On Sunday, we found out that one of the brethren in the Spanish ward that shares our chapel in Miami had been deported. He is married to an American woman and has two children, but he had not filled out his immigration papers correctly, so the INS caught up with him and deported him back to Central America, leaving his wife without a husband and his children without a father.
Let’s be clear: this brother broke the law. He came here on a temporary visa and stayed, married, had children and worked. But he also found that trying to legalize yourself is a lengthy, confusing process that can take more than a decade. And before he could become legal, the immigration authorities found him and put him on a plane back home.
I wonder how many of the people who are grumbling about “illegal” immigrants as these immigrants stay home from work today have a clue how difficult it is to become a legal immigrant. Here is the crude reality: it takes years and years of persistence, money, sweat and frustration to legalize yourself. You have to deal with some of the most power-hungry and annoying bureaucrats in the world. The system is completely broken.
I am in favor of following the law — indeed I believe our religion demands it. But our religion also has room for common sense. Joseph Smith supposedly broke hundreds of different laws and was repeatedly arrested on trumped-up charges. He certainly broke anti-polygamy laws, as did many other early Church leaders.
Latter-day Saints should be especially aware of the spectrum of law-breaking. On one end, we break different types of laws every day — we speed, we jaywalk, we play our music too loud, we don’t follow all of the municipal laws when we carry out home improvement projects. I wonder if we would be more sympathetic to “illegal” immigrants if we all had to wait 10 years to get a driver’s license before getting behind the wheel of the car. If that were the law, would all of us obey the law and never drive until we had a license? Imagine what a pain it is to get a driver’s license in some states — the rude bureaucrats, the five-hour lines, the technological backwardness. Now, imagine having to do that for 10 years. If I had to wait 10 years to get a driver’s license, I’d try to get around the law, because it is absurd, just as our immigration laws are absurd today.
I’m ashamed of the nativist fervor of my fellow conservatives on this issue. I’m happy to say that President Bush’s instincts are right — he is pro-immigrant, just as I am. But the majority of my favorite conservative talk shows are filled with bile toward immigrants, and it makes me unexpressably sad. It bodes poorly for the future of the Republican party, and it shows very little humanity.
May Day in most of the world is a time for organized labor to parade and demand that its workers work less. The contrast in the United States could not be more stark — here there are millions of people who want to work harder, yet there are many who want them to leave. It seems un-American to me.
Thanks Geoff and amen. Here is another article by a very conservative republican in favor of more open borders. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0423bolick0423.html
Having gotten up to the green card stage with my wife, I can understand what you are talking about. The system exists more or less for the convienance of the bureaucrats and not for the people that it is suppose to serve.
Where is the point of charity/compassion on this issue? You know, the pure love of Christ, without which we are nothing. I doubt it is with deportation, but saying the current situation is there is problematic in and of itself. On a macro scale, illegal immagrants depress wages for the people that are allready poor, making their situation worse. There is also a host of problems that illegals bring with them, from the carrying of infectous disease to criminals coming in with them (but to be fair every immigrant group, leagal or not, has had criminals mixed in, the Mafia for Italians, the Triads for Chinese, etc.). Allowing greater government oversight along with fixing a system that is so obviously broken is the best way to do this.
On a more personal level, I can only imagine what loosing a father like that could be like. I hope they will be reunited soon.
One more thing, if you want to listen to a talk show host that is on your side, Geoff, and is more articulate that most on raido, you can go to Michael Medved’s show. In Maiami its on 1360 AM and runs 3-6.
Geoff-
I thought we’d beaten this dead horse enough in your last immigration post, but I guess not.
What is unAmerican is to take illegal immigrants and give them a pass, while other hopeful immigrants continue the lengthy legal process. By granting amnesty to the illegal aliens here now, we would
1) Set a precedent, sending the message that all you have to do is hop our border and you’re home free;
2) Create a double standard. Potential immigrants from the rest of the world have to obey our broken laws, but immigrants from Mexico do not.
3) Teach our children that laws are more like guidelines, and that it’s no big deal to break laws we don’t find convenient (as if entering a sovereign country illegally is only as wrong as jay-walking).
Another thing you might think about, Geoff (which I’m sure will overjoy everybody else here), is the political ramifications. The Latino vote has always gone to Democrats. That’s the legal Latino vote. With the current political landscape, and once we legalize everybody already here, all those votes- over 12 mill.- will be going to Democrats too. Your generosity, and Bush’s, will be death knell for the Republican party.
Go ahead, let the “nativist” and “racist” labels fly. Ten percent of the population of the Republic of Mexico lives illegally in the United States of America. How is such a rapid influx of one single nationality good for our diversity? If you are so pro-immigrant, what about the rest of the potential immigrants around the world that don’t have the luxury of simply crossing a river?
The organizers of today’s protests have dubbed it “A Day Without Gringos.” Who’s the racist?
Nate T, I love Michael Medved, although I hadn’t heard his take on immigration. You may want to read my post on Talk Radio. Since writing that, I have to admit I’m changing some of my viewpoints because of the nonsense on the immigration issue I’ve heard from some of my favorites. These days, the most sensible voice on the radio is — HORRORS — NPR (argh!!!!). But I’m glad I can still listen to Michael Medved without changing the channel.
Tossman, I don’t want to rehash other debates. Let me just give you one thing to think about: those 12 million illegal immigrants will not necessarily be Democrats. Cubans, for example, are overwhelmingly Republican. The second and third generations of Hispanic immigrants start integrating into society and abandoning the Democratic party just as much as Russian and English and French immigrants do. Pres. Bush wants to win them over to the Republican party, and so do I. But if we allow anti-immigrant fever to take over — as it is today — then I guarantee you they won’t be Republicans, and that’s too bad.
Geoff- You really have to stop framing this argument dishonestly. You equate anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigration. I don’t know anybody who is anti-immigration. The issue here is the huge uncontrolled, unmonitored influx of illegal immigrants, and its effects on our political, cultural, and economic systems.
Tossman: Are you in favor of significantly raising the quotas that limit the number of immigrants from most Latin American countries?
I’m in favor of significantly raing the quotas for every country. I’m also in favor of updating and simplifying immigration laws so that it’s not so overwhelming to try and come here legally.
sorry: raising the quotas. I really wish these forums had an edit feature.
Clint Bollick, a very conservative republican, puts it this way in the column to which I linked:
“Those who call for stringent controls insist they are not against immigration, only illegal immigration. But universally [except for Tossman], they oppose attempts to increase legal immigration levels to reflect the demand for immigrant labor and the unshakable desire of millions around the world to pursue the American Dream.”
One of his other points is that by strident opposition to immigration (or “illegal immigration” but without any increase in legal immigration limits), the republican party risks losing a potential pro-family, socially conservative constituency:
“Ordinarily, explosive growth among a group that is overwhelmingly hard-working, entrepreneurial, family-centered, deeply religious, devoted to education, and culturally conservative is a Democrat’s worst nightmare.
