We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, January 30. 2013
I am confused today by all I have been reading about illegal immigration. Being somewhat Yankee-biased, I tend to feel that the US needs no immigrants from anywhere anymore. Just spend a weekend in NYC and then tell me we need more foreigners around. Half the people you see were born elsewhere, and have no clue what America is all about. They are just using us, trying to get on one gravy train or another. Call me a xenophobe. I don't mind, because I like foreigners - in their own countries and in their own cultures. I do not want my culture changed, or to feel like a stranger in my own country. It's mine, and it is not open to the general global public.
All the Russians too. Sheesh. Unpleasant, loud people without manners and Soviet-style (ie, no) morals. Legal too, I assume, which means they went through the process. They may have to take a test, but there is no civility test. Those lovely Russki girls are silky sociopaths, well-trained in the Soviet system to ignore law and civilization and to follow the money. The turbaned Sikh cab drivers from Whereizitstan are far more pleasant and dignified, but what the heck? We have unemployed college grads who could drive cabs and could probably figure out how to find JFK airport from the Plaza Hotel.
Most nations do not permit any. Just try emigrating to Japan, France, Britain, Sweden, Russia, or Mexico from the US. Can't be done. As we say here, "Don't be lazy, people. Fix your own darn homeland."
I read this one this afternoon: Did The President Make Sense Today For Some Reason?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
In Silicon Valley most of the high tech workers are from overseas - India, China, etc. I think there should be a law that if the unemployment rate gets to a certain level, legal immigration is slowed down.
I think there should be a law that if the unemployment rate gets to a certain level, legal immigration is slowed down.
I would like to see enforcement of immigration laws. No new immigration laws should be passed until the federal government makes a SUBSTANTIAL effort to stop illegal crossings. This would also mean that federal efforts to stop state enforcement of immigration law, such as happened in Arizona, should stop. Ask TX landowners near the Mexican border about illegals crossing their lands. Ask TX taxpayers about how much money hospitals spend treating illegals.
I bet most American Indians wished they had limited immigration, probably to zero. Keep you foreigners out.
I'm from overseas and grateful I am here.
Immigrants, particularly from Asia, are remarkably hard-working ,have strong middle-class values and contribute heavily, for instance in high-tech. We are lucky to be the kind of society that is attractive to immigrants.
Like our founding fathers (and mothers).
Might want to read Jensens "No Irish Need Apply":A Myth of Victimization.
Where would us Anglos be without the immigration crisis of 43 AD, 455 AD, 793 AD and 1066 AD?
I seem to remember this is all Teddy Kennedy's fault. Since he wanted large Irish immigration when the Irish economy stank (I remember when every other waitress in Manhattan was Irish), the deal was that others got large quotas and family allowances as well.
There are differences though in Groups. Koreans, Taiwanese and Indians often use the investment route to gain visas (i.e. bodegas and motels) while others use the refugee/extended family ties route.
With regard to the H1B system for tech guys, it has been horribly abused by companies. They put tiny advertisements in tech magazines for jobs with huge paper qualifications to prove they cannot get US residents to apply then hire H1B foreigners on a short leash. Most of these jobs are not the top skill levels either so the we are hiring only geniuses doesn't work.
In the current vernacular we need to have a "conversation" on the correct level of immigration desired.
I hope my comment did not imply a hatred for immigrants! I grew up in CA around many, many immigrant families who were definitely hard working and industrious.
However, I have a problem when we have very high unemployment and an easy/cheap system to get high tech workers here in America. If we had a dearth of American citizens with the tech skills necessary maybe companies would pay higher salaries, help people move from one part of the country to the other to fill vacancies, etc.
You can't tell me that every single tech job filled with an immigrant couldn't have been filled with a citizen somewhere already in the U.S.
The myth that we need foreigners to do computer work is a horribly destructive myth. Many many Americans are majoring in computer science because they've been told that is where the jobs are. They graduate and all the jobs are taken by foreigners willing to work for half the cost. Then there are the very bright Silicon Valley veterans, who reach their 50's and are laid off and replaced by H1B people at half the cost -- and can never get a job again.
The media is pushing that the problem with America is we don't graduate enough STEM graduates. Not true! The ones we do graduate don't get jobs.
