Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

In Defense of Racism

My defense of racism is quite narrow.  I'm not going to try to defend any sort of institutional racism enforced by national or regional governments like slavery or Jim Crow laws.  That level of racism is unconscionable. Instead, I'm going to focus on the individual, and argue that the primary person the individual racist hurts is himself; and groups of racist individuals, themselves.

In the past I've pointed out that I'm a "romantic racist."  That is, I find Caucasian women more attractive than women of other races.  I call this racism where it counts the most and statistically, it seems that a lot of people of all races suffer from this particular variant of racism. This puts me clearly at level 6 in Bret's Hierarchy of Racism (BHR)tm. Because of my racism, I've reduced my range of opportunities by billions of women. Bummer! On the other hand, what have these billions of women lost? At worst, access to 1 decrepit old guy. In other words, nothing at all. Certainly in this case, racism hurt the racist and nobody else.

Let's say I move up the BHR from level 6 to level 4 and I discriminate, based on race, as either a prospective employee or a prospective employer.  It's the same thing as in the romantic version.  I've substantially reduced the pool of prospective companies or employees and have therefore damaged my prospects as an employee or my company's staff.  Nobody else has really lost anything at all, just access to one employee out of billions or one position at one company out of millions. The impact nearly completely only hurts the racist.

One thing that I find interesting in the racism debate is that in Japan, racism is perfectly legal (note the "JAPANESE People ONLY" in the sign below) and moderately widespread.



But there were plenty of people in Japan willing to take my Yen and so I was able to eat quite well (I love Japanese food, especially Japanese food in Japan).  The vendor pictured above (hypothetically) refused my business but his competitors were quite happy to serve me.  His loss was their gain.  His racism mainly hurt him. Note that his competitors may well be racist too, but for them, profit trumped racism, and that's a good thing.

It's an important point that people trade to make profit and trade brings people together. Indeed, economists use that line of thinking to cast doubt on the alleged gender and racial gaps in wages.  Why would a greedy businessman pass up the opportunity to hire a cheaper woman or minority if the return-on-investment of hiring them was higher than hiring a white male?  Greedy businessmen hiring women and minorities would then drive wages up to the point of having the same ROI as white men.  In other words, you can be greedy or racist/sexist but not both, or, more accurately, for any given hiring decision one motivator inherently trumps the other.  As long as enough businessmen are greedy (and it doesn't take many), wages reach parity.

It's hard to know exactly how pervasive racism is in Japan, but for the purposes of a thought experiment, assume that it's universal; all Japanese feel superior to everybody else. So who does that affect?

In this case, it probably affects the whole world by a little bit since it probably makes trade more difficult. But this is no different than a government restricting trade for whatever reasons governments restrict trade (possibly some of those reasons for some governments are racist).  And Japan would be the most adversely affected in this hypothetical example because it would have more difficulty getting crucial imports such as food and energy.

So now let's say there was a large immigration of whites into this hypothetically ultra-racist Japan.  Let's say those whites were totally racist against the Japanese as well as the Japanese being totally racist against the whites.  However, let's say there was no government institutionalized racism - everyone is still equal before the law.  Then it would be like two separate countries with restricted trade.  It would be better if the racism didn't exist, but it wouldn't be that big of a deal.  Everybody could still do pretty well in their portion of the resulting highly segregated society.

But what if the whites who immigrated started with nothing, perhaps because they were fleeing severe oppression somewhere else? Would they be stuck with nothing forever?  No, they wouldn't. There are a few points to consider for this argument:
  • Once upon a time, wealth and productivity were mostly based on land ownership.  That's simply not true anymore. Looking at the world's wealthiest people, very few, if any, are wealthy because they own a lot of land (for example Jobs, Gates, Ellison, etc.).  So the fact that the white's start out owning no land is immaterial.
  • There are several examples of countries and their peoples starting out with nothing and within two generations becoming wealthy with some help but also some hindrance from the rest of the world. Taiwan is good example.  Just after WWII, their GDP per capita was less than one-tenth that of the United States.  Now they're approaching parity with the United States.  They had help from the United States but a lot of hindrance from the mainland Chinese.  South Korea and Singapore (and Hong Kong to some extent) are similar examples.
  • Taiwan is a small speck of a country with no significant natural resources.  Innovation and hard work were the main factors of their success in building a wealthy society from nothing.
The example of Taiwan (and others) show that a people can pretty much start with nothing and catch up with the first world within a couple of generations.  Thus the whites in the hypothetical example could have caught up with the Japanese even starting with nothing.  Racism by itself, even group racism, as long as it's not institutionalized, cannot keep a people down.  They can always rise to the task and make their own productive and wealthy future.

Even in the case of institutionalized racism, the racist is also hurt according to the economist Tyler Cowen:
I would suggest that most living white Americans would be wealthier had this nation not enslaved African-Americans and thus most whites have lost from slavery too, albeit much much less than blacks have lost. For instance it is generally recognized that freer and fairer polities tend to be wealthier for most of their citizens. (We may disagree about what “fair” means for many issues, but slavery and its legacy are obviously unfair.) 
More specifically, many American whites benefited from hiring African-American labor at discrimination-laden discounted market prices, but many others lost out because it was more costly to trade with African-Americans. That meant fewer good customers, fewer eligible employees, fewer possible business partners, fewer innovators, and so on, all because of slavery and subsequent discrimination. The wealth-destroying effects are surely much larger here, even counting whites alone. And the longer the time horizon, the more likely the dynamic benefits from trade will outweigh the short-run benefits from discriminating against some class of others. 
Empirically, I do not think whites in slavery-heavy regions have had especially impressive per capita incomes.  And a lot of the economic catch-up of the American South came only when the region abandoned Jim Crow. 
In every case, the racist is always hurt.  In the case of non-institutionalized racism, the racist is hurt the most.

Given all that, I've concluded that calling someone racist is sort of like calling someone fat.  Just like being racist, eating too much primarily hurts the person doing the eating.  If the person's not fat, then calling him fatso is pretty silly.  If he is fat, it's just a childish and mostly meaningless and unhelpful insult.

440 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 440   Newer›   Newest»
erp said...

You find these studies completely believable. Of course, you do.

Black names and white names?

Some examples please.

This one looks to be a lot of fun.

Hey Skipper said...

Now you say that there are still few blacks hired, and you attribute that to the Great Society. Ockham would say that is not the least parsimonious option.

I don't know what Ockham or his descendants did to you to warrant your continual abuse.

The most parsimonious explanation is the simplest one that encompasses all the known facts.

It is an undeniable fact, not merely something I say, that the percentage of black pilots has remained stuck at 2% for at least the last 20 years. So much for your "the trend is up". It isn't.

And it is also an undeniable fact that all blacks who are qualified get accepted into military pilot training. Unfortunately, I only have first hand experience on which to base this claim.

The Great Society decimated black civic and cultural capital: its consequences, which Ockham would insist upon including, means that blacks growing up in fatherless families and subjected to shambolic education systems are extraordinarily unlikely to get through the first gate: a college degree.

There is the evidence of several studies showing that identical resumes submitted with 'white' names get a far better response than with 'black' names.


Read this.



Hey Skipper said...

Now you say that there are still few blacks hired, and you attribute that to the Great Society. Ockham would say that is not the least parsimonious option.

I don't know what Ockham or his descendants did to you to warrant your continual abuse.

The most parsimonious explanation is the simplest one that encompasses all the known facts.

It is an undeniable fact, not merely something I say, that the percentage of black pilots has remained stuck at 2% for at least the last 20 years. So much for your "the trend is up". It isn't.

And it is also an undeniable fact that all blacks who are qualified get accepted into military pilot training. Unfortunately, I only have first hand experience on which to base this claim.

The Great Society decimated black civic and cultural capital: its consequences, which Ockham would insist upon including, means that blacks growing up in fatherless families and subjected to shambolic education systems are extraordinarily unlikely to get through the first gate: a college degree.

There is the evidence of several studies showing that identical resumes submitted with 'white' names get a far better response than with 'black' names.


Read this.



Harry Eagar said...

You had to go pretty far back and scroll past quite a bit from the Bureau to find that, didn't you?

More recent studies:

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Hey Skipper said...

You had to go pretty far back and scroll past quite a bit from the Bureau to find that, didn't you?

Nope, very first page. And contemporary with your cited "studies".

The difference, of course, is that your "studies" only show that something happened, but make absolutely no attempt to explain why.

Completely unlike my cite. Which, I suspect, you did not read.

Because otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered with the two you put up.

Harry Eagar said...

This never happened:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/08/nc-housing-official-wont-resign-over-pro-confederate-anti-black-facebook-posts/

Anonymous said...

That Justice Clarence Thomas is white. How typical of the GOP to inject race in to such things!

Harry Eagar said...

This never happened either.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-12/ebola-spreads-to-sierra-leone-capital-of-freetown-as-deaths-rise.html

Hey Skipper said...

Your point being?

Harry Eagar said...

This never happened either (from a holy roller hone school American history text):

"Ethnic pride as taught in the home or in one’s neighborhood or community is good, but it is important to remember that we are all Americans. The desire to return minority peoples to their tribal roots and religions, a pre-Christian status, is called multiculturalism. Some have seen multiculturalism as a new form of segregation that will keep minority groups from becoming part of American culture."

erp said...

Hint: The quote uses the word, "Christian" secret code for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.

Actually the quote was quite easy on multi-culti the intent of which is to divide us into warring groups all demanding more of the welfare pie than the others get.

Hey Skipper said...

This never happened:

One of Sands’ tweets, from June 4, 2012 read “I just don’t understand how anyone but straight white men can vote Republican. What kind of delusional rhetorical does one use?”

Sands is a black female.


(And an FEC employee violating the Hatch Act).

Harry Eagar said...

This never happened either:

http://wonkette.com/555255/smirking-congressidiot-curt-clawson-welcomes-exotic-foreigners-to-america-where-theyre-actually-top-u-s-officials

Hey Skipper said...

Harry:

What the heck is your point?

Near as I can tell, Congressman Clawson showed up unprepared, or his calendar was screwed up, or something like that.

Seems pretty small beer compared to Reid's ravings, Pelosi's manifest stupidity, or Obama's promises that were either the product of fraud, or impenetrable stupidity.

And Wonkette on things like that which really matter?

[crickets]

Why you continue to cite that foul, frothing, hysterical web site where credibility goes to die is a real mystery.

erp said...

The Wonkette and Harry share a point of view.

Harry Eagar said...

And this never happened:

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/goper-asks-secessionists-rise-national

Gotta love the forthright and patriotic response of the chairman.

My point? Well, it was not originally to find someone who would defend Clawson, because I didn't think such a person existed. You learn something new very day, though.

Hey Skipper said...

Defend Clawson against what?

That Wonkette thing is a nasty, context-free, hysterical, piece of sh*t. Which, BTW, is utterly typical.

Who knows, the guy may be a complete moron. But on the available evidence, we know nothing more than he said something dumb in public.

And that's it.

If you, or that spittle spewing Doktor Zoom, had looked just a little further, you would have seen this:

Update: While Clawson's office did not respond to a request for comment, the congressman apologized in a statement to USA Today later on Friday. "I made a mistake in speaking before being fully briefed and I apologize. I'm a quick study, but in this case I shot an air ball," he said.

Oh, the humanity.

How much has Wonkette had to say about Biden's bloviations, Reid's rants, Pelosi's idiocy, or Obama's prevarication?

[crickets]

BTW, did the Tea Party say "Let him die?" Was response to that Super Bowl ad racist?

(Among other howlers that progressives have trotted out, and then promptly memhole when called out.)

Completely unlike Clawson, who copped to his screw up.

Howard said...

Bet Clawson couldn't do this much harm even if he tried.

erp said...

Howard,

I've been saying the same thing, albeit not so eloquently, for decades, but then I'm a racist and Williams is an Uncle Tom, so we can't be taken seriously by the Harry's of this world.

Harry Eagar said...

Oh, he was partially briefed? I'd have liked to have been a fly on the all in that briefing room.

"Dark skin + funny name = furriner."

Like that?

I believe the non-pology was a lie.

I think the jury is out on how quick a study he is. But he has a grrreat smirk, best in the business, wouldn't you say?

Howard said...

erp,

You're off the hook. If you go to WWs homepage you'll find a gift.

erp said...

Harry you call that a smirk, this is a smirk complete with pursed lips.

Howard, my European ancestors were slaves (of the Turks) themselves far longer than black Africans were slaves of southern planters in the U.S.

erp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Skipper said...

"Dark skin + funny name = furriner."

Like that?


Ummm. No. New guy on his first day, or close to it. Probably goes to a thousand meetings a day, and is trying to be friendly and remember names. Got a little overwhelmed by the schedule.

Like that.

Most definitely not like the brainless vituperation that spews daily from Wonkette.

I'd say that Ace of Spades HQ is as individualistic as Wonkette is collectivist.

Compare and contrast.

So unlike progressives, who bemerd themselves almost daily baselessly defaming others and never, not even once, apologizing when they get it wrong*, I think his apology accurately describes what went on.

Why? Because I have no information on hand to think otherwise.

Progressives, however, are happy to spew spittle in its absence.

--

*BTW, did the Tea Party say "Let him die?" Was response to that Super Bowl ad racist?

Harry Eagar said...

Now, if ever there was a moment when a Republican in Congress should have interrupted on a point of personal privilege, that was it.

Even without the racist gaffe and the smirk, the substance of Clawson's statement is cringe-worthy. He expected with his smooth move to have 2 officials of the GOI commit to a rookie congressman to change (if indeed a change would have been necessary) national policy? I am sure that when Clawson finds his briefs he will continue to make a spectacle of himself.

Anonymous said...

According to Mr. Eagar, this didn't happen.

Harry Eagar said...

In real fact, Eagar hasn't said anything about impeachment; not since the 1990s, anyway.