“So why are Howard Dean and James Carville smiling? Because instead of recruiting those kindred spirits, many Republicans are succumbing to the basest demagogic impulses. By seeking to deny Mexican immigrants the opportunity to become lawful Americans, they are triggering a backlash that will consign Republicans to minority status.”
I have registered as a democrat, largely because of my opposition to the Iraq invasion. If the republican party wishes to self-destruct nationally as it largely did in California, it doesn’t bother me. But I think it is unfortunate that many in the GOP do not take into more serious consideration the positions of more compassionate conservatives on this issue, like Geoff.
This will only happen if the government does not increase enforcement along with some kind of amnesty or regularization policy.
I really have to correct this. If you live in a port on the West Coast you have probably heard local news about Chinese immigrants getting smuggled in containers on fright ships. These illegals are not as visible as the Mexicans/Latin Americans but still are there.
As to a double standard, we need to acknowledge the realities on the ground is different for illegals in the US than other groups, especially if we want to fix a system that is so obviously broken.
Geoff is not advocating an open border policy, but instead hopes that the situation will be made to fit what needs there are. Please, if you don’t like people framing arguments unfairly don’t misrepresent them.
If you are going to draw that parallel, one could also say that the governments treated this husband and father like a rapist, as if living in a country illegally was the same as raping someone.
I doubt what we are teaching our children now, when they hear about the man Geoff mentioned in his original post, is any more positive than what you are saying.
Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote, not the majority but far from overwhelming. Plus when has something like this been relevant when talking about the effectiveness or morality of laws?
Well consitancy and commonsene win out. I too miss an edit feature. 🙁
Unfortunately that compassion seems to be limited to Mexican immigrants. Were it not so, Geoff and those who would advocate either an absolute open-borders policy or equal quotas and process for all countries. Their proposition, to grant amnesty to illegal aliens (99% from Mexico), is not the least bit fair to anybody else in the world who has made the sacrifices to come here legally.
Really? I’ve never heard of Clint Bollick, but I’d like to know where he found evidence of “universal” opposition to immigration levels by conservatives. That’s not what I see at all.
Tossman,
Which prominent “anti-illegal-immigration” advocates, besides you, favor dramatic increases in the legal immigration limits? I believe the current limit is about 500,000 per year, or .17% of the US population.
(Try a google search if you wish to learn more about Clint Bollick, who is a strong advocate of school vouchers and other parts of the very conservative agenda.)
By the way, I do favor essentially open borders. There should be reasonable minimum requirements to enter and start the road to citizenship, something like there were in earlier days, but no quotas. If a person wants to come, and can meet the threshold requirements, let him or her come.
I am not convinced that the current Democratic domination of california politics is due to the anti-illegal immigration policies of Pete Wilson.
I ahve seen several studies/commentaries that suggest that between 1985 and 2000 2.2MM middle class Republican types left the state for a complex list of reasons. This is probably the reason for the tilt starting in about 1992 towards the Dems.
FWIW its also an anecdote, my upper middle class Dallas subdivision is full of former Californians that fled the state as is my ward. They tell the same stories. Bad schools, No english, taxes high, property values to high etc So California is turning into a place where the middle class is exiting, leaving wealthy liberal whites and less well off minorities. Hence the tilt towards the Dems
Also the danger to the repubs for being anti illegal immigrant is overblown. Hispanic Voters only cast 6% of the votes in the 2004 national election. Mostly in CA, TX, FL, NY and Illinois. With the exception of Florida none of these states were ever in play in the 2004 election and since the hispanic vote is concentreted here its not as important as the states below
Trust me the anti-illegal immigrant message plays quite well in the swing states of Michigan, Iowa, Arkansas, Missuori PA WV, Ohio etc where the vast majority of the whites do not like illegal immigration and where there is actually a contest in national elections.
bbell,
I suppose the GOP has written off the African American vote; they might as well write off the Latino American vote. I am delighted to welcome (or retain) more socially conservative, pro-life, pro-family Latino voters, with lots of children, in the democratic party (even if they only represent, now, 6% of those who vote).
With respect to Tossman’s comments, do you think that the “vast majority of whites [who] do not like illegal immigration” would favor dramatic increases in legal immigration?
DavidH,
The GOP is starting to contest the Black vote. Bush got 50% more blacks in 2004 than 2000. 12% compared to 8% The GOP is going after the black religious conservatives quite hard these days. Who has more in common with a middle class black church attending family? A secularist from CA who is pro chouice and pro-ssm or this Middle Class Black families kindred evangelics in the R Right? In Ohio Bush got 18% of the black vote which was enough all things considered to tilt the state. Rove targeted Black Church goers and it worked (at least compared to the last 40 years)
The jury is still out on the Hispanic vote. Time will tell. But for now its so small 6% that its not really that important. (ask me again in 50 years) The danger for the GOP is angering the lower class whites in swing states by being to PRo-illegal immigration. Whites represent about 80% of the electorate across the board and in some of these swing states like 90%.
Most conservatives I know both in and out of the church are in favor of shutting the border with a fence/National guard, enforcing sanctions against employers, going after documetn fraud ETC.
AND THEN seeing what can be done to increase the quotas and make the immigration system more sane/humane
Its essentially security first and then discuss compassion when the insanity stops.
Which prominent “anti-illegal-immigration” advocates, besides you, favor dramatic increases in the legal immigration limits?
I don’t know. I tend to come to these conclusions on my own without listening to talk radio blather. But I think characterizing conservatives as universally anti-immigration is irresponsible.
Nate T. #11-
I really have to correct this. If you live in a port on the West Coast you have probably heard local news about Chinese immigrants getting smuggled in containers on fright ships. These illegals are not as visible as the Mexicans/Latin Americans but still are there.
Ok, how many Chinese do you see out there marching today? Do you have an estimate of how many illegal Chinese are here? What percentage of that 12+ million are Chinese smuggled in containers?
I liken my views on immigration to the concept of biological homeostasis, in which the body maintains a harmonious and healthy status by regulating levels of body fluids and nutrients. A healthy diet and a diverse balance of nutrients results in a stable organism. The body needs nutrients and fluids to survive, but too much of one thing or too little of another are not can have devasting effects.
I see this country as a living organism which thrives on a healthy and productive population. Restricting immigration would be like starving yourself- or going on a cardboard diet. On the other hand, allowing ten percent of the Republic of Mexico in basically for free is like overdosing on Vitamin E, while virtually ignoring every other vitamin and mineral in the spectrum. Living in a country inundated with uncontrolled illegal immigration is like growing up in a house full of smokers. You unwillingly have to suck up all that smoke. Some debate whether second-hand smoke is detrimental to your health, but it’s definately not healthy.
I believe we need to establish a system that is generous to immigrants, while still maintaining homeostasis. There needs to be an order to the chaos. Simplify the laws, set a threshold that’s geared toward security and that promotes assimilation. To the extent that the economy would be negatively impacted, quotas are rational. But those quotas should be generous- and more importantly, equal.
