Democrats, Pro-Globalization-Republicans Fight for Immigration Reform
by Dan tdaxp ~ May 16th, 2008
Props to Red State for passing on the good news that the Democratic majority in Congress, joined by pro-globalizatoin Republicans, are fighting to provide an “earned path to citizenship” for agricultural workers who are currently in the country illegally. Obviously a comprehensive immigration proposal (such as McCain-Kennedy) would be preferable, but due to the know-nothingness of Congressional republicans and political cowardice of Barack Obama (who vaguely supported the legislation while not being involve in the negotiations that could actually have gotten it passed) that’s not currently feasible.
SENATE TRIES TO SNEAK IMMIGRATION REFORMS THROUGH | Redstate
It looks like the Democrats and amnesty-loving Republicans slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill during committee markup today. This bill relates to giving amnesty to illegal aliens who work as migrant workers.Early intelligence reports that it probably has provisions similar to the last AG Jobs bill that was considered – including amnesty provisions. It was supposedly a Feinstein/ Craig amendment and was accepted with a vote of 17 – 12.
If Harry Reid offers this version of the supplemental as a substitute to the House version, he will block out all other senators from any opportunity to strip this Ag Jobs provision, which will ultimately keep potential amnesty provisions in the war funding bill.
The doom-and-gloom tone of Red State is typical of the know-nothing right, which is as hostile to immigration as the know-nothing left is to trade.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Having read through some of your posts, you appear to be interested in population genetics. If so, what is your take on the race/IQ issue? If you believe that there is a genetic component of IQ, what possible benefit could there be to importing a bunch of Mexicans, as there estimated IQ is somewhere around 87?
Having seen the racial wealth disparity grow in California over the past 20 years of my life, I’m not sure what benefit economic polarization will have for our society.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
PRCalDude,
Thanks for the comment!
It’s not clear what is going on with the latin-white difference in intelligence. Steve Sailer summarizes a recent article [1] which implies a 10 point difference, or about two thirds the black-white difference. However, after reading the article, it also implies that the heritability of intelligence among American latinos is quite low.
To me a natural analogy is the large-scale Italian immigration of a century ago, which at the time featured an even larger intelligence gap. Time will tell, but I think as Mexicans assimilate their scores will rise.
[1] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/best-estimate-yet-of-hispanic-american.html
May 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
NumbersUSA ( numbersusa.com ) assessment of Sen. Feinstein’s ag amnesty:
Communication from Roy Beck, President of NumbersUSA
Rosemary Jenks (our Vice President, Government Relations) just called me after finishing reading the Iraq supplemental spending bill as it came out of committee. It would:
Grant a three-year work visa followed by a permanent greencard to all illegal aliens who have been working as shepherds, goat herders and dairy herders.
Grant a five-year work visa to the estimated 1.3 million illegal aliens working in other agricultural jobs — plus all of their families. There is no instruction on what happens after the five years.
Grant a tripling of the maximum number of H-2B visas for lower skill, non-agricultural seasonal workers.
Grant industries an extra 218,000 additional permanent green cards for skilled foreign workers.
Friends, perhaps you are thinking what I’m thinking: Don’t these Senators know that we are in an economic recession, or close to it? Don’t they know that unemployment rates have been going up and that industries across the country are shedding both skilled and unskilled jobs?
If ever you doubted that U.S. Senators live lives disconnected from ordinary Americans, you could see it Thursday as 17 of them fell all over themselves to drastically increase the number of foreign workers allowed to hold U.S. jobs!
RIDICULOUS CLAIMS ABOUT RUNNING OUT OF FOOD WITHOUT AN AMNESTY
Senators Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) led the way to protect our economy from having to figure out ways to hire some of the 14 million-plus American workers who are trying to find a job but can’t.
Especially interesting is their claim that we will fail to harvest crops and feed the world this year without an amnesty for illegal aliens. They made the same claim in each of the last four years. Each time that we beat back the amnesty, the harvests still happened! How many times does Feinstein have to cry wolf (or rotting crops) before people stop paying attention?
Of course, the outlaw businesses that scream for illegal aliens do have more to fear this year because various enforcement policies (federal, state and local) are beginning to drive more and more illegal aliens home.
What we have to constantly remind everybody, though, is that each of these outlaw growers at any time can come clean, go straight and become a legal, patriotic member of the business community by importing any needed foreign ag workers through the H-2A temporary worker program. There is no limit on how many they can import as long as they pay them decently and ensure that they go home.