Possibly you are mistaking me for my far, far right cousin Cherilyn.

And in actual fact, nobody was prevented from doing anything. I noticed you again misstated the facts about the IRS a day or so ago here, but it is hardly worth the effort to call each one.

Anonymous said...

The second has just as much to do with what you say as your links have to do with what Skipper says. I thought you'd moved on to "stupid things said by Members of Congress".

As for the first link, in actual fact many people were prevented from political activity during the 2012 elections because of the IRS. I have yet notice providing any evidence at all to dispute the claims I link to about the IRS. Is it your contention that those emails are fake, that Lerner didn't actually write them?

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] I noticed you again misstated the facts ...

Now that is rich.

Even without the racist gaffe ...

What, exactly (as in a direct quote) did he say that was racist, and why?

Harry Eagar said...

What, precisely, was someone prevented from doing?

Skipper, is it your contention that anything less detailed than a speech by Pitchfork Ben Tillman cannot be racist? I refer you back to the clip by Clawson. The whole thing sracist, start to finish.

Anonymous said...

Legally engaging in political activity in the run up to an election.

Clovis said...

Harry,


It would be racist if Clawson was aware those two were in fact American. Do you think he actually did know and the whole thing was a joke by him?

Hey Skipper said...

Skipper, is it your contention that anything less detailed than a speech by Pitchfork Ben Tillman cannot be racist?

My contention, manifestly over proven once again, is that you have utterly no idea what the word means. Yet, despite that rather fundamental shortcoming, continue to hurl it promiscuously nonetheless.

Of course, I could be wrong. If so, by all means, give us the definition of the word "racism", and quote what he said, or implied, that fills it.

I'm betting you won't because you can't.

The joke is on you.

[Clovis:] It would be racist if Clawson was aware those two were in fact American.

I'm not sure how that follows.

In a previous life, I worked with Indians. In this life, I just returned from India a few days ago. There are plenty of Indian-Indians who are indistinguishable from American-Indians, because Indian-Indians speak excellent, if accented, English.

Now, I know that in Harry's World, that makes me a racist h8r, but in this time space continuum, not a word that Clawson said was even remotely racist.

All he did was score an own-goal. Period.

Progressives insisting otherwise only shows how toxic their "thinking" is.

Anonymous said...

All;

Is this racist - Florida Congressman: “White People” To Blame for Collapse of Amnesty in Congress?

Clovis said...

Skipper,

My point was that, if Clawson knew they were actually Americans working in the US administration and still made a theater of treating them as Indian envoys, that would fit my definition of a racist joke, and one not even fun.



Clovis said...

AOG,

That's a good question, and harder to answer with the link you gave, where there is only a short quote of Hastings with nothing else more for the reader to get context than Adams own partial view.

OTOH, conservatives, of which the majority is white and old (much like most of our friends in this weblog), are known to make up a good part of the people against amnesty. Is it racism to point out that fact?

erp said...

Clovis, yes on your part. Your are saying that if the people swarming across our border with the smirking compliance of the leadership in our country were white Swedes, we old conservatives would think it was a swell idea?

If that is really your opinion, then you are even further off the track than I originally thought.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

When used as an accusation and not just an observation as was done there, yes it is.

Let me give you a flipped example - one year the Chicago Tribune decided to do a story on ever child killed by gun violence in Chicago. Turned out, every one of them was black. This was widely condemned as "racist" for that reason.

erp said...

aog, the argument there for racism would be that the editors knew all the murdered kids were black and should not have run the story.

Clovis said...

Erp,

On your Swedes example, I did say no such thing. You can actually read my last post again to see what I've written, and try harder being focused on text interpretation, as opposed to subtext divination.


AOG,

I can not see racism in either my affirmation above nor in your Chicago Tribune example. And, back to your initial point, not in Hastings few words there quoted too.

Hey Skipper said...

My point was that, if Clawson knew they were actually Americans working in the US administration and still made a theater of treating them as Indian envoys, that would fit my definition of a racist joke.

I have several problems with that. First, since India is a country, the joke would be nationalist. Second, those from India have never been subjected to any particular impositions based upon their "race" (which for many, BTW, is Caucasian). Finally, there are a couple very popular TV shows in the US (Big Bang Theory, The Simpsons) with major characters from India who exhibit stereotypical Indian behavior (accent, role of parents, etc.). Nobody has *ever* accused those shows of being racist. So I think it a stretch that even if Clawson was making a little theatre, it could somehow be racist.

OTOH, conservatives, of which the majority is white and old (much like most of our friends in this weblog), are known to make up a good part of the people against amnesty. Is it racism to point out that fact?

That is actually a pretty good question, and ironically put.

Americans have resisted immigration from China, Italy, Germany, and, well, just about anywhere that didn't look similar to the US.

Which is just about everywhere.

The obvious answer is that Americans are racist; no doubt, that is part of it, maybe even a large part, since resistance is directly proportional to difference in appearance. A sudden wave of Swedish immigration wouldn't create the same resistance as a wave from Africa. Therefore, Americans = racist h8rs.

True, but. There's more to this, and those, immigration schlamozzles than just race. A wave of Swedish immigration would consist of people with a culture roughly similar to the US. From Africa, no so much. Yes, I'm sure that for many people, resistance is in no small part predicated on already-too-many-of-them. But there is no denying that illegal immigrants from Latin America are bringing with them a different culture that creates a lot of problems for areas where the immigrants congregate.

It shouldn't be racist to point that out. Nor should it be racist to point out that Americans would greatly resist mass immigration from, say, the Gaza Strip, or Saudi Arabia.

IMHO, the immediate costs of immigration from Latin America are felt locally, the benefits nationally. And by the third generation, Latin American immigration is a huge benefit to the US. And, at the same time, a huge cost to Latin America.

In the meantime, though, there are a heck of a lot of problems, none of which are anything like first hand knowledge to the political elites accusing the rest of being racists.

My first job out of high school was working in a factory making adult tricycles. The vast majority of employees there were Mexicans. Based on that experience, I know a great deal about racism.

Unlike Harry.

erp said...

Skipper, you are confusing legal immigration with people sneaking over the border.

Big difference. As the daughter of immigrants I fully support it as an integral part of the fabric of We, the People, but I don't support tacitly and now even openly encouraging people to break our laws and then demand that they are taken in and cared for at tax payers expense.

You are right that many years ago people were prejudiced against immigrants and native blacks, but although it isn't completely gone, it sure has been mitigated.

The debacle taking place on our southern border is unacceptable and insupportable and is being done for political gain, not for humanitarian purposes.

erp said...

Entire World Exploiting our borders.

Hey Skipper said...

erp:

My point is irrespective of legality, because that introduces circularity into the argument.

If the only sources of immigration were, say, Canada and Europe, we might well not have any immigration laws.

To the extent that is true, the existence of those laws could be viewed as racist; given history, that is certainly plausible.

However, restrictive immigration laws can also be pragmatic, just as resistance to forced integration was also pragmatic (and racist, too).

Here, though, you have to wonder which foot the shoe belongs on. It is entirely possible that leftists demand amnesty for racist reasons: they expect brown people to vote for them.

Also, it is worth noting, although Piketty did not, that immigration contributes greatly to income inequality. So an amnesty would spike inequality, which progressives would use, in turn, to justify their lootism.

---

Harry, ball's in your court.

erp said...

Skipper, it was my impression that our immigration laws had to do fairness, i.e., each country had a quota (I think the Anglosphere, as family so to speak, is in a different category and although I myself am not an Anglo (I'm sure Clovis would think differently) I still enthusiastically support that exception.

You correctly state the reason the current crisis (I just read there are intruders from more than 14 different countries being welcomed at our borders carrying with them diseases not seen in this country in decades, if not centuries) was orchestrated.

I might be amenable to a limited amnesty after careful identification of those wishing to join us, but blanket opening of the border is the kind of madness only, to use your word, “progs” could even conjure up.

Is there some new kind of immunization only available in lefty hangouts where they can arm themselves against these diseases? And even putting aside health issues, what about the work-a-day brigands and cutthroats and their big brothers real terrorists with big boy weapons.

Are they so stupid they think they can’t be reached in their aeries?

This is personal for me. I just got the gift of a new grand baby on Thursday morning. This one is number seven. She’s is a gorgeous little girl whose parents are doing everything they can to keep her healthy and strong, as are the parents of the other six ranging from 12 year old triplets to a half French young woman of 22.

They are the planet’s future so I sure hope there is someone on a metaphorical* white horse out there who can save us from what’s coming.

* No affiliation, literal or figurative, with the Caucasian race.

Anonymous said...

Is this racism, attacking a candidate for having a wife who is ethnically Asian?

Clovis said...

Skipper,

----
So I think it a stretch that even if Clawson was making a little theatre, it could somehow be racist.
----
Isn't the essence of racism to rule someone inferior due to his different origins?

For as I read such a joke, it means those two Americans, no matter their contributions and hard work, would be lesser Americans because they were not like Clawson. Coming the joke from no one less than a Congressman - a representative of the People - would only give more weight to such a message.

Thinking about it, if that's not racism, it is at least a treason of the very ideals associated to the American ethos. Which one you prefer Clawson's hypothetical joke to be?

---
A sudden wave of Swedish immigration wouldn't create the same resistance as a wave from Africa.
---
Quite interestingly, were I saying so, Erp would accuse me of being "even further off the track than" she "originally thought".

---
Yes, I'm sure that for many people, resistance is in no small part predicated on already-too-many-of-them.
---
Well, thanks for the candor. For that's a point AOG conveniently ignored when complaining that Hastings "accusation" would be a racist act.

---
IMHO, the immediate costs of immigration from Latin America are felt locally, the benefits nationally.
---
Yet, there you have the said immigration vilified everywhere, including in this very forum.

All those illegal immigrants are the main reason the US can be such a rich economy and still have access to internal cheap labor,
which makes a lot of difference for its competitiveness in world markets.

The collateral effect, which is to deal with an influx of people with low educational levels and poor life management habits, ends up still a very good deal for your country so far.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Isn't the essence of racism to rule someone inferior due to his different origins?

Apparently not, as that is what Hastings did and you said "not proven".

As for me ignoring things, you say there's no enough context, and then you claim I ignored something that's not there. So, which is it - use context or ignore it? Which ever one I do, you claim it's wrong.

Clovis said...

AOG,

In what sense Hastings did so? Please break it down to me how anyone is ruled inferior at that short quote there.

As for context, I imagined that my complaining you did not provide one would be an invitation for you to do so. My mistake if it did not work out that way.

Anonymous said...

Hastings claim is essentially that his opponents can't see the correctness of Hasting's point of view because they're white.

Clovis said...

AOG,

I honestly can not draw that conclusion from that quote alone.

Yet, taking your interpretation for granted, how can I conclude that he rules whites to be inferior when not agreeing with him?

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Isn't the essence of racism to rule someone inferior due to his different origins?

For as I read such a joke, it means those two Americans, no matter their contributions and hard work, would be lesser Americans because they were not like Clawson.


Did we watch the same clip?

I saw a Congressman spouting pro-forma argle bargle at people he thought were some sort of trade representatives from India.

If you are trying to get a racism angle out of that, it is hard to find where a mistaken identity riff on Americans being official representatives of the Indian government is some kind of insult. That's why I don't accept your hypothetical: even if Clawson was playing the part of a bamboozled congresscritter, what he said wasn't an insult to anyone or anything.

Well, thanks for the candor. For that's a point AOG conveniently ignored when complaining that Hastings "accusation" would be a racist act.

Immigration policy is a bit fraught. The reason we have immigration quotas is, originally, racist.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. Race and culture often overlap. I have no problem with, say, Somalians because they are black. I do, however, have a very significant problem with Somalians who think they get to impose their cultural beliefs on Americans.

[Hey Skipper:] IMHO, the immediate costs of immigration from Latin America are felt locally, the benefits nationally.

[Clovis:] Yet, there you have the said immigration vilified everywhere, including in this very forum.


Not that I recall. I don't think immigration is vilified everywhere; I don't know of anyone who thinks it a bad thing, full stop. I do know lots of people who think uncontrolled borders are a very, very bad idea.

I agree. And I also agree with them that illegal immigrants broke the law to be here, and shouldn't be rewarded for doing so, because it makes a mockery of all the immigrants who did it legally.

I'm in favor of liberal immigration, and I'm in favor of secure borders that ensure all immigration is documented.

All those illegal immigrants are the main reason the US can be such a rich economy and still have access to internal cheap labor, which makes a lot of difference for its competitiveness in world markets.

IMHO, illegal immigration suppresses the wages of unskilled US citizens for jobs that are by their very nature local. It makes no difference for US international competitiveness if Americans hire illegals rather than citizens to mow their lawns. I have no idea what the tradeoff is between illegals driving wages down, and the entrepreneurial dynamism work ethic illegals bring with them. But in assessing that balance, it is worth noting that none of US produce gets harvested without illegals.

erp said...

Skipper, while we lived in rural Vermont, I was pretty friendly with people who had an apple orchard and hired Jamaican temps to help with the harvest. They and their fellow growers were very careful to follow the law.

We always knew the apple cider would start flowing when we saw the smiling faces of the Jamaicans around town. It’s hard to imagine a place more different from Jamaica than Vermont, but it didn’t seem to bother them. I never saw friendlier people with bigger smiles than these guys and their spoken language was so melifluous. It’s hard to believe it was English.

I don't consider them illegals and here in Florida I know farmers use temps as well. It wouldn't surprise me if these folks followed the rules about using temporary workers as well.

It’s to the benefit or the workers as well as the growers that farm workers follow the law. It’s not unusual for undocumented workers to spend the season working and the end get paid nothing for their pains.

A lawful society benefits all its parts.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
What about the comments on McConnell's wife? Or claiming a white is unable to teach a particular class entirely because he is white?
---
They are clearly racist positions. And IMHO, demonstrably different from that Hastings example.