This site says the Latino vote in 2004 was 8%, not 6%. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/11/racial_breakdow.php
My understanding is the Latino vote is expected to grow by another 2 million by 2008.
I fear that allowing more undocument/illegal immigration could lead to selective uprooting of immigrants. Not being a card carrying citizen could be a huge liability for these people in later years, especially if policies on resident aliens change. I knew a man who was a key player on a college soccer team. He was deported halfway through the season because an opposing team’s coach called INS and reported him. How many people could resist having their business competition, or rowdy neighbors deported?
I’m coming to agree with you more and more, since I quit looking for the “pro-America” or selfish solution, and took on a heavy dose of compassion and ponding the more Christlike way. I think I’ve lightened up on judging people and their worthiness a lot in the last year or two.
22- How is your view Christ-like when it only applies to one culture?
Sounds good to me. Although you thinking this information will overjoy everyone here shows you haven’t been around long. The bloggernacle may be more liberal than regular church membership, but it still surprises me when more than a couple people declare themselves Democrats.
This is a real double-edged sword. Immigration brings hundreds of thousands of people to a place where they can hear the gospel because it isn’t available in their homeland.
There is prophecy in the Book of Mormon about the seed of the Lamanites being like young lions and “thrashing” the gentiles. I wonder if this flood of out-of-control illegal immigration is part of the fulfillment of that prophecy.
On another note, doesn’t anyone remember what happened when illegals were given amnesty back in the 1980’s under Reagan?
It created a FLOOD of new illegal immigration. That amnesty program was the knee of the exponential curve in the increase of illegal immigration from south of the border.
I’m afraid that if we give blanket amnestly like we did 20 years ago, it will raise the levels of illegal immigration, just like it did before, to even higher levels.
How quickly we forget.
And yet immigrants, both legal and illegal, are forming a significant portion of converts.
Although no analogy is perfect, I think the one above is quite illustrative.
Unfortunately, your conclusion misses the point of your own analogy.
The human body, if starved or overfed of nutrients, will ultimately react to the abnormal conditions set upon it; and by nature, will demand a return to normal conditions where it will properly function. The point here is that the body does this as a consequence of its very nature. The human body does not need not any kind of external legislation to alert and aid it when such an abnormality arises. In short, it reacts by instinct.
The phenomenon of illegal immigration that we are currently witnessing is the US economy’s reaction to the demands of market forces. These economic forces are just as real as the physiological forces a body feels when it is overfed or starved of nutrients. The market also reacts by instinct to certain economic signals or stimuli.
What is the point in legislating economic forces like supply and demand? If the body is hungry, why not pass a law that outlaws hunger? Or if it feels bloated, why not legislate a law that criminalizes feelings of bloatedness?
The whole idea of legislation itself depends on the notion that a group of wise men will write laws that will benefit the majority. But experience shows that we’ve never had a group of wise men in both houses of Congress. If we have, we won’t be talking of an “illegal immigration” problem right now. They would have come up with a wise solution long ago.
My friend, an economic problem requires an economic solution, just as a physiological problem in the human body would need a physiological solution. Using statism as a tool to address an economic problem will never solve anything in the long run.
I do know two personal examples I have heard echoed in the radio and the press. First I have a brother-in-law who is a carpenter/construction worker. He used to find jobs paying $15/hour and then contracters amazingly found others to do the same job and they could hire 3 for the same as he was being paid. Well there goes one job American’s don’t want to do to immigrants; too bad it left him unemployed and looking for a job he wanted to do. Thats the BIG LIE, that there are jobs Americans don’t want to do, in reality there are wages Americans don’t want to work for.
Second, I lived in a homogenous suburb where teenagers staffed most of the positions at fast food restaurants, theaters, and as clerks at stores. We moved to a more diverse community and not only did we become a minority, but apparently we speak the wrong language. Personally I do think that someone who works as customer service in America should actually speak English. Maybe I’m too demanding, maybe I need to learn 3-4 languages so I can communicate with whichever nationality the person behind the cash register is. You may think I’m being harsh but I kept track of the number of times our order was messed up in the suburb by teenagers and in the urban area by minorities. In 10 orders the teenagers whould mess up 1-2 times (about 85% if the time there would be a minor error (left the onions on a burger). In the urban fast food restaraunts the litterally got the order wront 8 out of 10 times and it was usually really wrong, forgot something and put extra onions on the sandwich that was supposed to be sans onions.
For us this was a good thing because it really helped cut down on the number of visits to fast food restaraunts. But I don’t think it helped the economy as some suggest and certainly didn’t help lower prices. Don’t get me wrong many of the people who are national minorities are extremely competent and get everything right, but there is a contingent that appears not to care (probably because they don’t speak English well enough to understand).
Personally I think we should make English speaking immigration easier than immigration for those, who through no fault of their own, cannot speak the language. Part of the cost of becoming a citizen should be courses and maybe even, heaven forbid, a verbal and written test in English. But its only because we want immigrants who will contribute and not need a translator to communicate with.
Is that controversial enough for you?
Geoff,
I suspect that there’s more to the story than you tell in your original post. An alien who entered the country legally, then overstayed his visa, but then married to a US citizen is entitled to “immediate relative” status under the law. That status will absolve him of almost all immigration law violations, and there is a relatively direct path to permanent residency.
However, if there was a prior deportation order, or a misrepresentation/fraud issue (say, a false passport/visa at entry) or a conviction for certain crimes, etc., then your story makes more sense.
Do you know if they have had an attorney representing them? There are options, even now, that they need to explore, before the husband does something drastic (like trying to enter now, illegally, which would only make matters worse).
Contact me directly at mebutler (at) nyc.rr.com if you wish. I’d be happy to help.
Virtually all immigration law has its roots in racism–the first law passed by Congress after some general laws restricting criminals and Typhoid Mary and her ilk (in the 1860s), had the wonderful title “The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1874.” That was followed by similar laws aimed at restricting immigration of people who weren’t like us.
At some point, a law was passed prohibiting immigration of persons intending to “practice polygamy in the United States”, and that law remains on the books. Go to http://www.uscis.gov, follow the links to the immigration forms, and check out Form I-485, the application to adjust status (that’s the application for green card). The last question on page 3: Do you intend to practice polygamy in the United States?
But, the nativist, anti-foreigner streak that has been around for 200 years is still with us, and it’s just as ugly now as it was then. And the Lou Dobbses of the world can protest all they want that it’s only “illegal” immigration they object to, but that begs the question. We could solve the illegal immigration problem in a minute by declaring all immigration legal.
Restricting immigration, given the economic disparity between the US and our southern neighbors, is rather like legislating against sunshine to protect the lampmakers’ profits. Any reduction in immigration will not be achieved simply by trying to raise barriers to entry, but through a lessening of demand–which will come only with reform and economic growth in Mexico and other countries that supply large numbers of immigrants.
Any controversy in Heli’s post is substantially reduced by the irony of his/her preaching about communicating in English.