The North Carolina Growers Association has used the H-2A visa program for years and opposes all efforts at amnesty for illegal alien ag workers. If the program works fine for North Carolina farmers, why do farmers in other part of the country insist that only illegal aliens will fit the bill?
THE VERY LOW CRITERIA FOR QUALIFYING FOR AN AG AMNESTY
Rosemary says you don’t have to have spent much time in the fields to qualify for Feinstein and Craig’s amnesty.
You only have to meet ONE of the following three criteria to get the amnesty:
Earned $7,000 working in agriculture during the 2004-2007 period.
Or worked 863 hours in agriculture during the 2004-2007 period.
Or worked at least a little bit in agriculture on 150 different days during the 2004-2007 period.
That amounts to an average of $1,750 per year …
… or 216 hours per year (the equivalent of 4 hours per week) …
… or parts of 37 days per year.
DO THE SENATORS SUPPORTING THIS THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY ACCEPT THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WORKING THAT LITTLE IN AGRICULTURE ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF AGRI-BUSINESS IN AMERICA!!!!!!
The answer is that they really hope we are that stupid or just incredibly unfocused. All the right-wing business lobbyists, leftist organizations, religious groups and news media who tried to force the amnesty last year are cheering this thing on.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Dan,
I hope you’re right. “Hope” usually isn’t the best thing to base government policy on, however. I’ve noticed a pretty stark ethnic balkanization in California over my lifespan, the entirety of which has been spent in this state. There appears to be little altruism and mutual trust because of it.
My own observations lead me to believe that there is little cultural inclination of Hispanics towards math and science. I believe that’s where the analogy of Italian-Americans breaks down. Italy has a strong intellectual tradition.
In Los Angeles, a city that’s almost entirely Hispanic, you encounter very few Hispanics working in science, engineering, and other “knowledge work” that Thomas L. Friedman lauds. These jobs are still done almost entirely by Jews, Asians, and whites. This doesn’t bode well for the future of our country in my opinion, given the 40 million high-fertility Mexican illegals we have here now.
Again, I hope I’m wrong and you’re right, but my experience over the last two decades suggests otherwise.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
You say you want a PhD., but your best argument is namecalling.
Back to First Grade for you.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
PRCalDude,
The ethnic balkanization is predictable regardless of underlying differences in intelligence, owing to the mass importation of unskilled immigrants.
Mutlethnic societies do appear to suffer from less social trust than ethncially homogenous ones. In this, the multicultralists are a national threat.
I am unaware of any strong intellectual tradition from the Mezzogiorno, where the ancestors of most Italian Americans came from. Southern Italy was distinct from northern Italy in its economic system (large plantations instead of smaller farms or trading systems), and to this day is remarkably poorer than the rest of Italy.
miatom1,
Namecalling is not an argument at all.
Could you assert your claims, and back them up?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I am unaware of any strong intellectual tradition from the Mezzogiorno, where the ancestors of most Italian Americans came from.
This is true. Sicily gave the US the Mafia. However, one crucial difference is that the Italian immigrants did not have a specific territorial grievance with the US.
I realise we are discussing intellectual differences here but I would like to make a larger comparison between European and Hispanic immigration generally just to clarify the contrast between the two.
What would a European equivalent of the influx of Mexican nationalists, the reconquista crowd, into the US Southwest constitute? Well New York was originally called New Amsterdam. It was settled by Dutch colonists until the British colonists saw them off.
Now could you imagine if nowadays millions of Dutchmen flooded into Ellis Island, insisted on remaining Dutch-speaking and spoke bitterly of how New Amsterdam was stolen from them? Imagine they flew Dutch flags above Old Glory.
You probably can’t imagine it because the idea is so ridiculous and impossible that it becomes difficult to picture. Therefore I think any comparison of European and Hispanic immigration is spurious.
The Mexicans could be geniuses, cultured, elegant but their aggressive irredentism should disqualify them from citizenship before intellectual abilities are even taken into account.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I’m unclear then how an illegal immigrant “earned citizenship” path will benefit our society. If California is any indicator, and it is, then they should be repatriated to their own country. Even Friedman was against the importation of low-skilled immigrants, yet this is exactly what was proposed under McCain-Kennedy.
Mutual trust, altruism, and mass immigration are diametrically opposed to one another. If you and Barnett et al want America to remain a viable force for good, then this is the wrong path for the country.