Harry Eagar said...

As usual,erp's 'impressions' of how American history went are comically wrong. The point of the 1924 exclusions were not 'to be fair' but to keep out olive-skinned people and Jews. (Too late in the case of my Italian ancestors who were already here).

Among the people intended to be kept out were Albanians. The barriers were not perfect, thus we have erp defending laws intended to oppress erp's family.

Go figure.

American history really is quite interesting; worth learning about.

erp said...

No immigration plan would please you lefties other the non-one in effect now. BTW are you fostering any of the “refugees” flown to Hawaii and collecting the unbelievable fee of $6,000 per child and $8,000 per adult per month we generous taxpayers are paying? Got to hand to you compassionates, you do know how to party – on our dime.

Immigration was a political football in 1924 as it is was before and since and that act only lasted three years followed by a ragtag series of other acts. It’s not a surprise you object to Anglos getting preferential treatment. I believe you are self-loathing, but it’s a real news flash that there were Italian immigrants among our Southern landed gentry.

When one’s vision isn’t skewed by seeing everything through a leftwing prism, it’s amazing what can be seen, for instance, I’m surprised that you as a famous historian don’t know there is scarcely a place on earth with purer Caucasian skin than Albania isolated as it was from outside influences for millennia. Our skin is as white as the driven snow, so lefties were far off the mark if we were being kept out on that account. Luckily we not only have lily-white skin, but we’re pretty smart and lucky too. My grandfather got here well before 1924.

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
I saw a Congressman spouting pro-forma argle bargle at people he thought were some sort of trade representatives from India.
---
Yeah, I saw that too, and have no reason to believe it was not a mistake. Hence my hypotheticals were clearly marked with many "if"s at every point.

---
even if Clawson was playing the part of a bamboozled congresscritter, what he said wasn't an insult to anyone or anything.
---
Right, nothing he said was an insult at all, we again agree. It would be the intent of treating a fellow citizen as otherwise that would be the insult itself, if there was such intent. Please pay attention again to the "if".

---
The reason we have immigration quotas is, originally, racist.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.
---
Sure, racism probably played a strong role in making many populations out there to survive throughout history. To label racism as such a bad thing is a modern trend. And for modern reasons, the world today would operate in very poor ways if racism kept being practiced as in past.

So back to my initial point, when someone like Hastings points out race as a factor influencing opinions and positions by a large group, that's not racism. If I had to accuse him of something, it would be of focusing on the boringly obvious. As is clearly demonstrated by AOG reactions here, Hastings is not helping his cause in any way by arguing race at this point.

---
I don't think immigration is vilified everywhere; I don't know of anyone who thinks it a bad thing, full stop.
---
I was talking about *illegal* immigration, and I stand by my point that it is vilified everywhere in your country.


---
I'm in favor of secure borders that ensure all immigration is documented.
---
No, you are not.

I can't really take you seriously on that. Nor you or Erp, or AOG. It is really, really easy to locate and deport any illegal immigrant these days. It is trivial: you require every citizen to register with the Federal Govt. to make an ID card. Anyone illegal is forbidden to have one, and anyone not having an ID card is deported. It is the cheapest solution ever, adopted in too many countries out there. I can make it happen with a risible fraction of the money you spend with your border patrolling system.

Yet, the most rich and modern nation on Earth is unable to do it? As I said, I can't take you seriously.

The reason it won't happen is not any babbling about ID's being anti-American. It is that, ultimately, illegal immigration was, is, and will keep being good business for your country.


---
MHO, illegal immigration suppresses the wages of unskilled US citizens for jobs that are by their very nature local. It makes no difference for US international competitiveness if Americans hire illegals rather than citizens to mow their lawns.
---
Only if you no longer believe in supply and demand dynamics. If the guy doing the lawn was getting paid more, from whose pockets that money would come? So if the guy paying for the lawn, and everything else done by illegal cheap immigrants, now needs more money to keep things running, who would pay him more? Follow the lead and tell me where it ends.

Harry Eagar said...

Unbelievable is the right word.

erp said...

So, Harry, ya getting even more than the stated price per head?

erp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harry Eagar said...

I have frequently asked you, erp, where you get your misinformation; and you never respond. But now I know where you got this.

Aside from misstating what your source said, you used a source that in Hawaii is known to everyone as a crank, a sort of tropical World Nut Daily.

I am completely unsurprised.

erp said...

Harry, I try as far as possible to supply links, not surprisingly, those I link to are telling a different story than the lunatic left sites you frequent.

Instead of being snide, why not link to a quote where the governor of Maryland did another 180 and now doesn't want to get on the tax payer funded gravy train for "refugee" handouts.

BTW - this whole fiasco is made even more tragic by the fact that real refugees have been denied entry in to the U.S. because their plight doesn't help Dems get elected.

I don't provide misinformation, so your requests for me to provide sources obviously can't be honored.

I even provided a verbatim reply to my inquiry about changes in the sale of real estate on the islands from a friend who returned to the U.S. recently after a lifetime in a high position in Hawaiian public life.

You may not have liked that your machinations were made public, but can't dispute the facts. You and some of your fellow compassionates forced a change in the real estate laws from the advantage of the aborigines to your own advantage – now you are one of rich 1%ers. Way to go!

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] I have frequently asked you, erp, where you get your misinformation; and you never respond.

I'm calling shenanigans.

I've challenged you at least a dozen times to back up some truly fatuous statements over just the last few months.

Not once did you even attempt to do so.

And I'll bet you don't here, either.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] I can't really take you seriously on that. Nor you or Erp, or AOG. It is really, really easy to locate and deport any illegal immigrant these days. It is trivial: you require every citizen to register with the Federal Govt. to make an ID card. Anyone illegal is forbidden to have one, and anyone not having an ID card is deported. It is the cheapest solution ever, adopted in too many countries out there. I can make it happen with a risible fraction of the money you spend with your border patrolling system.

True, but. And that is a real big "but".

National ID cards entail issues well beyond immigration. Requiring them is anything but trivial. There is huge resistance in the US to national ID cards. Moreover, even if they existed, progressives would find a way to keep them from being used for dealing with illegal immigration.

Not too long ago, Arizona tried to make the inability to produce a state ID card as prima facia evidence of illegal presence in the US. Why? Because the federal government was completely failing to effectively control the national borders. The Justice Department squelched that.

Illegal immigration is an excellent example of being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Lots of people can afford things they couldn't otherwise — yard work, house cleaning, nannies. Construction costs are lower.

Yet by the same token, illegal immigrants have significantly reduced wages for the least educated Americans. Which, in turn, has increased income inequality, that very bugaboo progressives are using as their latest justification for their lootist tendencies.

The entire country benefits from vastly lower costs for produce. But the Southwest US bears most of the costs that illegal immigration imposes.

Illegal immigration lets a lot more people in that would otherwise be the case. But the fact of their illegality exposes them to exploitation. But if all immigrants were documented, then immigration would have even greater economic rewards, which would result in an even greater incentive for illegal immigration.

The root problem is that most of the countries from Mexico south suffer from various degrees of serious economic mismanagement, and consequently are so much poorer than the US that people will go run enormous risks just to get here.

Only if you no longer believe in supply and demand dynamics. If the guy doing the lawn was getting paid more, from whose pockets that money would come?

That is all about domestic supply and demand. US international competitiveness is, by definition, all about goods and services traded internationally. Essentially none of the work illegals do is in either of those areas.

erp said...

Skipper, I also would object to a national ID card, but I do support presenting identification in the form of a birth certificate, citizenship papers and the like for a voter card, driver's license, credit cards, etc. In most places, if you don't have one of those documents, you can't get a library card.

Clovis misapprehends the lack of will for the lack of ability. Of course, we can shut down the border, stop all drug trade, drive-by shootings and all the other illegal activities now encouraged and applauded by our leadership. We can also bomb the Middle East into the Stone Age, ditto any other part of the world that annoys us.

It's not likely we will any of those things.

Clovis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clovis said...

Erp,

---
Clovis misapprehends the lack of will for the lack of ability.
---
No, I don't. It is precisely for pointing out your lack of will that allows me to say yours words don't match your deeds.

If you really wanted illegal immigration solved, you would make it happen. Easily.

But then you would need to deal with workers who would not take any salary nor any work. Illegal immigration is not a bug, it is a feature in your system.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
It's not about finding the illegal immigrants - heck, they demonstrate right in front the White House without consequence.
---
Sure they do. As myself, they don't take you seriously on that too.

Many illegal immigrants come from countries that, like mine, have federal ID cards as a trivial task attended by everyone. You don't get anything - from the most simple job to entering in any guarded facility - without one.

So when they see it is so easy to get by in your country without one, what message do they take from that?


---
So, because the federal government does not follow our claimed policy preferences, we cannot honestly have those preferences? That's really your view?
---
The question is, at what point we associate the acts of a Govt. with the will of its people?

Illegal immigration is a feature of your country for many decades now, spanning many different administrations.

I would say it is pretty fair to associate that policy with the citizens who enable it. You are one of those citizens, and I am taking you to the task. You'll see I have applied this reasoning here many times to myself, for I have not shied away from many things my country does, even though sometimes I have little to do with it.

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
[...] illegal immigrants have significantly reduced wages for the least educated Americans.[...] The entire country benefits from vastly lower costs for produce. [...] That is all about domestic supply and demand. US international competitiveness is, by definition, all about goods and services traded internationally. Essentially none of the work illegals do is in either of those areas.
---
Skipper, if you do not see how the first two quotes above impact the last quote you produced, you do need to review your concepts in economy.

---
But if all immigrants were documented, then immigration would have even greater economic rewards, which would result in an even greater incentive for illegal immigration.
---
Actually, there is a reasonable chance the opposite would happen.

The only reason illegal immigration works is the economic dividends it leads to. If the illegals get legal and new illegals keep coming afterwards, what will happen is the recently legalized will see their jobs dwindling due to the competition they get from the illegals. Just like it happened when they were the newcomers.

By reaction to that, they will probably turn against illegal immigration. In order to protect their jobs, you see. So it may look a paradox, but it is not: in the medium term most of those legalized will vote for Republican platforms that would really end illegal immigration, instead of just talking about it.

erp said...

Clovis, we are a banana republic now. Elections mean nothing anymore.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Whatever - if your view is that nothing I write here is relevant, that is only the implemented policies of my nation that determine what you consider my opinion, then I should really just stop responding to you. What would be the point?

erp said...

I'm wondering why folks aren't chanting Obama lied, people died.

Clovis said...

AOG,

I did not discard your opinion, only punctuated it with facts that show, IMHO, a measure of hypocrisy in your position: you readily blame governments elsewhere while wholly ignoring your own shortcomings (as a Nation) in this matter.

You should also take in account you are still talking to a foreigner. Your answers, shifting blame to Obama or Dems only, may satisfy your own tribe, but does not answer the points someone from outside may raise.

A last remark is that, well, you did not really present any proposal here to end illegal immigration at all. The others at least rejected my mantion of an ID, you did not comment even on that. As far as I can tell, you complain much but suggest very little.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

It's not hypocrisy for me to disagree with the policies of my nation.

I didn't shift all blame to one party or politician - I blamed a President for a specific incident in the long history.

If you raise points with my opinions / policies, it's invalid and irrelevant to mix in the opinions / policies of other people. That has nothing to do with you being from another country. I can't tell when you're arguing with me or with my nation's policies or its politicians or its citizens. Let me make clear that I speak for myself, and only myself.

my mantion of an ID

This replaces your previous policy recommendation of
Start shooting every one of those trespassing little kids and you'll see the problem solved pretty fast?

I didn't respond to that because I agreed with Skipper. I see no need to be repetitious. In the same vein there is not shortage of suggested policy on this and I feel no need to repeat that either. As I have mentioned, it is a lack of political will, not policy, that is the problem. But somehow that makes me hypocritical.

P.S. By "injected facts" did you mean "facts" like I stand by my point that it is vilified everywhere in your country. which I pointed out is simply not true?

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
It's not hypocrisy for me to disagree with the policies of my nation.
---
Sure, neither was that my accusation.

---
I can't tell when you're arguing with me or with my nation's policies or its politicians or its citizens. Let me make clear that I speak for myself, and only myself.
---
I am arguing with both, since you can not sustain an accusatory position against other nations without considering your nation's position too.

---
This replaces your previous policy recommendation of
"Start shooting every one of those trespassing little kids and you'll see the problem solved pretty fast"?
---
In case you did not get the joke, that was a mockery of your secretly preferred policy.

---
In the same vein there is not shortage of suggested policy on this and I feel no need to repeat that either.
---
None of which you made clear here.

I am not sure, but Skipper looks to agree with the banning of this idea of national IDs. I can't really tell what is your take.

It is in fact entertaining to see your lack of clear positions here, for they mostly involve the use of Big Government powers (be it at Federal or State level), the same ones you would like to see curtailed elsewhere.

You are Libertarian only up to the point you need to run for Papa Government to save you from all those brown people invading your country. And you are now bitter about the fact he is not protecting you enough.

Clovis said...

BTW, since I touched on Libertarianism...

This is the last Krugman's column, where he gives his take on Libertarianism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/opinion/paul-krugman-the-libertarian-fantasy.html?_r=0

I know you'll hate me (once again) for linking Krugman, but I enjoy watching both sides of this debate.

erp said...

Princeton, my son's alma mater, is certainly tarnishing their once top-of-the-line brand. Remember Steve Cohen, the Soviet expert who read about its demise in the papers.

Nobel prizes are beginning to be as indicative of merit as the prizes in crackerjack boxes.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "I would say it is pretty fair to associate that policy with the citizens who enable it.

I'm back from vacation, so I can jump back in to the debate. :-)

Citizen - Subject - Serf - Slave. It's a continuum. My perspective is that the United States doesn't have Citizens anymore. We're more like Subjects, pretty much controlled by the bureaucracy/ruling class.