It's the biggest racket ever. And the Republicans should stop pretending that as long as an immigrant is legal, they're OK. That's true when Americans have jobs. But right now, too many don't!!! We need a moratorium on legal and illegal immigrants for a couple of years. It would cause an instant improvement to the economy.
The amnesty's a done deal. It's similar to the cops chalking some victim's outline and throwing up crime scene tape long after the perps have departed.
Some say the fault lies with the citizens. I disagree. I've seen citizens protest and demonstrate against the illegal alien invasion.
It was, after all, citizens sending their respective congress/senatorial rats bricks (to help build a wall to stop illegal immigration) that prompted the passage of the secure fence act.
Unfortunately, for Americans, that bit of legislation accomplished nothing.
democrats and republicans want those illegals here.
Well, here they are, and here they'll stay. And their aunts, uncles, cousins and nieces too.
And oh yeah, as per ns, "Immigrants, particularly from Asia, are remarkably hard-working ,have strong middle-class values and contribute heavily..." Yeah to the democratic party. obama got over 70% of the Asian vote.
How's that help my country,my culture and the American people?
Well, it doesn't.
The country, by design, has become little more than a home Depot parking lot filled with foreign nationals looking for work.
I don't think our founders had that in mind. Nor did I.
I don't think we should limit immigration based on who they vote for. Seems odd.
I don't like that they are given stuff by the Democrats which thereby confers a voting affinity. THAT is a problem.
Given our current economic situation, I believe a moratorium on all immigration would be the best thing for American citizens.
That said, I made no mention of limiting immigration because of how this or that ethnic group votes.
But aren't republicans and democrats falling all over themselves to secure the Hispanic vote for the future? Including the soon to be amnestied Hispanic illegal alien vote? And that being the case, aren't those politicians basing their immigration preferences based solely upon how they (politicians) think those immigrants will vote? Well yes. Bush, Obama et. al. have said as much.
As you say, giving stuff to groups to assure a voting affinity is a problem. But republicans and democrats are doing just that.
Further, how in the world does casting one's vote based solely on ethnic or racial interests contribute to the unity of a nation like ours? Clearly it doesn't. It divides us. And isn't that the ultimate problem?
Wherein have I erred?
My problem with any immigrants [illegals much more so] are as follows:
1. At one time, the USA was mostly not settled. It needed more people to grow. It does not need that now.
2. OK, there are opportunities here, but let's face it, not everyone in the world can live here. That would make it not such a nice place and no opportunities.
3. We are being Balkanized. The dream is dying because of it.
4. They need to build their own country up. We set the example perhaps, but we cannot do their job for them, they must do it. Americans are generally NOT welcome to go and perform those tasks in their countries, but the natives are much more so.
5. All of these immigrants bring their culture, and politics. They do not give them up, and those things invariably involve Socialism and/or some other forms of Tyranny and oppression. These things WILL destroy the reasons they say they are coming here for [or that we say they are].
I could go on and on, but the point is that America is the only place left in the world where the dream of Freedom exists. It can spread from here, but it will be squashed and killed it they all come here.
I love to read Maggies, but this jarring post has had me in a minor consternation for the last few days.
Immigration of hard-working, law-abiding and intelligent new contributors to our economy is at the very core of our nation, and allowing the free immigration of these sorts of new Americans is as close to a national necessity as one can imagine. Better we should require all young Americans to leave for a few years than restrict the rates of new inflows of population. Sure, we resent the new languages for some period of time, the foreign-ness, even the odors in some cases (I'm remembering an Eastern European cleaning lady my mother once employed), but their children and even they themselves quickly become the doctors, engineers and hard-working participants in society that every new generation of our country needs but hasn't been able to breed. Certainly immigrants are more so the contributers of vital skills and educated technocrats than our "permanent underclass" of lazy welfare careerists. You know, lawyers.
Admittedly this comment is fact free and mere opinion. About the same as the original post. My appreciation for this wonderful site makes me hope the post was only a ham-handed satire, and the writer will say soon enough "gotcha!". He hasn't yet done so, and so I write this. Hopefully it doesn't make me persona non grata.
By "the last several days" I meant, of course, yesterday and this morning: In the Obama economy every day feels like a week. I also regret my lawyer jibe. My family has lots of lawyers in it and lawyer comments are second nature (particularly in friendly debate). I don't really mean to claim that all lawyers are by definition the same as the uneducated drug-dealing louts who populate many parts of our country, and I am sorry to have implied otherwise.