As usual, I’m with Aengus as well. Intellectual capabilities are really a distant second to cultural issues. These fourth generation warfare actors (MS-13, 18th Street, Latin Kings, etc) are a result of bad culture amongst these immigrants and a deep cultural acceptance of what they call “the cholo lifestyle.”
May 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
The immigration situation is really a tough issue. A country in which the people share a common identity is definitely preferable. Look at America in the 1950’s. There were no debates about whether or not a Christmas tree was offensive or not. No one complained about George Washington being a slave owner and obviously affirmative action didn’t exist. There was no such thing as “identity politics.” When people share a common identity, young people are taught to be confident in their history and feel inspired by the men and women who built their nation.
Today, Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin are replaced with King, Parks, and Susan Sontag. In the past, people were heroes based on achievement. Today, people are heroes based on how much “oppression” they “overcame.”
While homogeneous countries are certainly preferable, the problem is we can’t go back to that time. People in the West (and Japan) decided that they had better things to do than reproduce. Because of this, we must accept immigrants. If America is to remain an economic and military superpower we must have a growing population.
The question that needs answering is how to best integrate these immigrants without inconviencing the current residents. Some crazed leftest suggest having racial quota’s for every block in America. In other words; forced diversity. And if we think we have it tough, the Europeans and Russians have it even worse. At least we have the Hispanics to integrate, who for the most part aren’t religious fanatics and who share the Christian faith. The Japanese will try to use Robots. Which means one day there will be the last Japanese person controlling thousands of robots with her laptop. I have no idea how what Israel will do?
In the past I suggested something I call “Localism.” [1]
But Localism is very unlikely in today’s atmosphere of political correctness and identity politics. The biggest challenge that we, the EU, Russia, or other developed countries face is how to manage a multi-ethnic population. The country or countries that can do this the best will be the superpower[s] of the future. Failure to do this will result in an ugly mix of Balkanization, civil war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
[1]http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/30/legalize-dope-annex-mexico.html#comment-19630
May 17th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Aengus,
If I may, you appear to be criticizing large-scale unskilled Mexican immigration using Italian immigration as a foil, noting that while Italian immigration led to an increase in crime, Italian immigrants did not entertain territorial grievances against the United States.
Obviously, as unskilled immigrants tend to be young risk-taking males, unskilled immigration leads to an increase in crime. Thus there is a legitimate political question of how much crime is worth how much growth.
Regarding territorial grievances, you’ve identified a reason it is dangerous for two large nations to share a long border [1] and not be economically integrated. The solution is economic integration with Mexico… hopefully leading to political union [2].
PRCalDude,
There are three factors of production: land, capital, and labor. The land area of the United States is fixed until we begin absorbing more states. With regards to the other two, America is relatively capital-rich and labor-poor. Thus, our economy is past the point of diminishing returns as it relates to adding capital, but enjoys the most “bang for the buck” by importing labor.
The inequality of income that comes from a stronger economy and richer country is a valid political concern. This is best solved by providing social welfare benefits that increase economic productivy, such as social security (in the past) and universal healthcare (in the future).
Seerov,
Excellent comment.
Ethnic homogeniety in the extreme leads to large governments and excessive social welfare, such as Japan, Sweden, and (traditionally) Minnesota. However, ethnic homogeniety does bring about greater social trust, which is related to economic growth. Thus the trick is to get the trust without the excessive homogeniety.
Enforcement of the laws and economic competition that focuses on the individual are the way to do this.
In this and other things, the threat to the United States comes not from large numbers of immigrants, but from the leftists who would turn an advantage into a weakness through multiculturalism.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/04/13/a-border-runs-through-it-a-strange-frontier-in-north-america.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/04/11/annex-mexico.html
May 17th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I’d need to see what the economic arguments are for that. Labor is increasingly becoming automated, leading to an increase in productivity, and making low-skilled immigrants unnecessary. For example, as a percentage of the GDP manufacturing has stayed the same over the past 70 or so years, but the amount of people employed in manufacturing has dropped exponentially.
Then you have the other issue of wage depression for Americans working in competition with the imported Mexicans. Mexicans are racially chauvinistic and generally don’t speak English in their low-skilled jobs. Americans can’t compete for these jobs unless they decide to learn Spanish and work off the books for the same wages as the Mexicans with hostile Mexicans, who sleep 50 to a room. Construction wages in California haven’t risen in 20 years. Meanwhile, the cost of living continues to go up and all the whites and blacks have been leaving for the past 20 years. This tells me that there is a certain cultural incompatibility between us and them, one I’ve experienced myself plenty of times.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hi Dan,
Thanks for replying.