So I therefore disagree with your statement. Since we're not Citizens in my opinion, I don't think it "fair" to associate any government policies with the non-ruling class people of this country.

erp said...

Bret, it's so amazing. Dirty tricks in our local school board election. Members present and past of teachers' unions and their friends and families make up a sizable, perhaps even majority, portion of the electorate in our small county (pop. less than 100,000) with retired teachers actually on the Board of Education, something that wasn't permitted in any other place we lived (NY/CT/VT) -- in fact, even immediate members of the family were barred from running – probably changed now.

Common Core has escalated the dirt and gossip and it’s been brutal. A couple of days ago, a front page little insert, exposing that two of the candidates for the school board who are opposed to Common Core have been found to have plagiarized in their written statements, actually naming the sources (one a wiki-type website and the other an education professor at an obscure teacher’s college), but not the quotes. They both openly admitted taking information from the internet not realizing that they should have provided links, so the item appeared in the newspaper twice. The second time repeating the charges and the perps pathetic “excuses” and I’m sure it was on the local news as well.

This is why I think it’s over. A gaggle of do-gooders googled every word said by the two conservative candidates for a local school board until they were able to come up with something.

The left, worldwide, is in a religious fervor I’ve never seen before to force their ideas down our throats. They smell blood, ours.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
I see. So you didn't write this - a measure of hypocrisy in your position.
---
I did, and I think the original phrase made it clear what was the hypocritical position, instead of the one you understood to be.


---
May I take it then you consider a legitimate style of argument to assign "secret preferences" to other people in the discussion?
---
No, unless you do so in a sarcastic comment not really intended as an argument. It is a rhetorical tool you've used too many times too.

---
[Me] you can not sustain an accusatory position against other nations without considering your nation's position too
[AOG] Yes I can.
---
So let me point it out again: right there is the hypocritical position I criticized the first time.

---
In particular, look at the difference between strong and limited. Libertarianism is a belief in a state that is both of those.
---
I understand. My point being that the most simple, easy and cheap solution to the illegal immigration problem, the national ID, looks to be a bit counter the "limited" part of government. So your Libertarianism trumps the simple solution, yet you end up in need of more Government anyway - like the growing expenses with border police, technology, fences, etc. That's the contradiction I pointed to.

---
[me] all those brown people
[AOG] Ho hum, yet another implicit accusation of racism based on nothing I actually wrote. When you can't deal with facts, you throw out baseless ad hominems.
---
Implicit accusation of racism? Well, to paraphrase yourself, do you consider a legitimate style of argument to assign "secret offenses" to other people in the discussion?


On Krugman, the article you quote was really, really low. Not only due to the gratuitous malevolence, but also the complete lack of basic information by its writer. Were he anything other than a worm, he would know Krugman had tenure and is only getting out by his own will.

Clovis said...

Bret,

---
So I therefore disagree with your statement. Since we're not Citizens in my opinion, I don't think it "fair" to associate any government policies with the non-ruling class people of this country.
---

And that's a pretty strong affirmation from someone living the oldest democracy in the world.

Where should I draw the line, Bret, from what is a ruling class policy and what it is not?

For example, I think highly probable that you've benefitted directly (and surely indirectly) from the illegal immigration in your country, just so we stay in the topic.

So should you still be held unaccountable for that policy, after I consider the other aspects mentioned before (like its duration and wide adoption)?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

I understand

No, you clearly don't, or you wouldn't write things like "You are Libertarian only up to the point you need to run for Papa Government to save you from all those brown people invading your country" or "you end up in need of more Government anyway". Both are not only false but show a deep misunderstanding of libertarianism. They would be reasonable criticism of anarchism, but again that's quite distinct from libertarianism.

The essence of libertarianism is that the government is limited to the areas in which it has power, but in those areas it is expected to be unitary and strong. National security is one of those areas and border control is a natural subset of that. There's no contradiction at all.

In the same vein, if you want a policy from me for reducing the harm of illegal immigration, my preference would be removing the welfare state. Then immigration wouldn't be much of a problem. I would say that seems like less government.

As for hypocrisy, I simply don't see where you get that except by treating the policy of the American government as my personal policy preference. I don't accept that as a valid argument.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

I understand

No, you clearly don't, or you wouldn't write things like "You are Libertarian only up to the point you need to run for Papa Government to save you from all those brown people invading your country" or "you end up in need of more Government anyway". Both are not only false but show a deep misunderstanding of libertarianism. They would be reasonable criticism of anarchism, but again that's quite distinct from libertarianism.

The essence of libertarianism is that the government is limited to the areas in which it has power, but in those areas it is expected to be unitary and strong. National security is one of those areas and border control is a natural subset of that. There's no contradiction at all.

In the same vein, if you want a policy from me for reducing the harm of illegal immigration, my preference would be removing the welfare state. Then immigration wouldn't be much of a problem. I would say that seems like less government.

As for hypocrisy, I simply don't see where you get that except by treating the policy of the American government as my personal policy preference. I don't accept that as a valid argument.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

do you consider a legitimate style of argument to assign "secret offenses" to other people in the discussion?

No. Your comment wasn't secret, and clearly race based. See, a key difference is that I provide a direct quote. Another is that I didn't describe it as "secret".

erp said...

Clovis, again you reveal how little you know about things. I didn't read your link. Neither the NYT nor Krugman have anything to say worth reading, so I don't know why the author thinks Krugman is leaving Princeton, but having tenure may mean you can't be fired, but there are many less obvious ways of getting rid of undesirables.

When a high profile person like Cohen or Krugman loses his appeal, he'll be out on his ear in a NY minute. Count on it.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
No. Your comment wasn't secret, and clearly race based. See, a key difference is that I provide a direct quote. Another is that I didn't describe it as "secret".
---
I mistyped "secret" when I wanted to type "implicit".

Is it your opinion now that any comment specifying a race is a racist comment? That's surely a proposition you do not apply to yourself.

Anyway, let me be clear about it: I did not intend to accuse you of racism, explicitly or implicitly, in this discussion at all. Any contrary impression is a mistake.

You can also click on my name and take a look at my blog. Lots of pictures of myself. I am brown within your US classifications and have no problem writing about "brown people".


---
The essence of libertarianism is that the government is limited to the areas in which it has power, but in those areas it is expected to be unitary and strong.
---
I had the impression Libertarianism must necessarily translate to real life as small govt budgets. Am I wrong?

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
[...] but having tenure may mean you can't be fired, but there are many less obvious ways of getting rid of undesirables.
---

Since I know so little about things, you could help me a bit by explaining what you are talking about here, Erp.

erp said...

They get an offer they can't refuse, don't get raises, aren't invited to prestigious events, sit beneath the salt at faculty meetings, stop getting published, people no longer return their calls, snide remarks are made about them, unflattering articles appear in the newspapers ...

Lots more like that.

It's very effective.

Clovis said...

Erp,

Krugman is very used to polemics by now, I don't think "unflattering articles in the newspapers" would scare him a bit.

I also doubt that publications and events are any problem for him, he surely keep having more offers than he can take.

So the other options are raises or "offers they can't refuse". I don't know about raises - money does not look to be a problem for him either - but I am surprised you imply Princeton would threaten him in Mafia style.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Is it your opinion now that any comment specifying a race is a racist comment?

No.

But in all honesty I can read a comment from you like

"run for Papa Government to save you from all those brown people invading your country"

only as an attempted smear accusing me of racism, in exactly the same way as your "shoot all the children" comment was an attempt to smear me with bloodlust. It's the mention of race along with the sarcasm,harshness, and attempted attribution. Moreover, a comment like that from a GOP politician would likely be political suicide in the USA.

Whether you are brown or know lots of brown people is irrelevant. I don't judge intent or substance by the color of skin.

If you want to avoid this in the future, simply stop attributing unsubstantiated opinions to me. This goes back again to my emphasis on quoting - it's not unsubstantiated if you provde the quote as evidence.

I had the impression Libertarianism must necessarily translate to real life as small govt budgets. Am I wrong?

No. That is correct.

P.S. I read the Krugman column, and he's just being stupid as usual. His argument is entirely an anecdote, cherry picked and presented without context. Fine as a polemic but hardly substantive.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
[...] only as an attempted smear accusing me of racism, in exactly the same way as your "shoot all the children" comment was an attempt to smear me with bloodlust. It's the mention of race along with the sarcasm,harshness, and attempted attribution.
---

Well, I surely attempted sarcasm and to be provocative, but you are taking the emphasis all wrong. For example, my Papa Govt. phrase had sarcasm in the imagery of you in desperate need of help from government, but you end up finding a supposed accusation of racism in that phrase, not intended even as sarcasm.

---
Whether you are brown or know lots of brown people is irrelevant. I don't judge intent or substance by the color of skin.
---
I am using "brown people" in the same way "black people" is considered common wording in English, but you give me the impression it is a pejorative one - if it is, that's my faulty English skills playing here.

I invoked my own color because it is reasonable to expect I would not be loathing it. And you are expected to use such a natural information as input when juding intent, IMO, unless you believe I lack self-respect.


---
If you want to avoid this in the future, simply stop attributing unsubstantiated opinions to me. This goes back again to my emphasis on quoting - it's not unsubstantiated if you provde the quote as evidence.
---
The problem is not so much my attribution of "unsubstantiated opinions" to you, but your interpretations of "implicit thing" in my words. This goes back to you being a bit paranoid by nature.

---
[Me] I had the impression Libertarianism must necessarily translate to real life as small govt budgets. Am I wrong?
[AOG] No. That is correct.
---
And still, posed with two solutions for a problem within govt. attributions, you choose the one orders of magnitude more expensive? Maybe I am right to be confused about your Libertarian notions.

erp said...

Clovis, I've been around higher ed for 35 years and know how things work, but you obviously know more about these things than I. Believe what you like.

erp said...

Clovis, you've glommed on to the new narrative that illegal immigrants are responsible for our prosperity. That's just as ridiculous as the geniuses who say black slaves built of our country, when the non-slave states were far wealthier than the slave ones.

We here are all for legal immigration. We are all immigrants beginning with the Mayflower.

Illegal is illegal. We are a nation of laws. We don't cherry pick which ones to we want to follow and which ones to flout.

Illegal immigrants can’t be tolerated, don’t add to our prosperity and continuing to mouth the party line on this subject just leaves you open to further accusations of not knowing what you’re talking about.

Clovis said...

Erp,

Pay attention that I did not doubt your higher Ed. experience nor any of your points. I only pondered the extent each of them could really hit Krugman.

And no, I did not say illegal immigration is responsible for your prosperity - paraphrasing AOG, show me the quote. I only pointed out it is part of your system for a good reason. And I was not even aware my argument was a line of any party. How many English mistakes do I need to make so you can remember I am out of your country and hence of your political divide?

erp said...

Clovis, I'll pay attention when you make sense. People like Krugman who are used to being lionized suffer when they become non-persons. It matters not that they needn't collect food stamps or go on welfare.

Illegals have been part of economy -- a huge drag on it. In prior years, illegals went underground and worked at reduced wages to make money to survive. It wasn't a benefit to those who took advantage of them nor to the illegals because it articially skewed the law of supply and demand.

Now they are coming for the bennies (benefits) -- not to work as brazeros. As aog pointed out with almost superhuman patience, they are being encouraged for political reasons and that is swell the ranks of those who will support leftwing politicians mindlessly.

This is far worse than skewing the law of supply and demand. This is making a mockery of our law, the only thing that was between us and the banana republic we have become.

Their skin color is immaterial – really.

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
It wasn't a benefit to those who took advantage of them nor to the illegals because it articially skewed the law of supply and demand.
---
I honestly can't make sense of this phrase. Artificially skewed the law of supply and demand?

---
Now they are coming for the bennies (benefits) -- not to work as brazeros.
---
And no one is villifying the illegals, right?

No Erp, they keep working low level jobs, with low salaries. I guess most of them have very little acess to your welfare. They fear official contacts with anyone remotely connected to government.

You - and AOG above, remarking "if you want a policy from me for reducing the harm of illegal immigration, my preference would be removing the welfare state" - are far off the mark.

I do know about people who illegally emigrated to the USA. None of them did so for welfare, and none of them are in welfare today AFAIK.

erp said...

Law of Supply and Demand

That was then and this is now. Illegals demand and get all the bennies due the other free loaders, including health care, schools including universities for their kids, driver's licences, EBT cards ...

Clovis said...

Erp,

I am talking about now. I know examples ranging from the 80's up to the last few years.

Try to get out of your home someday and talk to one illegal, if you can muster the courage - I assure you they won't bite. You can learn a thing or two better than the news for crazy people you are used to read.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

And still, posed with two solutions for a problem within govt. attributions, you choose the one orders of magnitude more expensive?

No. I picked a vastly cheaper one - remove the welfare state.

erp said...

Clovis, people coming across the border right now are being housed and sent at our expense all over the country even Hawaii and Alaska and the Virgin Islands. People who foster them are being paid six and eight thousand dollars a month for each illegal.

I don't know why your friends don't get on the band wagon.

News for crazy people?? I told you I don't read the main stream media nor do I watch cable or network news.

erp said...

Make work for the teachers’ unions and other public sector union thugs and don't forget they'll all need legal representation.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
No. I picked a vastly cheaper one - remove the welfare state.
---
A vastly more ineffective one either. It would have negligible impact on illegal immigration.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

It would have negligible impact on illegal immigration

I can assert the opposite just as reasonably as you make this assertion. Moreover, I stated as "reduce the harm", not reduce the amount, although I think that would also be true. As Milton Freidman said, you have have open immigration, or welfare state, but not both.

I guess most of them have very little acess to your welfare

The Obama Administration doesn't agree with you. I think you should take your own advice and read more widely.