Mark, how can you call it racist? If I know that the country next to me has millions who are willing to work for half the price that American citizens were working for, then I’m not racist, I’m trying to provide for my family and finding it MORE difficult because the working conditions in the neighboring country are bad. I don’t have anything against any particular race, in fact the problem I have is with our unequal treatment of immigrants. Who gets special treatment? Who receives translators the quickest across the country? Spanish speaking immigrants clearly are treated with preference.
As the son of immigrants I have personal experience with how Spanish speaking immigrants receive greater resources in terms of printed material, translators, and people like yourself who are willing to help.
Your argument about the sun and a lamp works well until you lose your job to someone willing to work for half the money. Then when you can’t afford you house payment and are force to move and rent and your kids have to make new friend, then I guess you become a racist for wanting a controlled influx of immigrants. Further the idea that all you have to do to get rid of illegal immigrants is make it legal is so ridiculous I don’t know where to start. Isn’t that true of every crime? So we can elimiate all crime by making everything legal (imagine crime being down 100%, we’d just love the politicians then right?)
I do agree that Mexico needs economic growth and American companies have been investing in Mexico (moving our factories down there). I do wish every success to our neighbors to the south and I support a guest worker program that does not pretend that crossing the border illegally was not wrong.
Notice I did not attack your posture, but your arguments Mark. Please try to do the same, I’m not a nativist, anti-foreigner, or a racist; are you? Do you believe in equal protection or is that just a platitude you believe in when it helps a specific group?
I do agree that any law that treats one incoming group differently than another group constitutes the very discrimination the current Bill of Rights was designed to protect against.
Tossman 23
“22- How is your view Christ-like when it only applies to one culture?”
I didn’t say a word about any one culture, and you willingness to debate points I haven’t remotely said doesn’t exactly entice me to continue the conversation.
Mark B.,
There are, or at least were, visas that stipulated that even marriage would not negate the terms of the visa to return home.
A good friend of mine was the wife of someone in such a situation.
An example is (or was) US-AID program that brought college graduates from Central/South America and gave them scholarships to get their masters degree in teaching. The deal was that their visa was an _absolute_ “you can’t stay here at the end of your visa even if you get married” in return for the free-ride scholarship plus living expenses.
The reasoning was: Hey, if Uncle Sam is going to pay for your grad school under a program to improve the teachers back in your home country, then by golly, you’re going to go back to your home country and stay there.
So my female friend married the guy and went back to El Salvador (or wherever it was) and lived with him there until their lawyer effectively “undid” that extra clause on his visa.
(Sidebar story is that she was in love with him, but he used her just to get back to the US.)
So there are (or at least were) exceptions to the rule of marriage being able to override the terms of a visa.
Oh and Mark how is my preaching the value of a common language (English) ironic?
If your experience is replicated with other customers, then most likely that business will see a decline in sales. If the business owner finds out that the shortfall is directly caused by language barrier issues, then he can decide whether he would continue hiring non-English speakers or simply close shop if he cannot afford better wages for those who speak English well.
If the shop closes, is this bad? Perhaps for the owner and his workers, but not necessarily for the economy. Because if customers are no longer willing to pay for an inefficient business, then scarce resources like money and labor are saved for other profitable ventures. It is a loss for the economy of a community to continue operating businesses that have stopped being profitable. In fact, it would be a disastrous loss.
Instead of having an all-powerful State decide what’s best for everyone, why not let this issue be settled individually by the business owners themselves?
Some businesses would require good-to-excellent mastery of the language (customer service businesses like fastfoods or hotels), but some would not (like harvesting crops in farms). The best person to decide whether mastery of language is critical to business operations is no other than the business owner himself. Not the State, and heck, not even the mayor of the smallest town.
If English tests are to be given, let the businesses themselves conduct it as they see fit. After all, it is their risk to assume should their venture succeed or fail because of language issues.
One great benefit of letting businesses conduct their own English test is that it prevents the govt from wasting billions of dollars on “Standardized English” tests that have questionable market value. And money that doesn’t land on govt hands is capital that the private sector can invest to create new jobs either by starting new businesses or expanding existing ones.
That argument about the sun and the lampmakers is the best argument one can find against the ideals of protectionism. No protectionist has ever successfully repudiated it, and it’s been around for at least a hundred years.
People lose jobs for different reasons. But what is inherently wrong with losing a job to someone who is more efficient (that is, one who can do the same work for less pay)?
If inefficient workers are to be saved from losing their jobs, then that means unprofitable businesses must also be protected from closures. But if customers are not going to shoulder the costs of paying for unprofitable businesses, then the money to keep them operating will have to come somewhere. Do you have any idea where this money will come from?
But isn’t that what legislation is all about? That’s precisely why it has not solved the immigration “problem”. Legislation is by nature ridiculous. It is based on the absurd idea that a group of wise men can pass laws that’s good for everyone. But try reading the immigration laws (the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, for example), and you’ll see that we’ve never had a group of wise men to begin with.
Curelom, I think you equat being efficient with being desparate. I will admit one of my fears is that in 30 years I will have to learn spanish to visit California, like I would be required to do if I visit Chile. I believe that a common language is important for more reasons than just economy, but that is the most observable. Language is one of the limiting factors for economic and cultural cooperation in countries like India. A common language encourages communication, fosters inclusion and diversity. When someone moves in near me regardless of their race/culture/nationality I can interact if they can communicate, but if they can’t speak the common tongue then its much easier to nod and not make a connection.
I know businesses will operate in their best interest, but do you want everything to become a Wal-Mart because cheap is the most successful model for the masses? You know the old saying: price, quality, or service — pick two, because a retail establishment can only offer two. Nice to see you’re also in favor of decreasing wages (every study I’ve seen on the economy has shown wages have decreased in real dollars over the past 30 years, why don’t we reduce real wages even more by inviting people who will take even lower pay. Somehow at the same time the wealthiest 10% just gets richer (course that is mainly due to interest and the ability to invest a greater percentage of discretionary funds).
I do understand that by inefficient you mean uncompetative, the American workers are efficient, but because we’re a wealthy country there are many who are willing to come and work. So I guess the whole world should seek a wage balance, take half our money and give it to those who make half as much so we can reach an equilibrium. We should do it now instead of seeking to preserve our standard of living.
As for legislation, I guess you’re saying that since congress had made some mistakes that everything they do is wrong and they should just give up. Don’t try and protect constituents but seek to remedy the ills of the world by opening the borders (are we also opening the airports or just allowing those from Mexico to come?) I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of getting on your own feet before you lift another, maybe the USA has to be economically sound to transfer knowledge of how to be economically sound (I know, I know, corporations are seeking to exploit workers in other countries as well as here).
Heli,
You will note (if you reread my post) that I did not say that you or other people on the restrictionist side of the argument were racist. I said: “Virtually all immigration law has its roots in racism . . .” I mean that, in a historical sense, the Immigration and Nationality Act grew out of racist attempts to (1) limit immigration by persons of certain races or ethnic groups and (2) base immigrant numbers on the existing racial/ethnic makeup of the country. In other words, the law says we will allow immigration, so long as it doesn’t alter the racial/ethnic makeup of the United States. (This has been softened up at the edges in recent legislation, but the effects of the national quota system, and the overall limits on immigration, are to keep the country “looking” the way it has in the past.)