I don’t recall seeing any reference in either the constitution or the bill of rights to the glories of immigration.
Your statement that immigration is at the core of our nation is incorrect. Liberty, freedom, equality of opportunity sure. But immigration?
I find your “Better we should require all young Americans to leave for a few years than restrict the rates of new inflows of population.” somewhat appalling. Replace American youth, the future, with foreign nationals? And why? For economic reasons?
Certainly young (and middle class) Americans have been successfully removed from the economy by illegals and the various visa scams. You know, that ‘just doin the jobs Americans won’t do” drivel the US Chamber of congress, politicians looking for votes and libertarian quacks are so fond of repeating.
As for resenting new languages for some period of time, well, is the Spanish language fading from the national scene? How long does your “some period of time” last? Is granting special status to a language other than English, the language of the US for over 200 years, at the very core of our nation too? (I didn’t catch that in any of the founding documents either.)
Should we require English speaking Americans to leave for some period of time so as to help the economy too?
Lawyers. Can’t kill em, can’t eat em.
Tatosian, the Constitution did in fact prohibit Congress from passing any law impeding immigration for twenty years after adoption; English rules attempting to limit immigration into the colonies were in fact one of the complaints levyed by Americans against the King; the Founders were explicit in supporting immigration as a national necessity and frequently the government advertised for immigrants overseas; and, not least, the Constitution does not limit most rights to citizens, but instead extends them to all persons.
As far as my idea of shipping American youth overseas for awhile i don't think it appalling to try to get the kids (well, my kids anyway) to understand how lucky they are and what sort of competitive animal spirits the other parts of the human race possess. When one of my kids complained about all the Indian kids crowding his high school calculus class, I offered to return the favor and send him over to India to learn calculus there but he decided not to take me up on it. Basically, if smart hard-working people come over here I'm all in favor of it. Natural born Americans are competing agains foreigners regardless of where they are anyway, and I'd prefer to have the smartest and the best here rather than in whatever godforsaken country they started off life residing in. From US Steel to Google, America has depended upon foreign-born creators of businesses from it's very beginning and I don't see any reason to willingly surrender that incredible advantage over other nations in the future.
"...the Constitution did in fact prohibit Congress from passing any law impeding immigration for twenty years after adoption;"
Could you either paste the relevant constitutional section or direct me to that specific part of the constitution via link or some such?
Again, I see nothing regarding immigration in the constitution. Naturalization yes. Immigration no.
Great post Barrister. Agree 100%
As for the need of more people in science, this is of interest
This is old news. It was a popular topic of discussion in the early 1990s, although one that was held in disdain by the scientific community.
Now it's out of the closet.
I'm reminded of a policy paper on immigration from 1968 that conclusively negates your deplorable slander of Russian women.
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind
I grew up in a community with Italian, Greek, Jewish, Polish and Irish immigrants. It was common to start a new school year with 3-5 non-English speaking kids. By the end of a month they spoke enough English to begin learning just as well as other students and by the end of the year they sounded like "Americans". Today's immigrants don't want to learn English or assimilate. This is especially true with hispanics for some reason. I have known hispanics who have been here for years and still shrug their shoulders when confronted with a non-Spanish speaking person. If we are going to have immigration we need the immigrants to want to become Americans.
The real problem with legal AND illegal immigration is we, the citizens, pay for it. We pay higher taxes to support them to educate them and often to incarcerate them. The cost is in the hundreds of billions yearly for illegal immigrants today and if we grant amnesty this could double as millions more rush the borders. Where is the politicians concern for the citizen? Isn't their job to govern for the citizens and not for Mexico or China? Why should we pay for immigrants? Years ago immigrants had to have a sponser and if the immigrant needed help or medical care it was the sponsers job to pay for it. At the least we should enforce thatr still existing law.
immigrants still have to have a sponsor and show financial responsibility.
It all depends on what the meaning of "have to" means. Does the sponser "have to" pay for their medical treatment, housing, food and other "welfare" needs? If true then the law is dropping the ball and we need a couple million indictments. If untrue then what does "have to" mean?
Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 213A - REQUIREMENTS FOR SPONSOR'S AFFIDAVIT OF SUPPORT
"Sec. 213A. (a) Enforceability.-
(1) Terms of affidavit.-No affidavit of support may be accepted by the Attorney General or by any consular officer to establish that an alien is not excludable as a public charge under section 212(a)(4) unless such affidavit is executed by a sponsor of the alien as a contract-
(A) in which the sponsor agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable;
(B) that is legally enforceable against the sponsor by the sponsored alien, the Federal Government, any State (or any political subdivision of such State) or by any other entity that provides any means-tested public benefit (as defined in subsection (e)), consistent with the provisions of this section; and ... ." (emphasis added)
There is a "subversive" immigration machine that is at work all over this country: churches! Many churches have "missions" overseas in "the islands", South and Central America and Africa. Each of these missions as a by-product "sponsers" immigrants to the U.S. Most of these sponsored immigrants are settled near where the home church is located. Some are settled quite intentionally in less obvious and less likely places for the most part small towns. If you travel on the road you will from time to time find yourself in a small town (pop < 1000) with a few people from Somalia or Jamaica. The church found a place for them, helped them sign up for welfare, section 8, food stamps, the whole nine yards. The churches are "doing good" with "your tax money". Their sponsorship is on paper only it is you the taxpayer who is on the hook for the costs both fiscal and social.
The myth of the "No Irish Need Apply" is pervasive - but it did occur in some rarer instances. Needless to say, it remains a useful teaching tool.
Barrister, I'll disagree with portions of what you wrote. Frankly, we are a nation of immigrants, and will always be a nation of immigrants. I won't tell people to go 'fix' their homeland - in many cases there is no way for them to fix it due to tyrannical rule. Which is one reason why the US has always welcomed these people. We want people who want to live a freer life and have opportunity denied by other rulers.
Sadly, we also live in a nation which is becoming more of a "Nanny State". So the point of departure ceases to be "let them come here to have opportunity" and becomes "tell them to not come here and take stuff from us that they didn't earn".
The Know Nothing Party was built on fear of loss of culture. Yet the culture here in the US is always changing. Either through generational change, technological change, or immigration. We used to tell hippies "America, Love it or Leave it" (sorry, Doc Merc...I know your views on the hippies, but people did view them as a dangerous group of people).
I'm all for welcoming foreigners here - as long as they are willing to work and take advantage of OPPORTUNITY - not take advantage of WELFARE.
The best way to fix this isn't to stop immigration. It's to end the free giveaways. But with this administration, they don't want to stop that. It seems part of their goal is to completely bankrupt the nation (beyond the point it is already bankrupt - if such a thing is possible) by welcoming any and all and giving them tons of free 'stuff'.
I've seen this before. In Belgium, you can get tons of free stuff (even a home!) if you immigrate there. It's created a huge cultural problem, and is starting to reach a boiling point.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's the loafers, lazy asses, and criminals we welcome in with a free lunch.
Opposing immigration because people are taking advantage of the system is like opposing guns because some kill people. We need responsible gun owners just like we need responsible immigrants - but we cannot legislate either one of these things. All we can do is set the paradigm so it encourages responsibility.
When we offer easy access guns to insane people and criminals, it's not too different from giving immigrants easy access to public benefits. We set ourselves up for our own problems. But getting rid of guns won't get rid of murder, and getting rid of immigration won't get rid of abuse of the transfer payment system.
Frankly, I like New York. I like the many immigrants who are here and the flavor they bring. A very good (ultra liberal) friend of mine who lived in Queens is angry about immigrants because "I used to live in an Irish community and now that is all Dominicans". This is the same guy who wants to offer the Dominicans a free lunch and open the doors to all and sundry - but just not in his backyard.
I see the same logic my friend applies in the attitudes brewing in the US today.
I used to work for Univision, years ago. The Hispanic culture is starting to take on an anti-immigrant POV, too. As long as it doesn't apply to them, that is.........you know, the old Teddy Kennedy approach to immigration.
Great! So the fact that millions of illegals get welfare in some form and in almost all schools around the country the school cafeteria serves breakfast, lunch and dinner to the legal and illegals means that the sponsers are paying!! I am so happy about this. I thought our federal government was paying for those things with our tax dollars.
There is a difference between a law being on the books and a law actually being inforced. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Do YOU really believe all the various immigrants in section 8 housing are being supported by the sponsers? Quite honestly I don't think the government even tries to make the sponsers responsible for immigrants any more.