P.S. If you want another specific policy from me on reducing illegal immigration, I would say "don't advertise welfare benefits in foreign countries". Or is that too expensive and ineffective as well?

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
[Me] I guess most of them have very little acess to your welfare
[AOG] The Obama Administration doesn't agree with you. I think you should take your own advice and read more widely.
---
I was aware of that, as you posted that link here before. The crumbles those illegals may have gotten from the SNAP by then is part of what I've meant by "very little".

---
As Milton Freidman said, you have have open immigration, or welfare state, but not both.
---
Should I read from it that you would have no problem in opening your borders if welfare was ended altogether? IOW, your solution to illegal immigration would make it trivially legal? That "solution" is sure cheaper than mine, but you cheated the game by changing the definitions we are using.

---
I would say "don't advertise welfare benefits in foreign countries". Or is that too expensive and ineffective as well?
---
I have very little contact with people from Mexico or Central America (they don't migrate much to Brazil, you see), but I can attest to you once again that, to the best of my knowledge, the illegal going to your country from Brazil (and more generally, from South America) expect no welfare at all when taking that decision. If any such "advertisement" exists, it is a pretty limited one then.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

If we got rid of the welfare state, I would give serious consideration to open borders, or least going back to the pre-1900 style of immigration. I certainly consider open borders less damaging to the USA than the welfare state. I also think the combination of the two is far worse than the linear sum of their effects.

I think you massively under estimate the secondary effects of a welfare state on immigration.

I have very little contact with people from Mexico or Central America

Then maybe you should get some before discussing illegal immigration in to the USA. Talking about Brazil in that context is actively dodging the issue, as Brazilians are a very small part of the influx.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
I think you massively under estimate the secondary effects of a welfare state on immigration.
---
Do I? Can you then explain why they have been going in higher numbers to low-welfare states with more jobs than to the better-welfare states?

---
[Me] I have very little contact with people from Mexico or Central America
[AOG] Then maybe you should get some before discussing illegal immigration in to the USA.
---
Really? Do you apply the same standard for yourself? For I can bet you don't know many more migrants from those places than I do.

Anyway, if my experience as someone living in a donor country is that worthless to you, we can go for numbers. They show a more complex story than the one you claim. The total impact of the immigrants, even taking in account their use of welfare, looks to be pretty advantadgeous, as I've been claiming all along.

Howard said...

Clovis,

America is a nation of immigrants. Some level of legal immigration can work here. There are issues that go beyond the position espoused in the article you cite. You might consider what Kevin Williamson has to say.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Secondary effects are, by definition, not primary. None of your comments touch on that. These also tend to be long term effects, and not the initial ones.

I would also note that after complaining I don't take in to account my own nation's policies, you completely ignore the point that the Democratic Party is actively using the power of the federal government to put as many immigrants, legal and illegal, on the public dole as possible. Your view is they won't respond to those incentives?

The article you cite is entirely about legal immigration. I consider a very clear sign of disingeniousness to conflate legal and illegal immigration.

Do I apply the same standard to myself? I gather my data that way, rather than relying on personal anecdotes from a limited population.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
The article you cite is entirely about legal immigration. I consider a very clear sign of disingeniousness to conflate legal and illegal immigration.
---
No, it is not, it touched illegal immigration as well, as is clear in the following example:

"Low-skilled foreigners, including adults and their U.S.- born children, were generally less likely than Americans to receive public benefits, such as from Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Supplemental Security Income. This is partly because many adults are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas or haven’t held a green card long enough to qualify for most means-tested benefits besides emergency health care."

Which BTW conforms with what I stated here before, based only on personal anecdotes.

I consider a very clear sign of disingeniousness to not even read the piece properly and still accuse me of disingeniousness.


---
Secondary effects are, by definition, not primary. None of your comments touch on that. These also tend to be long term effects, and not the initial ones.
---
They do. Secondary effects do not make people move illegally to another country. So I repeat, welfare is not the reason most illegal immigrants go to your country. Take welfare away and they will keep coming.


---
[...] you completely ignore the point that the Democratic Party is actively using the power of the federal government to put as many immigrants, legal and illegal, on the public dole as possible. Your view is they won't respond to those incentives?
---
My view is that's not true and not proven here. And, more importantly, that's not the perception in at least a few countries down here - "incentives" are only incentives if that information would be available.

It is pretty clear that most welfare benefits in your country asks for documentation no illegal can show, so your arguments are based on fantasies.


---
Do I apply the same standard to myself? I gather my data that way, rather than relying on personal anecdotes from a limited population.
---
No, you don't. Or if you do, you are making a good job of hiding it from us all during this discussion.

Clovis said...

Howard,

It is a well written piece. Still, I am wary of any line of reasoning that (i) invokes Darwinism in too broad ways and (ii) its main line of reasoning leads to an unquantifiable concept, for we can hardly calculate the real impact of those "social costs" delimited by the article.

Common sense already tells us that, were the immigrants to just transplant their cultures to the US, it would be a lose-lose situation, since they themselves are runnig from the negative consequences those cultures may have lead to.

So it is not a good signal that some parts of the USA are becoming de facto Spanish speaking regions. If I were American, I would be more worried about integrating better all those aliens instead of alienating them more. Or, failing that, to really expel all illegals out. The present lack of a clear policy on that is more damaging than anything else, IMHO.

erp said...

Perhaps Spanish speakers "fail to integrate" because that's how the lefty politicians want them, just another band in the glorious rainbow of warring factions. Oh and you may not know that now everything is written in English and Spanish including ballots.

In the good old days that Harry insists never existed, immigrants were forced to learn English in order to function. Now that isn't necessary and in some areas frowned upon – much the same way that black kids who want to move-on-up and out of the ghettoes are strongly encouraged not to act white.

Did you know that some years ago public entities began asking callers to Press 2 for Spanish? Then callers were asked to Press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish. Now I gather in some places that has been reversed and Spanish is the default with callers asked to Press 2 for English.

You don’t understand at all what’s happening here and no matter what you think or what’s published in the lefty media, illegal immigrants are not an asset, not the least reason of which is because they are flouting the law with the tacit and often overt assistance of our elected officials and law enforcement agencies.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
The part of the article you cite does exactly what I called disingenuous - conflating legal and illegal immigration with no disaggregation.
---
I disagree about the disingeniousness. IMO it only tried to present the information as concisely as possible. And it gave explicit references so you could check it.

---
As for incentives and knowledge, the current surge is clearly based on Obama's statements.
---
Not even your link corroborates the surge as Obama's statements, but as "perception over Obama’s border policy". It is different.

---
Exactly, which is why your comments on why people do that are irrelevant to this point. What matters is what happens *after* they arrive, like, say, failing to integrate.
---
We must be talking different topics then by now, for the one we started discussing here was all about illegal immigration and its reasons and means.

---
There are no efforts by federal and state governments to provide those documents to illegals, and no way to fake them?
---
I don't know, but I doubt that massive frauds would pass undetected. Sorry if I have more faith on your compentency than yourself.

Clovis said...

Erp,


I was not aware ballots would have a Spanish version. Actually, I almost do not believe you. I would not accept a similar thing in my own country.

---
You don’t understand at all what’s happening here [...]
---
What amazes me is how you never tire of repeating that. Even if true, so what?

---
[...] they are flouting the law with the tacit and often overt assistance of our elected officials and law enforcement agencies.
---
You do know that the Obama deported far more people than any other admnistration, right?

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Skipper, if you do not see how the first two quotes (illegal immigration impacting incomes of least educated Americans; entire country benefits from cheaper produce) above impact the last quote you produced (this doesn't affect US international competitiveness), you do need to review your concepts in economy.

Boeing is internationally very competitive. How does illegal immigration affect Boeing? Or legal and financial services? Entertainment? IT?

The only reason illegal immigration works is the economic dividends it leads to. If the illegals get legal and new illegals keep coming afterwards, what will happen is the recently legalized will see their jobs dwindling due to the competition they get from the illegals. Just like it happened when they were the newcomers.

You have included an unstated assumption that renders this assertion at least problematic: the single greatest reason for immigration, legal and otherwise, to the US is economic opportunity. To a very great extent, illegal immigration is nearly without limit. The only way documenting immigrants makes any sense whatsoever is if illegal immigration is eliminated — that means limiting the supply, which can only be done by sealing the border.

I did not discard your [AOG's] opinion, only punctuated it with facts that show, IMHO, a measure of hypocrisy in your position: you readily blame governments elsewhere while wholly ignoring your own shortcomings (as a Nation) in this matter.

Illegal immigration is a fiendishly difficult problem to deal with. Ending it would require fortifying nearly 2,000 miles of border. Doing so would be very expensive. Not doing so is very expensive. Illegal immigration poses very real problems. The absence of illegal immigration would pose very real economic problems. We aren't going to forego significant elements of our version of the welfare state. Our version of the welfare state encourages illegal immigration, particularly every time there is an amnesty.

This isn't strictly a D-R issue. However, the Obama administration, due some combination of incompetence and cynicism has significantly inflamed the problem: it won't control the borders, it won't let the states do it, and it has granted a golden ticket to anyone in the right age bracket.

IMHO, illegal immigration has been a net benefit for the US. But it is risking tipping into the red. Mexican civic culture is dominated by the concept of mordida. I don't want that transplanted into the US. There are large enough spanish speaking communities in the US that learning English is becoming optional. I don't want that, either, because of inevitable assimilation problems. Some immigrant groups look forward to Reconquista. Sorry, not interested in that, either.

Hey Skipper said...

I am not sure, but Skipper looks to agree with the banning of this idea of national IDs.

My agreement, or lack thereof, is immaterial. As a matter of objective fact, the idea is a non-starter.

You are Libertarian only up to the point you need to run for Papa Government to save you from all those brown people invading your country.



Is it your opinion now that any comment specifying a race is a racist comment?



This is the latest Krugman's column, where he gives his take on Libertarianism


I think you should be careful about implying racism in others, which is exactly what "brown people" does: AOG is against illegal immigrants simply because they are brown.

Also, you should be careful about imposing an absolutist definition upon libertarians. Yes, there are libertarian fanatics, just as there are Krugmans. But imposing the fanatics upon the rest obscures what is really at play. The libertarian starting point is putting decision making on the individual. However, not all problems are best solved at the individual level. Some require a more collective approach — e.g., national border security. For a libertarian, collective action can make sense, but it has to be balanced against the costs of collective action. Government should do less, better.

I had read that Krugman op-ed. It is a parade of strawmen, half truths, self-contradiction, and false dichotomy. In short, it is a steaming pile of ordure written for the collectivist choir who refuse to be bothered examining their own ideas.

And I'd think that of his writing, even if he was on my "side".

erp said...

Why do you think I would make up up stuff? To impress you?

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
Boeing is internationally very competitive. How does illegal immigration affect Boeing?
---
Directly, by lowering the costs of labor at their production units within the less specialized workforce. Indirectly, by having a lower pressure to adjust wages in comparison to the situation where the illegal workforce were absent (e.g. cost of living would be higher and present salaries would have less purchasing power).

Of course, the exposition to the above factors varies greatly for different industries.

---
[...] that means limiting the supply, which can only be done by sealing the border.
---
No, Skipper, sealing the border is not the only solution, and experience shows time and again that it is an inefficient one too.

Please, ask yourself why Germany - to take a rich country with very porous borders - have much less trouble with illegal immigration.

---
Our version of the welfare state encourages illegal immigration, particularly every time there is an amnesty.
---
It is tiring, but I will repeat it again: your welfare state is not a relevant driver of illegal immigration.

---
Mexican civic culture is dominated by the concept of mordida. I don't want that transplanted into the US. [...] learning English is becoming optional [...] immigrant groups look forward to Reconquista. Sorry, not interested in that, either.
---
Were I in your position, I wouldn't wish any of the above either. And I am not cynical enough to wish it to you only because I do not live in your country. But I have the feeling that you guys think that's my intent when I expose here my take on the topic.


---
AOG is against illegal immigrants simply because they are brown.
---
That phrase is only yours. I think AOG will be offended.

---
For a libertarian, collective action can make sense, but it has to be balanced against the costs of collective action. Government should do less, better.
---
To ponder such costs has been my point all along when comparing national ID's with the border sealing solutions. In fact, I am under the impression I am the only one here making any calculation of cost/benefits for govt actions. Gee, I must be more Libertarian than you guys :-)

---
[Krugman] In short, it is a steaming pile of ordure written for the collectivist choir who refuse to be bothered examining their own ideas.
---
It is also a source for an outsider like me to understand how Libertarians, such as our friends in this forum, are viewed by some of their fellow citizens. It may be of zero value to you, but carries some information for me.


Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Allright then, the article wasn't disingenuous, that was you citing it in a discussion specifically about illegal immigration. At least we can agree on that.

Obama's statements have nothing to do with the perception of his policies? Right...

I doubt that massive frauds would pass undetected

Clearly not. It's well known but like my other examples, there is a lack of will to enforce against it. Better to run advertisements encouraging more of it.

As for erp's claim about Spanish language ballots, that's certainly true. In a related vein, you should look up "bilingual education" which is another government policy to retard assimilation and ghettoize immigrants.

ask yourself why Germany - to take a rich country with very porous borders - have much less trouble with illegal immigration.

Because it isn't physically next to the source of illegal immigration. It is, however, a increasing contentious issue in the EU an certainly a problem for European states that are adjacent.

That phrase ["brown people"] is only yours

No, it's a direct quote that you, Clovis, wrote.

As for Krugman, I think he carries negative information for you, that you understand the USA and libertarianism less after reading one of his columns.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Directly, by lowering the costs of labor at their production units within the less specialized workforce …

I have to admit, that there is some decent analysis.

I don't completely agree with it — the non-specialized work force portion of Boeing's overall cost structure probably isn't very much, for example — but my disagreement is more notional than factual: US international competitiveness isn't in labor intensive industries; therefore, the presence of more low cost labor won't have any affect on those areas where the US is competitive.