Now, the roots of the law may be irrelevant to current proponents of restrictionist immigration policies. But you may want to know who else has been on your side of the fence.
Bookslinger,
The visa program you refer to (the J-1, Exchange Visitor visa) still exists, and there is in certain cases a home country residence requirement after the end of the study period in the U.S. In some cases a waiver of that requirement can be obtained if the exchange visitor marries a U.S. citizen; in other cases no waiver is available.
And, I suspect that one can argue forever about cause and effect in migration patterns, but my hunch is that (1) people migrate primarily to seek economic opportunity, not because of hopes about future changes in the law, (2) the Mexican government/governing class acts primarily from self-interest, so any of their actions which tend to increase migration are unintended consequences (or at least not the primary intended consequence) of their actions, and (3) migration from Mexico would end tomorrow if the U.S. economy went into a 1930’s type depression and if the Mexican economy grew stronger than ours. In fact, in that scenario, I would expect that we’d start seeing U.S. citizens, Hispanic or not, moving the other direction across the border.
Sorry Mark, I see that the racist comment was directed at the motivation for prior immigration legislation. Though you did refer to an ugly nativist, anti-foreigner streak and you accuse those who argue against “illegal” immigration of lacking pure motives.
Also I do think your willingness to help is out of love and compasion, don’t stop helping, as if you would. But give the same benefit of the doubt or sympathy to those who have suffered from immigrants as to those who suffer from immigration laws.
My two cents:
I’m all for immigration, but I am also against government handouts. If there were no government welfare or social security or other handouts, I’d say let them come. I don’t think the average immigrant is worse than the average american or anything like that.
But it is ridculuous for foreign citizens to demand to be recognized as citizens of another country. It’s not like slaves in the south who were restricted in their rights by their own government. Immigrants who are here illegally snuck in voluntarily. And the US has no obligation to make everyone or anyone a citizen.
As far as the man who got deported and separated from his family, that’s too bad but tough luck. The family should move to where he is. He does not have a right to remain in any particular country other than his own.
As far as economic opportunity, of course that’s going to draw people in, but it’s still not the obligation of the US to provide non-citizens economic opportuniy inside the US as a citizen. I guess if I had a business that was doing really well, people could walk in my office and demand that I hire them for a high wage?
I actually I favor turing Mexico into a state or states of the union. Not in a NAFTA or regional government sense, but as an actual state, or states preferably. I think the founders had hoped that the US government would grow and add lots of state. There are lots of stipulations for statehood which I think would address the issues that everyone has with immigration.
I believe he’s about the spelling in your post.
“….As far as the man who got deported and separated from his family, that’s too bad but tough luck.” Ouch. Wonder if GBH would phrase it like that?
Back to #19: While I’m sure it was not your intent, please allow me to suggest that the average person from Mexico might find it offensive (even racist) to be compared to second-hand smoke.
re: 24 Wow, you’re right, J….it ain’t exactly NPR in here! Think I’ll go back and hide in my uber-liberal WeHo bubble.
Back to #19: While I’m sure it was not your intent, please allow me to suggest that the average person from Mexico might find it offensive (even racist) to be compared to second-hand smoke.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt- it was not my intent. My intent was to supplement my anology by comparing illegal immigration to second-hand smoke, not one culture or race. It’s amazing how easy it is to find racism when you’re always looking for it- which I’m sure was not your intent.
Further, the average person from say, Kenya or Australia, might find it offensive (even racist) that some Americans are totally ok with giving ten percent of Mexico’s population a waiver, but not anybody else.
Well, we’d have to ask the Australians and Kenyans about that. And besides, wouldn’t any future amnesty/waiver apply to them as well?
Honestly, despite my knee-jerk liberal tendencies I really don’t find your views racist at all. They’re quite logical, actually. I just wanted to point out how easily things can be misconstrued, and how using language certain ways can give offense. I’m particularly sensitive to people comparing any race (or other group) of people to objects or animals. That often goes in a very bad direction, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes not.
Please don’t, even as a kinda-liberal, I get lonely sometimes.
MikeInWeHo-
Poin taken. I’ve read your other posts in other threads here, and I must say that despite some doctrinal and political disagreements I may have with you, you are very thoughtful and you make rather intelligent arguments.
I don’t know how the first sentence connects with the rest of the paragraph above. I don’t quite get how I came to equate efficiency with desperation, according to you. But as far as the language issue is concerned, I think businesses are in a better position, rather than the govt, to determine how much skill they would require from their workers. Don’t you agree?
Is it a crime that Wal-Mart can deliver goods and services in a way that helps their customers save scarce resources like money? The reason I ask is because it sounds as if Walmart has done something terribly wrong with the way it does business.
Decreasing wages are the result of pig-headed govt policies. The Great Depression alone was a creation, not by a single business company or a group of businesses, but by govt’s manipulation of market forces through disastrous policies. No group of companies in a large economy such as America’s have the ability to turn recessions into extended depressions the way the govt does it. And I’m not even talking of inflation, the preferred method of govt to destroy the buying power of the dollar.
Efficiency means doing more for less. If a farmer using a tractor can plow 100 acres within the same time that another farmer using a hand plow breaks 10 acres, then the farmer with the tractor is more efficient. Likewise, the illegal alien who can work for lower wages is more efficient than the legal citizen who is not willing to work at the same low pay.
The American worker is uncompetitive because he is not cost efficient. Whether I like it or not, the Free market is a brutal but just master. It seeks out the efficient and rewards his efforts, while punishing the inefficient ones by putting them out of business.
Who buys cheap goods at Wal-mart? Is it the world? Nope, it’s the American public.
If you continue with your kind of reasoning you will end up blaming the very customers who are willing to part with their money in order to reward efficient businesses like Walmart.
When you talk of income redistribution, you must realize that that is precisely what govt is doing to your money. When it taxes your income without your consent, and then uses it to support inefficient businesses, then that is how it tries to socialize failure and equalize misery.
Again, legislation is based on the absurd idea that wise men can pass laws that’s good for everyone. But where is the evidence that such an idea has actually happened in practice? As far as I know, there’s none.
No, experience has shown that our lawmakers pass laws that favor the most influential. It favors those who can deliver the votes during election time. That’s the awful reality of politics. Whether you read the 1884 Chinese Exclusion Act or some other law, you can always see that they have been legislated to favor those who can most persuade lawmakers to their agenda.
That is why lobbying in Washington DC is a whole cottage industry in itself. That is why influence-peddling ala Jack Abramoff is nothing unusual there. It’s the name of the game in that city of vipers. If you don’t know this, I would actually be surprised.
