-gratification. IT is the only thing that could drive us so far, and so unrelentingly toward such progress. A century ago only the greatest imaginations could envision man-made spaceships and in 2008 the first civilian company will start low-orbital civilian space travel. We have experienced an expansion of human capability greater and more spectacular in the last 150 years, than all of the thousands of centuries of human effort and blood; it’s cause is the brief separation of state and economy and the ideology that created it that occurred from 1780-1880. We have continued to increase government intervention every year since, and our progress will decrease accordingly.
How can I better describe for you the difference in man’s means separated by 300 years? How do you explain medical insurance and MRIs to a feudal serf? How do you begin to compare American policemen to the King’s sheriffs? The idea that evil spirits actually aren’t the cause of infection? That monarchs aren’t chosen by god and possess the right to kill, maim, imprison, or starve all those they see fit? Give me a break. The average lifespan has been doubled! So how then do you describe our progress? As an accident like Marx’s brand of material historicism? Simply as few side benefits insignificant compared to all the evils created by man?
I described in my previous post how apathy and ignorance in politics and to a lesser degree, economic life, are not created by man’s innate desire for instant gratification. They occur in spite of individual man’s determined drive to satisfy himself, to the degree that a realistic ideology of life and human interaction are subverted by false philosophy of statism and anti-life. The creation of capital, capital goods and production infrastructure, consumer goods, and advertising all designed for the temporary satisfaction of the maximum of man’s desires requires that man labor, consume, and save. All of which requires planning. The state of human affairs that would be created by a self-destructive, hedonistic nature does not resemble the world that we live in. However the more that these anti-human ideologies win against capitalism, the less responsibility that man takes for himself because of government, the more government interferes with the economy, the more man will act in opposition to his productive and rational nature; man as finite, imperfect, in certain, oft wrong as he is.
YOU continue to state that the public is apathetic and ignorant! So what? We all agree. Yet, you present no cause for this situation devoid of man’s vile, selfish, and greedy nature. You present the most rudimentary pop-culture exceptions within the US economy; how brave of you to attack big business, you crusader against the status quo…you. In the long-run mankind cannot escape its nature, and all attempts to create societies based opposite of man’s nature have utterly failed. There is no solution for your evaluation of human affairs. I argue that man’s selfish nature is a VIRTUE. I see an inherent misunderstanding of capitalism, basic economics, causation, and human nature present in your arguments.
I started to respond to the rest of your conversation, the parts that only took away from the discussion, and then I erased it. You mentioned that I might be offended. I remembered how little I care. So I’ll show you ---
Post a Comment
<< Home