Like I said, notional. So while I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I think you are wrong.

Please, ask yourself why Germany - to take a rich country with very porous borders - have much less trouble with illegal immigration.

Why travel so far? Canada is a rich country with porous borders. Why does it have less trouble with illegal immigration? Simple: geography.

It is tiring, but I will repeat it again: your welfare state is not a relevant driver of illegal immigration.

The children born in the US of illegal immigrants — what is their citizenship?

[Hey Skipper:] AOG is against illegal immigrants simply because they are brown.

[Clovis:] That phrase is only yours. I think AOG will be offended.

[Clovis:] You are Libertarian only up to the point you need to run for Papa Government to save you from all those brown people invading your country. And you are now bitter about the fact he is not protecting you enough.


Such that "You" = AOG.

To ponder such costs has been my point all along when comparing national ID's with the border sealing solutions.

If the only consideration regarding national IDs was in sealing the border, then you would have a point. But the reasons Americans by and large resist the notion goes well beyond immigration. And that is putting aside the seemingly significant point that the federal government has actively impeded states using their own ID systems to ferret out illegal immigrants.

[Krugman] is also a source for an outsider like me to understand how Libertarians, such as our friends in this forum, are viewed by some of their fellow citizens. It may be of zero value to you, but carries some information for me.

Krugman isn't merely zero value, he is negative value. His whole approach to the whole topic is so dishonest as to leave you less informed than when you started. (Speaking of which, a post that I will finish Any Day Now involves Op-Ed amnesia and … wait for it … Brazil.)

[AOG:] … look up "bilingual education" which is another government policy to retard assimilation and ghettoize immigrants.

To be fair, that is the result, not the intent:

Proponents further claim that effective bilingual programs strive to achieve proficiency in both English and the students' home language. Dual language or Two-Way bilingual programs are one such approach, whereby half of the students speak English and half are considered English language learners (ELLs). The teacher instructs in English and in the ELLs' home language. The dual purpose of this type of classroom is to teach the children a new language and culture, and language diversity in such classrooms is seen as a resource. Programs in English only eradicate the native languages immigrants bring to this country, while dual language bilingual programs serve to maintain such languages in an "additive" context, where a new language is added without the first being lost.

Of course, that is typical progressive bollocks. The goal of the US public education system with regard to immigrants should be perfect linguistic assimilation, full stop.

Anonymous said...

Skipper;

That's just a cover story for bilingual education, like ethanol subsidies being for a "sustainable economy".

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
Allright then, the article wasn't disingenuous, that was you citing it in a discussion specifically about illegal immigration. At least we can agree on that.
---
No, we can't. Both me and the article have been playing a fair game. Maybe our mistake is to believe the other side would behave alike.

---
[On frauds] Clearly not. It's well known but like my other examples, there is a lack of will to enforce against it.
---
Until you provide some good evidence for that, I'll assume it is one of your other fantasies.

---
As for erp's claim about Spanish language ballots, that's certainly true.
---
Ah, but that's a more complete story than Erp's, thank you. I've fallen too easily for her tricks.

If that resolution was done to provide for Puerto-Ricans - who were accepted in your Union as they are (i.e. a Spanish culture, speaking Spanish as first language), that's a completely different story.

---
No, it's a direct quote that you, Clovis, wrote.
---
No, it is not. He quoted my phrase, then provided his own phrase with his own wrong interpretation of it. Worse yet, he did so after I've explicitly indicated that interpration was not intended by myself, the very author of the original phrase.

To insist on the contrary afterwards is just an exercize in self-victimization. One wonders why do you need so.


---
As for Krugman, I think he carries negative information for you, that you understand the USA and libertarianism less after reading one of his columns.
---
I've said that particular column would be a portrait of what some citizens (Krugman and any of his readers who may agree with it) would think about their fellow Libertarians. So is it your intent to deny that Krugman thinks what he wrote? Or that no one would ever agree with him in your country?

Clovis said...

Skipper,


---
US international competitiveness isn't in labor intensive industries; therefore, the presence of more low cost labor won't have any affect on those areas where the US is competitive.
---
Actually, there are still a few labor intensive areas where the US is competitive internationally. And others no longer so much labor intensive, but where the presence of illegal immigrants greatly impacts costs (agriculture being the notable example).

In Boeing's case, you are right, but: (i) there are many third party providers of parts for Boeing who tend to be more dependent on cheaper labor; (ii) even a small difference in Boeing's margins of operation makes a lot of difference.

Just as an exercise in divination, let us suppose the impact of illegal immigration into your country translates to a 2% difference in the final costs of Boeing's products. Considering that arlines often make orders between hundreds of millions to a few billion dollars, 2% may end up being no small money.

It is worth to remember that its main competitor, Airbus, has its operations centralized in Europe, where they can not take advantadge of the same illegal immigrant labor channels.

---
Why travel so far? Canada is a rich country with porous borders. Why does it have less trouble with illegal immigration? Simple: geography.
---
Geography does play some role, yet you need to account for the difference in illegal immigration from non-adjacent countries. I mean, there are many more illegal immigrants who arrived by airplane in the USA than in Canada, Germany, or Japan. How do you account for that?


---
[On national ID's] But the reasons Americans by and large resist the notion goes well beyond immigration.
---
All those reasons make no longer any sense, if you think a bit about it.


---
Speaking of which, a post that I will finish Any Day Now involves Op-Ed amnesia and … wait for it … Brazil.
---
As long as it does not touch anything remotely close to the worldcup and our shameful demise at it, I am eager to read your piece.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Yeah, whatever. We're talking about one subject, you provide data about a different one, and think I'm the one not being fair. OK...

And whatever on Krugman. He's a dishonest shill (as noted by the ombudsman as the New York Times) who represents a tiny fraction of the American population. If you're OK with that sort of things as an information source, keep on reading.

As for multi-lingual ballots, here's a non-Spanish one. But I'm sure you'll have some reason to dismiss as another one of my fantasies. Because, of course, we can't possibly just disagree - I must be delusional. No matter how many times I end up proven correct, my next claim is clearly bogus...

Clovis said...

AOG,

I kept talking the same subject, the article I provided covered both legal and illegal immigrants. If you think the argument was weak, you could point out a better one. Instead you only dismiss me as disingenious - it is not a fair way to discuss IMO, and not a pattern you've seen practiced by myself.

I also would be happy to read any other link you could provide on a fellow non-Libertarian citizen talking about his impressions of Liberarians and Libertarianism. Instead of providing that, you provide... [crickets].

And just to be clear: I did not dismiss your link on multi-lingual ballots. I only asked for evidence on your claim of massive frauds being purposefully ignored by authorities.

---
No matter how many times I end up proven correct, my next claim is clearly bogus...
---
I must tell you AOG, you look to be a smart and successful person. Certainly someone above the average. Yet, you could take some time to contemplate if some hubris control measures are not in order. Few people are afforded the level of trust you feel entitled to.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

"Legal and illegal" is not the same subject as "illegal". Conflating them is disingenuous because it changes the subject.

Unfortunate I am not aware of any non-conservative, non-libertarian source that understands its opponents. This is a general failure of the MAL and therefore Old Media, not just with respect to libertarianism. Reason Magazine, which you cited, is a good source though. You might try National Review, which is a conservative magazine for non-libertarian view. But I was not aware that you view me as a research assistant.

As for trust, really? Not dismissing claims out of hand as "fantasy" is a level of trust you afford to few people? Well, OK. I accept that I'm not one of those special people for you. It would seem to make me not particularly useful as a source of the sort of recommendations you wanted...

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
"Legal and illegal" is not the same subject as "illegal". Conflating them is disingenuous because it changes the subject.
---
As the main channel for acess to welfare for illegals is due to a US born children (who is legal), both are very much conflated, and the particular quote of the article I used was important in that context. Yet, you label my desire to completely cover the point as disingenuous. Fair or unfair?

---
But I was not aware that you view me as a research assistant.
---
I certainly don't. But after much complaining about my sarcastic comments, here you are with yours. Well, be my guest.

---
As for trust, really? Not dismissing claims out of hand as "fantasy" is a level of trust you afford to few people?
---
My standard mode of operation is to not believe anyone before further verification. I double that when the mode of communication is a virtual one, with people I never met in my life. I triple it when I identify strong bias and tendencies in my interlocutor.

So yes, to dismiss claims, virtually any claim, without further evidence is my default. It does render me exasperated looks many times, welcome to the club.

Clovis said...

AOG,

BTW, I have an issue with this claim:

---
He's a dishonest shill (as noted by the ombudsman as the New York Times) who represents a tiny fraction of the American population.
---
Tiny? He is the most read columnist of The NYT, has zillion followers on twitter, and by any measure of pundit influence he must be among the top ten.

Yet you tell me I am learning nothing about what Americans think by reading him?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

There is a difference between "not accept" and "dismiss". The latter indicates judging on no evidence.

As for Krugman, I would say you learn very little. Being the best read NY Times columnist is like being the best soccer player in French Guyana. You are the only person I know who quotes Krugman in a non-mocking way. I know several people who used to do that, before his partisanship destroyed his credibility. Now they don't.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
There is a difference between "not accept" and "dismiss". The latter indicates judging on no evidence.
---
Thank you for the correction. In this case, I've meant the first.

---
Being the best read NY Times columnist is like being the best soccer player in French Guyana.
---
I think the comparison would make sense if French Guyana soccer was the most viewed in the soccer world. The NYT, with all its faults, is the most read journal in your country. You can dismiss its faithful readers as much as you want, but it is a harder case to state I learn nothing about what many Americans think (be them dumb Americans or not in your opinion).

---
I know several people who used to do that, before his partisanship destroyed his credibility.
---
Have you considered that, if I want to sample what Americans believe, I do need to take in account the partisan places too, right? That's why I visit both the NYT and Foxnews websites.

erp said...

Clovis, if you learn nothing else as part of this forum, learn that Fox News is not conservative. Recall that Murdoch endorsed Hillary in 2008. Fox is less overtly leftwing, but slyly gives cretins like Juan Williams and Bob Beckel a megaphone to spew their hate filed venom. O'Reilly? I'd be willing to bet that he voted for Obama -- twice. When they fired Bret Hume, the last conservative left the building.

BTW - what tricks of mine are you on to? On the issue of Spanish language ballots, I provided a lefty link and in a later comment provided a link to not only bilingual programs in the school designed to keep the kids from assimilating and more importantly, create jobs for more union thugs in our schools. The link also list any number of programs for kids with disabilities real and imagined of every kind imaginable. Then of course the 'refugee' kids will all need lawyers.

I fail to see a trick, but perhaps it's a language thing. In English a trick is something meant to deceive like a magic trick. The trick for me is to figure what on earth you would think was so important to me that I would find it necessary to try to 'trick' you?

Howard said...

Clovis,

If you wish to open your horizons relative to America, spend a month or two reading the Instapundit blog. Here is a nice post to get started.

Caution: might blow your mind!

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] I mean, there are many more illegal immigrants who arrived by airplane in the USA than in Canada, Germany, or Japan. How do you account for that?

That people from across the world will do a great deal to live in the USA.

I'm sure there is some push. If you were non-Muslim just about anywhere in the Mideast save Israel, how much would you be willing to risk to get the hell out of there?

And pull. There are very few places that offer the kind of economic opportunity to any comers. Plus welfare. I know you have asserted that isn't a thing, but as I read in the paper today, essentially all school systems in the US are required to enroll illegal immigrants. Not only does that mean education on someone else's dime, it also means two meals a day. Compared to where these kids come from, and their opportunities in those places, that has to be a great deal.

Hence the assertion that it is very difficult to maintain a lavish welfare state adjacent to extensive poverty.

Oh, and Italy has made headlines recently with illegal immigration from North Africa.

Just as an exercise in divination, let us suppose the impact of illegal immigration into your country translates to a 2% difference in the final costs of Boeing's products.

I think your analysis is quite incisive, and could well be the case. However, I suspect that under current conditions of labor force participation and unemployment, there is plenty of labor supply to render illegal immigration irrelevant to international competitiveness.

Also, there is a bit of a false dichotomy there. The issue here is legal v. illegal immigration, not legal v. none.

All those reasons [to resist national ID] make no longer any sense, if you think a bit about it.

I have. The US isn't nearly as federalist as it should be, not only IMHO, but also in any respectful reading for the constitution's commerce clause. Imposing a national ID would completely wreck the concept of federalism.

To me, that is a very big deal.

Tiny? [Krugman] is the most read columnist of The NYT, has zillion followers on twitter, and by any measure of pundit influence he must be among the top ten.

Yet you tell me I am learning nothing about what Americans think by reading him?


Well, if you are talking about the percentage of Americans who read Krugman, I suspect you aren't learning much about what Americans think of libertarianism by reading Krugman.

The article to which he linked, which, as an NYT subscriber I had already seen, was a reasonably balanced approach to libertarianism, and some of the contradictions its more fervent believers can't square.

Krugman, in contrast, spat out a load of self-contradicting drivel that made a great deal out of what hasn't ever been the case — private ownership of the Great Lakes — and didn't mention once what actually are the cases: IRS scandal, Obamacare's expensive and disastrous rollout, Solyndra, the VA scandal …

FWIW, I think the NYT's straight reporting is generally not only very good, but perhaps the best in the world. However, its Op-Ed page is a Fort Knox of unexamined ideas. And its tendency towards agenda journalism posing as straight reporting is deplorable.

As long as it does not touch anything remotely close to the worldcup and our shameful demise at it …

No worries, Clovis. In fact, it will be an opportunity for you to enlighten us on Brazil and markets.

Of course, first I have to finish it.

Clovis said...

Erp,

Were you aware that the Spanish ballots were motivated by Puerto-Ricans? If yes, I think that wasd an important information. Don't you?