The Scandinavians (and to a lesser extent Canadians) pass laws that are quite good for everyone: health care, elder care, pensions, parental leave. Not perfect by a long shot, but they seem better able to balance capitalism and helping the poor, protecting the weak, supporting families, etc. Nobody in Sweden is left impoverished for life because he had the misfortune of having a heart attack without health insurance.
“The awful reality of politics,” as Curelom describes, may be ever-so-slightly less awful in a few other democratic societies. Or perhaps I am naive.
MikeInWeHo, I had lots of opportunities to return to my mission area in Korea and teach English. It would have to be done under the table because there were restrictions on how foreigners could legally teach English in the country. Often the English institutes in Korea would print up a fake diploma for you to satisfy the requirement that the teachers needed at least a college diploma. However, a lot of returned American missionaries would just do private tutoring, paid in cash, while on a travel visas that they would keep renewing. There are some restrictions on how much cash you can bring back into the US and at certain amounts the FBI becomes interested in how you got all that cash. The returned missionaries who did private tutoring came up with some ways to get the money into the US.
Now, is all this fair? Should I have demonstrated in Seoul for my right to teach English without a degree? Would it be right for me to use a fake diploma, or to skirt the laws? If a missionary got busted in Korea for breaking these laws, I would say to him, “Tough luck.” And if he brought his wife and kid over and the Koreans deported him, I would still say, “Tought luck. You came here voluntarilty.” For the record, I never did teach English in Korea onyl because I couldn’t find a situation for me that I thought was ethical. And I didn’t ever dare think that the Koreans were being selfish or unChristlike because I couldn’t make some good cash performing a service that was needed in their country.
I’m not convinced the two situations (deported member in Miami vs. teaching English under the table in Korea) are comparable. Most people who come here from Mexico are driven by economic desparation. Presumably the returned missionaries tutoring in Korea weren’t there because the alternative was poverty back home. When the English tutors of Korea stand up by the millions and march for visas, perhaps we can re-visit the argument.
Nobody here is saying that it’s OK for anyone to break the law in Miami or Seoul. Some are saying that it’s understandable, and even noble, when people rise up against what they believe are unjust laws. I may not agree with everything the marchers want, but I admire them.
Why do we need to balance capitalism with acts of charity? Capitalism is the most charitable of all economic systems. It is the only system that truly seeks to know what the customer demands. If society demands efficient care for its poor and weak, then a true free market system will seek to provide it. It will come out naturally without the aid of legislation.
In fact, Capitalism is the only system that’s been shown to actually improve the lot of men since the time they lived in caves and tree houses.
On the other hand, Socialism and its evil twin, Communism, have no signal system with which to read the market’s pulse. They rely on legislation and presidential decrees, ie “central planning”. That’s precisely how they destroyed the economies in Russia, China, North Korea, and Latin America, and impoverished more people than they could dream of. It’s only a matter of time and it will also fail disastrously in Sweden and Canada.
Having socialized insurance against heart attacks in Sweden comes with a terrible cost, but they are seldom understood.
If Sweden is the socialist’s “heaven on earth” then it must be an exception. When you look elsewhere, it’s not hard to see how socialism has efficiently wreaked havoc on those countries that practiced it, like Russia, China, North Korea, the Latin American countries, etc.
Until 2000, when the Church of Sweden (Lutheran) ceased as the official state religion, its bishops were formally appointed by the govt of Sweden. Such close cooperation between religionists and leftists is exceptional, especially when leftists aspire to achieving a “godless state”.
Also, by virtue of its neutrality, Sweden’s major cities had not been bombed flat during WWII. Between 1846 and 1932 (when the socialists were voted to power), the country practiced free trade and created great wealth unspoiled by war. The socialists inherited that wealth even though it was created by capitalism.
Sweden’s benevolent socialism has not been benevolent at all times. Between 1934 and 1974, about 62,000 Swedes were sterilized under the socialist govt’s compulsory program of national sterilization. Some were sterilized because they could not read writings on a blackboard without eyeglasses. The govt deemed them to be biologically inferior and therefore not worthy to bear children.
The Swede socialists were the first to conduct sterilization on the mentally ill, beginning in 1934, even predating and outliving the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany.
The Swede govt also conducted lobotomy on some 500 Swedes without even asking permission from their families. These were not patients from mental institutions. One was a 7-year old boy diagnosed by the govt to be “hyperactive”. The boy died during the operation.
The govt also conducted “dental experiments” on mental institution patients by force feeding them with candy until their teeth rotted and fell out.
The Swede govt has a name for the bureaucracy that conducts these (in)human experiments: The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology.
When news of these ghastly Swedish experiments came out in the late 1990s, other “clean” Nordic countries started coming out with not-so-clean skeletons in their closets, like Norway.
Norway, the country that hosts the Nobel Peace Prize, once conducted a govt-sponsored child-abuse program whose aim was to beat the “Germanness” out of the “tyskerbarnas”, or children born by Norwegian women but fathered by German soldiers during WWII.
The list can go on and on…
I’d like to believe that socialists have a noble aim of helping and protecting the weak and disadvantaged in society, as well as eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, they have a notorious record of destroying human lives in such a scale not known before they acquired the power of legislation.
I wasn’t defending Sweden’s past. It’s indefensible, just like ours (our slavery was a heckuva lot worse than their eugenics, imo), and Germany’s, and England’s, etc. Virtually every country has shameful episodes in its past.
My assertion is that in the here-and-now, there are other societies that seem to balance things out better than we do. That’s all. Doesn’t mean I think our system is bad, or that I would want to live anywhere else.
As for the doomed societies of Sweden and Canada, don’t think I’ll wait around for their economies to “fail disastrously.” Fear, Fear, The Canadian Hordes! (Isn’t that a hymn?)
This is getting off track. Maybe it’s time for a separate thread about the virtues and/or failings of American-style capitalism?
No, Curelom N. Cumom, capitalism is not the most charitable of all economic systems. I believe that the nod would go to the law of consecration. And, the fact that free market capitalism has a better record for enriching people than state socialism should not blind us to the fact that capitalism is ultimately as system based on selfishness.
Last I checked, selfishness was not on the list of godly virtues.
Curelom N. Cumom,
I have to disagree with a couple points although overall I think we agree more than it sounds. First, the great depression was similar to the 90s boom/bust, new technology/products created a boom and after market saturation there was a bust. The thirties were worse because we didn’t have the regulation, economic modeling, and LEGISLATION that helped minimalize the depression of 1999-2001.
Second, regulation has been shown to eliminate the extreme highs and lows associated with a free market economy. Furthermore, regulation keeps in check the exploitation of the worker by multinational corps. Sure we try and stimulat corporate earning because to a large degree that creates jobs, but we also restrict corporate excesses.
I really can’t believe you equate the problems that exist in a country with the concept of legislation. Its like blaming religion for the wars associated with religion. Its those in power who use whatever tool they can to impose their will.