Clovis said...

Howard,

Thanks for the link, I'll follow it for a while.

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
That people from across the world will do a great deal to live in the USA.[...]
Oh, and Italy has made headlines recently with illegal immigration from North Africa.
---
As you recognize, people do a great deal to live in Italy too, apparently. What you need to ask yourself is why, even though Europe is very much sought for too, soem countries there do have more success to enforce who stays or who doesn't.

If you look carefully, it has much to do with how easy is to get by being an illegal alien.


---
Not only does that mean education on someone else's dime, it also means two meals a day. Compared to where these kids come from, and their opportunities in those places, that has to be a great deal.
---
You are completely right that economic opportunity is the chief driver of illegal immigration to your country. But you greatly underestimate the hopes behind the people emigrating.

A good part of the Latin illegals did have free schools in the place they come from. And famine was not usually a problem they faced. That's why that little part of your welfare state is being over accounted for, by you and our friends here, when pondering the motivations of the illegal immigrant.

---
However, I suspect that under current conditions of labor force participation and unemployment, there is plenty of labor supply to render illegal immigration irrelevant to international competitiveness.
---
Ironically, that's not true for the same reason we disagree above. The fact that illegals have far less access to your welfare state means they'll acccept jobs and salaries still lower than the unemployed native citizen.

---
Also, there is a bit of a false dichotomy there. The issue here is legal v. illegal immigration, not legal v. none.
---
You lost me here. If you take actions to eradicate illegal immigration, there will be only legal immigrants around. So...?

---
Imposing a national ID would completely wreck the concept of federalism.
To me, that is a very big deal.
---
That would make any sense at all if your Passport were emmited by Alaska, not the US Federal Govt. If you really believe the above, please be coherent and throw away your passport right now.


---
No worries, Clovis. In fact, it will be an opportunity for you to enlighten us on Brazil and markets.
---
Ouch. Please be kind enough then, Skipper, there will be too many holes and weaknesses to point out about Brazil at that. A gentleman should not beat a dead horse.

erp said...

I am not writing a treatise on Puerto Ricans who BTW have numerous times rejected independence. It's immaterial where the odious practice was first started.

Clovis said...

Erp,

Are you anti-Puerto Ricans?

erp said...

No, are you?

Clovis said...

As I have no problem with them voting in their mother language, I would say I am not.

erp said...

I have no problem with them voting in their mother language in Puerto Rico either ... and I believe here in the U.S. we should all use our mother language, English only, in public life and then speak whatever language we like and do whatever else we want in private life.

Clovis said...

Erp,

I would agree on that for any election at local and state level. For federal elections, I think it is fair for them to vote in their own language wherever they are within the Federation. But that's only my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

The fact that illegals have far less access to your welfare state means they'll acccept jobs and salaries still lower than the unemployed native citizen.

Wouldn't that a rather large secondary effect of the welfare state on illegal immigration? How might that situation change if the welfare state was eliminated?

erp said...

Who are the they of which you speak? The people of Puerto Rico can do whatever want within the parameters of their status as a commonwealth. IIRC most Puerto Rican would like to become the 51st state and voters have rejected independence handily.

I doubt there’s much enthusiasm for statehood here right now, but perhaps if the lotus eaters in California get their way and break up into 10 smaller states, with 9 more lefty senators and governors Puerto Rico might join the party to make it an even 60.

Those who wish to become American instead of Puerto Ricans may come here and join us and be welcome. Those who want to hold on to their native tongue and ways, should stay where they are and that goes for everyone else round the world as well.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
Wouldn't that a rather large secondary effect of the welfare state on illegal immigration?
---
I'd say that's a large secondary effect of the welfare state on native citizens.

---
How might that situation change if the welfare state was eliminated?
---
That's too big a change for me to be able to compute the outcome in such a non-linear system.

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
Those who wish to become American instead of Puerto Ricans may come here and join us and be welcome.
---

AFAIK Puerto Ricans are US citizens, i.e. they already are Americans. Am I wrong?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Perhaps as a first order approximation

No welfare state -> natives take low end jobs -> no jobs for illegal immigrants -> less illegal immigration.

That sequence would constitute welfare being a de facto incentive for illegal immigration, as it clears out the job slots for those immigrants.

Clovis said...

AOG,

I've imagined that you would think an approximation like that.

The reason I've refrained from this guess is that linear approximations may be misleading near singularities. The political, social and economical reactions to dismantling welfare are hard to predict.

There is also the question of what's to be gained by that. If the ultimate objection against too much illegals is a loss of cohesion by society (as pointed out by Howard's link above), what would be gained if instead that loss of cohesion happened due to bitter infighting in a welfare-less society?

erp said...

Puerto Ricans are American citizens, but if they wish, the may also may become Americans, i.e., be part of the melting pot of U.S.culture -- two different things or they can stay in Puerto Rico and remain Puerto Ricans.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

I think most of the loss of cohesion in American society is due to the welfare state and therefore removing would lead to much greater cohesion and cooperation, not bitter infighting. What, exactly, would they be fighting over? Right now, most of the fighting is about who gets the government largesse. Remove the prize, remove the fighting over it.

erp said...

... and as an added benefit, we remove millions of union thugs from our payroll whose main mission is to continue the status quo, not fix any alleged problems, to wit, bilingual education which is an excellent example of throwing a lot of money at a non-existent problem while adding to the left's coalition of rabid supporters.

Millions of kids (myself included) learned English and their lessons at the same time.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
Right now, most of the fighting is about who gets the government largesse. Remove the prize, remove the fighting over it.
---

You may be right. Still, don't you foresee any turbulence at all during the process to get there?

I tend to believe that welfare, in essence, is a way society found to minimize frictions. I see you believe it end up leading to more friction. I really don't know who is right, but if I am, the process to turn welfare off - depending also on how it is done - may be very chaotic.

erp said...

...minimize frictions? That's a new one. Welfare is designed by the government to keep people dependent on government. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] A good part of the Latin illegals did have free schools in the place they come from.

I can't find the NYT article that discussed the thousands of kids school districts must enroll, but it did specifically say that many of the illegal immigrants had little or no education.

That would make any sense at all if your Passport was issued by Alaska, not the US Federal Govt. If you really believe the above, please be coherent and throw away your passport right now.

There is absolutely no comparison between a passport and a national ID. A passport is only required for travel in and out of the US; it is never required for any other purpose, especially as documentation of ID or citizenship within the US.

The two are so completely different that you might as well be telling me to throw away my crescent wrench because I don't like knitting.

[AOG:] No welfare state -> natives take low end jobs -> no jobs for illegal immigrants -> less illegal immigration.

As a first approximation, perhaps. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the jobs illegals perform is agricultural and migratory. They are jobs that Americans by and large don't live near, won't move to, and won't deal with the migratory end of it.

Clovis makes good points about welfare and cohesion. Appalachia gets substantial welfare spending; the problems there are far longer term, and different, than in the inner cities. The problem with welfare is that it far too often rewards vice. The problem of no welfare spending is conditions for some people that we will not, as a society, tolerate.

(If I was made Lord God King of All I Survey, I would eliminate the minimum wage and provide direct, biweekly transfers to individuals as required to provide a national minimum income. No work, no money. Work, at least enough money. And then dumpster every pooreaucracy in the country.)

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

don't you foresee any turbulence at all during the process to get there?

I find your question utterly bizarre, but the answer is yes, I anticipate that. Therefore...?

P.S. I think welfare is a wonderful way to reduce societal tensions if done on a consensual basis. Fraternal and charitable organizations are the life blood of civil society. Government welfare destroys that.

Anonymous said...

Skipper;

They are jobs that Americans by and large don't live near, won't move to, and won't deal with the migratory end of it.

To actually make one of Clovis' points, you need to add the phrase "at current wages".

Clovis said...

AOG,


---
I find your question utterly bizarre, but the answer is yes, I anticipate that. Therefore...?
---
Utterly bizarre? Oh my, and I thought it such a trivial question.

To answer you: Therefore, the turbulence in the process may take you out of the intended initial route. You may end up achieving neither a welfare-less society nor a cohesive one.

There may be people who'd say you are already in such a place.

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
There is absolutely no comparison between a passport and a national ID.
---
I disagree, Skipper. Both are documents produced by the Federal Govt and that can - and are - used in any process aimed at identifying you.

erp said...

... also without welfare, those who are able-bodied and don’t want to starve must take what jobs are offered or move on up, stay in school, learn a trade, make themselves useful and support themselves and their families.

Single women having babies they can’t afford to bring up is a large part of the problem. Local charities wouldn’t encourage that and it would soon stop if those babies weren’t seen as a source of income and housing.

Kids around here (unfortunately there don’t seem to be any wetbacks locally who will work for a crust of bread that Harry sees under every bush) won't do yard work for less than $15/hr. and spend a lot of time on their phones. One unemployed 30 year old (big strapping blond headed blue eyed kid) – a victim of bad judgement who lives with his parents, told me that he won't do some heavy cleaning, attic/ garage, etc. I need done because that’s work for a cleaning woman. Little does he know, I can’t even find a cleaning woman to do regular housework competently and they want $20-25/hr.

Skipper, a national minimum income is a moveable feast, i.e., what was considered basic necessities back when has escalated exponentially. The poor in the U.S. now live better on our dime than a Turkish sultan a hundred years ago and since the stigma of being on the dole has been removed, there really is no reason for anyone to do anything as odious as work, especially when that is how their family and friends have done for multiple generations.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] I disagree, Skipper. Both are documents produced by the Federal Govt and that can - and are - used in any process aimed at identifying you.

That is incorrect.

Yes, passports are produced by the Federal Govt, as would a national ID.

However, passports are not used "in any process aimed at identifying you". They are used in only one process, clearing immigration, but are not used in any other process.

Passports are not required, and a substantial number, probably a majority, of Americans don't have them. Further, passports are useless in establishing state residency, or establishing eligibility to vote, or getting a driver's license, etc.



Clovis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
However, passports are not used "in any process aimed at identifying you". They are used in only one process, clearing immigration, but are not used in any other process.
---

Suppose the FBI thinks you may be a dangerous right-wing home terrorist. You hang up with the wrong guys, write opinions on Libertarian blogs and so on. And worse, have military training and an airplane at your hands every day.

Are you telling me that they won't check your passport? Are you telling me they won't check every single official and unofficial document they can about you?

If you are not telling me so, you may need to rewrite your phrases above.

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
Kids around here (unfortunately there don’t seem to be any wetbacks locally who will work for a crust of bread that Harry sees under every bush) won't do yard work for less than $15/hr. and spend a lot of time on their phones. [...] One unemployed 30 year old (big strapping blond headed blue eyed kid)...
---

Interesting. That story does not fit other ones I've heard.

I have a friend who did part of his Biology PhD in North Carolina. He and his wife - both of German descent, you wouldn't guess they were from Brazil - were in need of some extra bucks. Being a no-frills guy, he thought it would be easy to do lawns nearby. Wrote and ad and even distributed fliers. Not once he could get one single lawn to do.

Her wife tried hard to find a job too. She offered around to babysitter, to do cleaning, anything (she had an architecture diploma, but she was a no-frills girl too). After a long time looking for, she could only land a desk job at some post office - not bad, but the point being that no one wanted them to do hard work.

So tell me Erp, where were you, or people like you, when they wanted those jobs? Apparently, either they were too white for people to employ them on that, or no one really needed it.

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
The poor in the U.S. now live better on our dime than a Turkish sultan a hundred years ago [...]
---
Taking aside your exaggeration, the question is, what's the problem on that?

If they live reasonably comfortably compared to a poor of 100 years ago, that's not because they get a Sultan's income, It only means technology moved forward our comforts, and thanks God for that.

Behind your ranting, Erp, is the implicit feeling that people must dearly suffer. And your need to take pleasure on that.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Of course. That's the way real life works. To me, you might as well ask "do your policy involve humans?" because the conversation would go exactly the same way. Yes it does, and yes that could could result in turbulence and going off track. I consider that non-bizarre when you come up with a policy where that exact thing doesn't apply.

erp said...

I'm not surprised that people of German descent live in anywhere in the world or any other people for that matter. I don't pigeonhole people -- that's the left's M.O.

You might be interested in a study I just did of a portion of people living in my town. The issue has nothing to do with income, race, ethnicity, etc. It’s strictly a local matter and in scanning some of the information for the committee, I was pleased to see the names of the people who agree with our position were a cross-section of We, the People whose original antecedents were from every point of the globe.

I mention that the young man who felt above doing manual labor for a fair wage is a blond, blue eyed guy, so I wouldn’t be accused of being racist for even offering him such a menial job. He was working for a contractor doing some work at our home at the time. We offered a higher hourly wage than he was getting.

I wish your friend lived here in rural Florida, I would be glad to hire either or both of them. Alas, I can't afford to live in places like college towns in North Carolina where the beautiful people live, so I'm stuck with doing things ourselves (getting harder and harder) or letting things go (even harder).

I want people to suffer -- that's what you got from my comment? What I wanted to do was graphically demonstrate (poetic license) that poverty and minimum national income shift with perceived needs.

No, actually, I don't want to people to suffer. I want everyone to take advantage of every opportunity to make what they can of their lives and not sink into the languor of dependence or paraphrasing Blanche Dubois always need to depend on the kindness of taxpayers.

Hey Skipper said...

Are you telling me that [the FBI, et al] won't check your passport?

Not for identification purposes, that's for sure. They might check my passport records to see where I've been, but that is entirely different from using it as an internal ID.

Heck, a US passport won't even tell you where its holder lives.

Clovis said...

Skipper,


Neither will an ID card. The only information my ID cars has, but my Passport doesn't, is the name of my parents. Anyway, the point was that you hav already other types of ID emmited by the Federal Govt., I don't see any meaningful differentiations here.

And my broader point is that, in the age of information and NSA, all the worries related to an ID are baseless, for Govt has the means to get so much more information about you with two clicks in a mouse.

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
Alas, I can't afford to live in places like college towns in North Carolina where the beautiful people live ...
---
Heck, what does that mean? Is the cost of living in North Carolina that higher? I doubt so.

And you live in Florida, the after life (but still in life) paradise for retirees, right?

I've spent some ammount of money to take holidays in your State. And I can tell you can't complain.

erp said...

I'm not complaining; I'm explaining.

You doubt the cost of living is higher in North Carolina than here in rural Florida because you spent money on vacations in the tourist areas of Florida.

I doubt you know how silly that statement is -- almost as silly as schooling Skipper on how passports (or anything else) works in the U.S.

I said I can't afford to live where the beautiful people* live like (means for example) college towns in North Carolina.

*beautiful people = lefties

Clovis said...

Erp,

I don't think I am trying to school Skipper at anything. You just have this worldview where, if I am not saying "Yes madam" all the time, I must be terribly ignorant of my place in this world.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

No, erp is commenting on things like "Neither will an ID card". You certainly sound like you're schooling Skipper on how ID cards work in the USA and, as far as I can tell, solely on the basis of how it works in your country as if it couldn't be different here.

It is most likely that any national ID card would follow the model of the de facto state ID cards, driver's licenses, which do contain home addresses among other information.

Again, as I have noted with you, it's not that you fail to agree, but that you actively dismiss our claims without evidence. Do you really see no difference between "I don't believe you are correct" and "You are wrong"? Do you treat scientific claims the same way, that if it's not clearly proven true, it has been falsified?

Clovis said...

AOG,

You are right. My phrase should have been written as "Neither necessarily will an ID card".

But I couldn't possibly intend to school Skipper on "how ID cards work in the USA", since they do not exist at the Federal level. I have no idea how State level IDs work, neither was aware they even existed.

I am, and have multiple times regonized so, largely ignorant of the real day to day life in America. I have always participated in this forum as a foreigner. Given that, I can't see why you interpret my points as trying to school anyone. Were we in opposite situations, I think I'd be less critical of form and focus more on content.


---
Do you really see no difference between "I don't believe you are correct" and "You are wrong"?
---
Surely I do, but in a informal setting as the one here, where many times I type fast and without checking it before sending, I think it is a bit unfair this level of scrutiny you and Erp are calling for.

Clovis said...

AOG,

BTW, if you want to go back discussing content, you may want to read this interview.

That's why the resistance to an ID card, whatever the little details written on it, sounds ludicrous today.

Clovis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
erp said...

Clovis, here is how one state, Florida, handles ID cards. I don't extrapolate to any of the other states, much less other countries, Brazil, for example.

Many people here don't drive for any number of reasons, so the Dept. of Motor Vehicles issues a picture ID card similar to a driver's license to qualified people to use for their own various purposes.

It is voluntary, not compulsory.

That's the key you fail to understand.

Clovis said...

Doesn't bother you guys sometimes that, every time you travel to another state, you need to check all rules and laws that may be different there?

The key I fail to understand, Erp, is that among the many compulsory things we are obliged in a society, why to pick and choose IDs as anything special? Even more when there are already other equivalent mandatory documents (as a birth certificate) whose only difference is that they are not easy to carry around.

erp said...

Clovis, I've said it many times. You don't get us. Most things are the same or similar state to state, but what's interesting is there are things that are specific to some states because that's how the people there want it.

Why do you think a birth certificate isn't easy to carry around? It's just a piece of paper.

erp said...

aog, The problem is the fascisti, not states rights. Those imposing anti-gun laws are breaking the law. We, the People have a constitutional right to bear arms. It's dicey making us register them, but I'll give them that, confiscating them is clearly against our constitutional rights,

I wonder how many people who've gone through the trouble of following procedures, registering their guns, storing them properly, etc. have rampaged, looted randomly killing people.

I long for a leader to emerge who will put us back together again.

Anonymous said...

Well, erp, it is true that "Mayors Against Guns", the Bloomberg group, has a much higher rate of gun crime than people with conceal carry permits :-).

Many others have pointed out that you don't see the Ferguson style riots in places where the citizenry is still armed. Coincidence, I am sure...

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
Many others have pointed out that you don't see the Ferguson style riots in places where the citizenry is still armed.
---

Then if I point to you that it does not make sense and you don't know Missouri gun laws, you will either dismiss me as a foreigner or as being disingenuous. Or any other ad hominem not related to my arguments.

Anonymous said...

Or I could point out that state gun laws can be overruled by local and municipal gun rules. For instance, I can own guns where I live in Illinois, but I couldn't own them in Chicago.

Or I could point out that being allowed to own guns is not the same as having an armed citizenry.

I dismiss your arguments as disingenuous when they are, and point out exactly why I think that.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
Or I could point out that state gun laws can be overruled by local and municipal gun rules.
---
In St Louis, they aren't.

---
Or I could point out that being allowed to own guns is not the same as having an armed citizenry.
---
Missouri has 42% of gun ownership. How much more do you need to have an "armed citizenry"?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Missouri has 42% of gun ownership.

Exactly. And we don't see the riots spreading across Missouri, do we?

As for your cite, it says nothing about whether any such application will be granted. It's a common dodge here to accept applications for a gun permit or CC license and then simply not grant them. Whether that's the case in St. Louis is unclear. I looked around a bit for Ferguson in particular (which is a different municipality than St. Louis) and didn't find anything conclusive. Two indicia were

1) A reference in a section of the Ferguson municipal code that referred to sheriff's gun permits, which may indicate that owning a gun in Ferguson requires the explicit permission of the sheriff.

2) Gun sales are booming near but not in Ferguson. That would indicate both a lack of current ownership and that you can't sell / own guns in Ferguson.

But those, as noted, are circumstantial evidence. I would say the strongest evidence is that lack of any demonstration of gun ownership in any of this violence. If Ferguson were as heavily armed as you want to claim, we would not have had some direct evidence of it during the street violence? Owners defending their stores? Clerks defending themselves from thugs like Brown?

But whatever. I made a general observation and you hold me to strict rules of evidence. What happened to "in a informal setting as the one here [...], I think it is a bit unfair this level of scrutiny"?

Clovis said...

AOG,

Well, I was only answering to your stricter limits. If you want to go back to the informal setting, I am all for it.

Harry Eagar said...

'I even provided a verbatim reply to my inquiry about changes in the sale of real estate on the islands from a friend who returned to the U.S. recently after a lifetime in a high position in Hawaiian public life.'

Name her. Her statement was ridiculous.

Harry Eagar said...

'Lots of people can afford things they couldn't otherwise — yard work, house cleaning, nannies. Construction costs are lower.'

Cui bono?

Your remark about not controlling borders is true but so incomplete as to make it false.

40% of illegal immigrants come on visas. Yet I cannot recall ever hearing a TPer or similar patriot demanding money and machine guns to address that.

Some people might suspect a racist element is dominating the move for 'enforcement.' They'd be right, too.

erp said...

Harry,

My friend is the polar opposite of ridiculous.

I've known her for many years and found her to be completely believable. She had no reason to equivocate or dissemble not having a clue as to why I inquired about Hawaiian real estate.

BTW - she's probably further left than you, but doesn’t subscribe to rewriting history. It’s touching she still holds out hope for the old slogans. She's wrong about that, but otherwise a perfectly normal human being. We’ve disagreed about practically everything for longer than Clovis has been on the earth yet never felt the need to call each names or accuse each of lying.

You, on the other hand, are bent on advancing the left's agenda by any means fair or foul.

Harry Eagar said...

'I do know about people who illegally emigrated to the USA. None of them did so for welfare, and none of them are in welfare today AFAIK.'

I suspect Guy's reasoning is different from erp's (but who knows)? erp is just a simple, uncomplicated racist. Guy, I suspect, means that if the welfare were removed, then the shiftless citizens would go out and take those jobs that they are not now willing to take.

And Skipper thinks, by implication, that those crap jobs would suddenly pay more.

All this makes me wonder if they have ever visited the United States. Possibly not. They sound like people who get all their understanding of the country from
Karl May novels or something.

Harry Eagar said...

'Thanks for the link, I'll follow it for a while'

Please do so with circumspection.

Harry Eagar said...

The mother languages of 3 of my 4 grandmothers were not English, yet their families had been settled here a loooooong time, in the case of one since before the Mayflower. erp, you really should learn the history of America, it is so interesting, and you know nothing of it.

Harry Eagar said...

'you need to add the phrase "at current wages".'

Yet the justification for not raising the minimum wage is that doing so would destroy jobs. You cannot take both sides at once.

Which are you on?

Harry Eagar said...

'Heck, a US passport won't even tell you where its holder lives.'

But it does tell you where he lived.

Our pawnshop accepts US passports as ID.

Harry Eagar said...

'I've known her for many years and found her to be completely believable'

Yet she is a leftist. Quit digging. Your hole is deep enough.

There's this thing called the Internet. You could use it to visit, eg, the Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances. Or read the DROA Manual used by all the local real estate agents. Or any of the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of guidebooks to making a killing in Hawaii real estate.

Your informant was ridiculous. You, having been told that the case is otherwise than you want to believe, are being disingenuous to keep at it.

erp said...

Harry, told otherwise by you?

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Neither will an ID card [tell you where its holder lives]. The only information my ID cars has, but my Passport doesn't, is the name of my parents. Anyway, the point was that you hav already other types of ID [issued] by the Federal Govt., I don't see any meaningful differentiations here.

There are several meaningful differences. The most predominant form of ID is a driver's license, which is required to have the holder's current address. A passport can be used for identification — I typically use it instead of a driver's license getting through airport security. But with respect to combatting illegal immigration, which was your point to begin with, there are lots of good reasons to be hostile to a federally mandated ID, not least of which is that it won't solve the problem. SFAIK, if I'm not operating a motor vehicle, there is absolutely no requirement for me to carry an ID of any kind.

And this is entirely different from NSA abuses. An ID functions to verify a specific person to someone requesting verification. I'm sure the NSA (or a simple google search) will reveal a great deal about me: nearly all of it outside the realm of what is contained in my driver's license or passport.

Fixing illegal immigration requires securing the border — there is no simple panacea.

Doesn't bother you guys sometimes that, every time you travel to another state, you need to check all rules and laws that may be different there?

Sometimes it is a real pain. In some states, U-turns are legal unless posted otherwise; elsewhere, its the other way around. That grotesque abuse of power to which AOG linked also happens on the road — people driving through NY have been arrested for possessing guns that were completely legal everywhere totalitarian inclined and reality impaired progressives don't hold power.

Then if I point to you that it does not make sense and you don't know Missouri gun laws, you will either dismiss me as a foreigner or as being disingenuous. Or any other ad hominem not related to my arguments.

Good point about gun Missouri's gun laws. However, a couple things are worth noting. One store owner decided it wasn't worth the risk to human life to defend his store. He didn't, and it got trashed. (Why is it that protesting for racial justice seems to require wholesale thievery?) Another store owner stood out front with a couple AR-15s. His place remains intact.

During the 1992 LA riots, the police completely abdicated. Lots of businesses were destroyed.

Not the ones with Koreans on the roofs with pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

Harry would rather they be burned out.

Hey Skipper said...

P.S. Remember the London riots of a couple years ago?

Outside of progressive redoubts where, without a hint of irony, politicians have armed body guards, such a thing would be nearly unthinkable in the US.

Too many Americans are armed, and will not tolerate mob tyranny.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Eagar;

Yet the justification for not raising the minimum wage is that doing so would destroy jobs. You cannot take both sides at once.

Because all jobs are the same and would be affected identically by a rise in wages.

But yet, it's likely that absent illegal immigration there would be fewer such jobs.

But it [a passport] does tell you where he lived.

One location, at birth. Not very informative.

I cannot recall ever hearing [...]

You never do.

Clovis;

As I have noted many times, I think what would work best would for you to be willing to take the view of "not proven" or "insufficient data". What is the gun ownership rate in Ferguson? We don't know. We have different views on the implication of available evidence, but for whatever reason you can't accept that kind of ambiguity. I can, so pending further data I'm moving on.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] Lots of people can afford things they couldn't otherwise — yard work, house cleaning, nannies. Construction costs are lower.'

Cui bono?


I'd have thought that a transparently silly question, but then I remembered you are immune to free market economics.

So let me help you out: both parties to the transaction.

40% of illegal immigrants come on visas. Yet I cannot recall ever hearing a TPer or similar patriot demanding money and machine guns to address that.

You really should learn the history of America; it is so interesting, and you seem to know nothing of it that isn't within your soda-straw view of the world.

(There are members of the Tea Party demanding machine guns to secure the border? Really? Or is this just another of your ridiculous, indefensible, statements?)

And Skipper thinks, by implication, that those crap jobs would suddenly pay more.

Supply and demand isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

Those jobs will either pay more, or people will stop paying for them. Only someone truly ignorant of American history would deny that one of the reasons we don't have stringent enforcement of immigration laws is because of the cost impact on the agriculture industry.

erp is just a simple, uncomplicated racist.

You have long since proven your complete incompetence with that word (for just the latest example). It is bad enough when you fling it at some distant target; far worse when you do it to a commenter here.

Consequently, I expect one of two things: some quote that demonstrates erp's racism according to the definition of the word that English speakers use; or an apology.

I'm betting on neither.

erp said...

All: Don't know if the problem is at my end or not, but for quite awhile when I click "Post a Comment" in my email, I no longer get directed to the comment box, but to the top of the post.

Skipper: The prog/lefty world is crumbling and only those like Obama et al. who are orchestrating it are happy about it. Foot soldiers like Harry have nothing left but reflexive name calling. It's quite pathetic.

Harry Eagar said...

'Harry, told otherwise by you?'

With simple instructions for verification.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 440   Newer› Newest»