MikeInWeHo,
I know people who live in Sweden and other socialist countries who make $100,000 and take home a woping $25,000. Course our taxes at that income would only be around 50% instead of 70-75% but I don’t think it sounds very good to work for 9 months out of the year paying the government. Are you even remotely familiar with the problems those countries are having with immigration? And they aren’t convenient to get to like the USA. Put Sweden on the Mexican border and I think you’d see their health care and other benefits change rather quickly. I’m not saying they’re not doing many things right, but its a huge trade off.
Oh totally, I agree that it’s a trade off. I’m very familiar with Europe’s high tax rates and abysmal track record at assimilating immigrants. Put Mexico next door and they’d build an electric fence faster than you can say “Zap!” You’re right, they’d never give up their social benefits to support an influx of impoverished immigrants.
I just mentioned Sweden because my relatives are from there and I am quite fond of the country. Somehow they manage to be ruthless businessmen and socialists at the same time, which I admire. My Swedish professional peers are hardly suffering, btw, high tax rates or not. I’d gladly trade some of my disposable income for what they have: universal health care, virtually no homelessness, and adequate pensions for all. (Signed, Mr Hypocritical Left-Wing Yuppie Scum about to drive home in his Lexus listening to NPR and feeling smug.)
Americans are incredibly blessed to live here. I’ve seen the options and prefer to stay here. What stirs my anger are people who believe we’re better than everybody else and have nothing to learn from anyplace else. We used to lift more people out of poverty than any country in the world, but now we’ve been blown out of that competition by China. What are we to make of that??
Unless we regain some of the inventiveness we had long ago China will continue to blow us out of the water. They have a relatively unlimited supply of cheap labor and a ruthless cooperation between the state and business. China is not without challenges, they have the widest economic gap between the rich and the poor. You have parents making literally $300/year in a country side next to a city with their children making 40,000 in a year. Course that’s the exception because most of the children making $40k have parents making $60k.
Oh and one last thing Curelom, a very signficant number of people with doctorate degrees in the USA can easily be replaced by Ph’ds from India, does that mean they should all be replaced also because they’re inefficient? Can you think of a job that you can’t find someone else where in the world who would do that same job for less?
My point is I don’t think you can say that because we can find someone who will do the work for less means that the job isn’t worth paying more or protecting those with jobs inside our border. I’m certainly not talking about terriffs but I am talking about balancing immigration against our needs and what our economy can handle.
For the record, Clint Bolick is best described as a political libertarian, not a political conservative, per se. Conservatives and libertarians share a lot of common ground, but immigration issues is an area where they diverge widely.
For example, conservatives tend to emphasize the value of having a common language and culture, of being a nation in the true sense, not just a collection of people governed under the same laws, where libertarians emphasize the laissez faire principles of classical liberalism over concerns about shared culture and identity.
A typical conservative position recommends limiting immigration to the level such that immigrants can be “assimilated” to a common language and shared culture without undue social or economic disruption.
Libertarians on the other hand, emphasize the moral aspects of extending the franchise to non-citizens, the theoretical economic efficiency of unrestricted migration, and so on.
So far as I can tell, the difference between the two positions is manifest not so much as to the value of immigration, but rather as to what level of immigration is optimal.
The secondary issue is the disconnect between law and enforcement. Amnesty now enforcement later is not a very good way to get people to take the rule of law seriously, even if it is a practical necessity to some degree.
I beleive the best long term solution is to actively “interfere” in Mexican domestic policymaking with the objective of helping them become economically successful, using whatever sort of carrot/stick approach is most appropriate. Mexico already actively interferes in our domestic affairs, for roughly the same reason.
Curelom, as usual your comments are like a breath of fresh air here. I admire your tenacity.
So, is this the right place to ask the question about whether the Church should be in the business of having Spanish-speaking wards in places like California, Texas, and Florida (and others), where the members don’t assimilate with English speakers?
I think so. I lived in a stake in Texas with a Spanish ward. As a white guy, I was actually in the minority in my own ward, which probably had as many Latinos in it as the Spanish ward. My calling was in a stake position, so I got to see how members interacted amongst themselves and the other wards. It was obvious how isolated members of the Spanish ward were from their cultural peers in the other wards, both linguistically and and socially.
They were extremely good members, but there was no assimilation whatsoever, and I think they suffer because of it. I appreciate the motivations for creating the Spanish-speaking wards, but I think there’s a fine line between accomodation for language convenience and virtual segregation. Mock assimilation all you want, but there really is something to be said for it
I can understand why you’d think I’m attacking Sweden’s past when I’m really not. I’m actually attacking the evils of legislation as exemplified by socialism. The only reason I brought up Sweden’s past is because it is more interesting to me than Canada. Besides that, I know you have relatives there…:-)
But seriously, didn’t you say that the “awful reality of politics” that I describe is actually a lot more humane in other countries like Sweden? That was pretty much an invitation to take a second look at its recent past and see if its politics have actually been humane just as you asserted.
And my answer is simple: What you see as a well-balanced act in the here-and-now is simply a fleeting effect of the short run.
In the long run, Sweden will end up just as any socialist country has ended up. The only reason why the bitter end has not yet arrived is because Sweden still manages to practice some capitalism. Let that country practice pure socialism and they may as well put signs in their airports that say “Welcome to Hell”.
One can practice capitalism in its purity. It’s been done before, and it has worked wonders. But to practice socialism in its purity, you will see another rerun of the Bolshevik revolution, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, and the on-going War on Terror. Am I not right?
I don’t think we’re off-track. Perhaps your thoughts has disoriented you?
Let me tell you where we are: We got to this point because I showed how economic problems like the US immigration problem cannot be solved by legislation or political means. Yet, you argued that Sweden is a country that is able to balance capitalism with socialism, as though there’s some redeeming value left in legislation. And I say that that’s true only if we don’t look at the other side of the Swedish coin.
Citing Sweden’s past human experiments as the result of legislation clearly reinforces the idea that legislation is nothing but absurd. In fact, it is pure madness. As I’ve always said, it’s premised on the idea that wise men can pass laws that’s good for everyone. In actual practice, legislation is done on behalf of the influential few. At this point, don’t you even agree?
If you agree, then you’ll know why we’re here…:-)
Sorry I meant to say tariffs, it was late.
Curelom, are you serious? Are you really implying that Anarchy is the best system of government? Or Monarchys, just not legislative bodies? I can of course point to bad things happening in every form of government, that doesn’t make all government bad as you assert.
Do the wonders of pure capitalists societies you refer to include sweatshops and exploitation by those with means of production. I don’t know if I like the utopia you seem to promote. Coal miners were very efficient in the 1800s and early 1900s, they worked for nothing and were willing to die for their companies. They didn’t sue when they got lung cancer and were wonderful little worker bees. Are these the type of efficiencies you promote? People willing to contract away protections because the wonderful unregulated capitalist market takes such good care of its workers based on supply and demand.
Maybe you don’t realize that when you increase supply the demand is saturated and you get unemployment and bad working conditions because employers can do whatever they want since the hiring pool is so large.
Curelom, I don’t think my thoughts has disoriented me (sic), but your entries most certainly befuddle me. I’m not even sure what you’re advocating. It does sound like Anarchism, in the philosophical sense of the word. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
It’s a quaint idea, very retro, but I suspect not likely to get much traction these days.
Honestly, I’m a pathetic cynic when it comes to govt. I can hardly care what kind of govt we have as long as we practice capitalism. That goes without saying that if we do get to practice pure capitalism, its most welcome result will be the hastening of govt obsolescence.
Rather than doing that, why don’t we just let you stick to defending the virtues of govt while I expose its evils? That way, the lines between pros and cons are clear. Otherwise, you risk disorienting yourself just as MikeInWeHo has done.
Let’s review slavery in America during the 1860s: One of Lincoln’s proposal to address the slave question was to deport all blacks back to Africa. After all, the whites didn’t want to give them full citizenship rights. The problem was the blacks didn’t want to go back to Africa. They wanted to stay here. And their reason is simple: There’s slavery in Africa too. As matter of fact, that’s how their ancestors ended up in America. They were kidnapped by other African enemy tribes and sold to the whites as slaves. If they go back to Africa, they know it’s a much more brutal world out there than it is here.
Capitalist America is no utopia in the 1860s for blacks. It was one big sweatshop, no doubt. But obviously, the negro improved his lot in life by being a slave in America. And capitalism made it possible for the black to get a better life than what he’d enjoy in Africa.
Today there are sweatshops in China, India, and elsewhere. Their working conditions are horrible. But we never take into account what the other choice would be for these “exploited workers” as you call them. Would it be prostitution and AIDS, or starving to death? If so, then a sweatshop makes sense.
Capitalism does not promise any utopia the way socialism does. But if you want a system that’s proven to improve humanity’s lot versus one that’s guaranteed to bring hell on earth, there’s enough evidence you can examine and judge for yourself.
Coal mining is not a work for sissies. I respect the courage of the men who go under the earth to mine its riches. And I respect their choices in life. I’m sure that that if they could earn better pay by not being a coal miner, they would have given it up. But they have found themselves in a dilemma: They can either die of lung cancer as a miner but earn something for the risk, or they can simply die of starvation and poverty.
Since these miners were not kidnapped at gunpoint and forced to work, why don’t we just respect the fact they chose not to die of poverty? Is this hard for socialists to accept?
I’m quite familiar with the cause and effects of the forces of supply and demand. But we have almost a century of govt interventions and tinkering with market forces, and the results are the predictably same: disastrous.
That’s a myth. The 1930s were worse precisely because of the legislations enacted during Hoover and FDR. Hoover enacted policies that were meant to protect banks from the panics of the early 1900s. But these policies had unintended consequences. By protecting the big banks from failure, they encouraged monetary recklessness. The Fed set below market interest rates and low reserve requirements, and increased the money supply by 60%. By flooding the market with money, Americans over-extended themselves in stocks whose prices soared artificially because of the money glut.
People then thought that the happy times will last forever, just as they do today, until the Fed realized that their policies could not be sustained. They started raising interest rates, but that brought the house of cards down. Why was this particular depression called “Great”? Because the Fed decided to contract the money supply by 30% That inflicted a carnage never before experienced in America.
As you can see, the Fed’s hands are full of blood. The Great Depression was the sole handiwork of govt intervention. No group of companies, working in perfect coordination, could have wreaked such havoc on a big economy such as ours at that time.
As for the mild dot-com crash of the late 1990s, it’s true that it’s mild because the Fed obviously learned a lesson about contracting the money supply. So what did they do this time? They cranked the printing presses full speed ahead! But such intervention created another unintended bubble: the housing bubble. With so much money available to the public, Americans could now get very easy loans with which they invested in real estate like lunatics. For the first time in history, we see “zero down” housing loans, coupled with no background checks on employment histories or the ability to repay. In short, another rerun of monetary recklessness.
But like all bubbles this one will burst. Because it took so long to pump this bubble, when it pops the correction will be protracted and severe. It will be the perfect financial storm. There will be much carnage again. So this is my advice: If you have money to invest, consider a business that will convert granite countertops into gravestones.
Well you certainly are interesting, Curelom. Love your vivid imagery! “Granite countertops into gravestones,” that almost sounds scriptural.
Just to help pull me out of my disorientation: Can you give an example of a “pure” capitalist society (past or present) which comes closest to your ideal? At this point I’m still not really sure what you’re describing.
We agree about something, the housing bubble. I’m hedging on a significant downturn here in CA.
If I answer your question, I run the risk of threadjacking the discussion. So, without sounding like I’m copping out, can I just answer this at the end? I’d like to wrap a few loose ends first. Let me summarize the points I have made in my previous posts:
– The US immigration problem is an economic problem that requires an economic solution. The best economic solution is for the govt to do nothing about it, and let the markets sort themselves out.
– Using legislation to address the problem is wrong and is bound to create unintended consequences. Why?
– Because legislation is based on an absurd concept: wise men enacting laws to benefit everyone.
– But in real life, legislation is always done to benefit an influential few.
– Socialists have perfected the art of legislation; we only need to see how they have succeeded in socializing misery everywhere they go.
Right now, the Federal govt is stuck in a rut on what to do; especially after the illegal aliens marched the streets. So while it is wringing its hands and pulling its hair to find a political band-aid to patch the immigration hemmorhage, a few enterprising private individuals have already applied ICU procedures.
In what was formerly known as the “Republic of Texas”, non-govt persons have taken the task of securing the borders. Good luck to them, since I don’t really know how the problem looks like from a Texan angle. But in other states, the opposite is happening. They are tolerating and even helping illegal aliens get more permanency. Again, good luck to them, I don’t really know how the problem looks like from their point of view. But it’s such a great sight to see the “free and independent” states working out the problem while the Fed stalls and slowly turns irrelevant.
In short, the market is proving time and again how to steal the upperhand while the govt fails and falls. As a matter of fact, had the markets operated in full freedom, nothing like Geoff B’s sad experience in Post #1 would have ever happened.
And now to your question:
Do you have ancestors from Iceland? If you do, you may have to thank them for creating the Icelandic Free State that existed between 930-1262 AD. As one harsh critic of that State describes it:
“Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor.” (Jared Diamond, “Living on the Moon”)
Here are some articles that describe it in greater detail:
Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
http://www.mises.org/story/1121
Living on the Moon
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=15414
PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland
http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
Happy reading…
Right on Curelom! Medieval Iceland wins!
I do enjoy your entries very much, for what it’s worth. Who knew there were Anarchist Mormons?? I suppose you probably prefer Libertarian.
frankly immigration needs to be legal. My father and my siblings had to go through hoops to be able to live her with his American Wife and my his daughter that was born here on a vacation. He did it legally and it did not take years! Yes it did take some effort and there was some concern the family was going to be split apart but the thing is he did it legally. Why should others be allowed a pass, because they choose to break the law. There are many social issues that effect you and me with this problem, from Idenity theft, job loss, health care rates going up, and lack of health care for legal citizens. Those are just a few issues. Yes we need to use compassion, but there is a reason why they are illegal!