I’ll just discuss a few points you made.
The solution is economic integration with Mexico… hopefully leading to political union [2].
I do not think that is tenable and even if it was what makes it desirable? I read your post and while it is interesting I think you are missing the point: Mexico is annexing parts of the US.
The land area of the United States is fixed until we begin absorbing
more states.
I heard a discussion along these lines on the Hugh Hewitt show a few years back and I almost fell out of my chair. A guest was saying there could be 51 or 53 states in the future. I think 46 or 47 is more realistic. Mexico is absorbing states from the US.
Besides, unless you are planning on a building a multicultural Empire there is nowhere to absorb. It would only be tenable if you were to abandon representative democracy and have a Caesar rule by diktat
Ethnic homogeniety in the extreme leads to large governments and excessive social welfare, such as Japan, Sweden, and (traditionally) Minnesota.
There is no reason to believe that large government and excessive social welfare came about as a result of ethnic homogenity.
Switzerland has enjoyed twelve centuries of limited government without being diverse. Iceland, one of the most ethnically homogenous societies in the world, is another counter-example.
In this and other things, the threat to the United States comes not from large numbers of immigrants, but from the leftists who would turn an advantage into a weakness through multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is not a fringe leftist ideology. It is the mainstream policy of the United States. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that US troops were fighting in Iraq for multiculturalism. So the leftists you mention are essentially the Democratic and Republican parties. In which case how does one opt out of multiculturalism?
May 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Especially if we’re to absorb Mexico? Would we have to give up our traditions or they theirs? Would we speak Spanish or they English?
The thing about Empires is that they collapse absent a dictatorship to rule them, because too many different ethnicities have too many different interests. America proper is becoming an empire: we have Mexicans, blacks, whites, Arabs, and Asians occupying the same space with different interests. The less homogeneity has not given us less of a welfare state, it has given us a greater one. A commenter on my blog works at a hospital in Chicago and tells me all the time about Mexicans coming in and getting care without paying their bills. On top of that, they get angry when nobody can be found to speak Spanish to them. Essentially, the whites in this society, and blacks in higher tax brackets, are funding their own demographic displacement by paying for the expansion of Mexico into the United States. Taxes lower our birthrates and increase theirs. Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that Mexican culture is capable of producing what American culture has. My father in law owns a plant in Tijuana and remarks all the time about how he gets 10 times the productivity out of his Chinese plant, even though Mexico is right next door. Moreover, Mexico works on a system of croney capitalism and corruption, not what we have here.
These people bring their values with them. It’s not the fault of leftists that the Mexicans don’t check their culture at the border. It’s the fault of the entire elite in Washington. The Republicans and Democrats only care about green, not realizing that our culture and people are the agents by which that green is produced. Globalism is driven by middle-aged white American males, like my father in law, not by the Mexicans coming here.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“There is no reason to believe that large government and excessive social welfare came about as a result of ethnic homogenity.” (-aenqus)
Actually there is much evidence to support this. I would suggest starting out with the work of Robert Putnam [1] Putnam was so disturbed by his findings–that ethnic diversity leads to less trust in communities–that he waited 2 years to try to find information to the contrary [2].
We can also see examples of this in American politics. Before the 1960’s, Americans actually felt it was “patriotic” to pay taxes. The Democratic party dominated as Americans were surly not going to vote for the party of corporate America.
In the 1960’s this all changed. People started thinking differently about the government because government no longer kept their communities “safe.” Images of the 101st Airborne forcing integration in public schools signaled to Americans that the government had turned its back on them. Because of this, people started having to rely on themselves to maintain their communities.
It is here we see the rise of the GOP. The GOP offered a new way to keep people’s community homogeneous. The idea was to give people more economic freedom so they could move away from areas they perceived as being “unsafe.” Where people once embraced social programs like the New Deal, they now stared seeing these programs as the means for undesirables to infiltrate their communities. This caused people to leave their beautiful Victorian homes in the cities for boxes in Levittown. People now relied economic mobility as the means to maintain community. This is why I’m fully convinced that the end of segregation did more for the rise of the suburbs than any other factors put together.
This also marked the end of the “ethnic” European communities. People once saw themselves as neighbors with folks from the same Father-lands. After the 60’s, this changed to a class based system of neighbors. You neighbor became the people who could afford to live in your community. The old ethnic communities would have poor, middle class, and wealthy folks living next to each other. The poor family that lived next door would receive help from neighbors. Now the poor receive help from the government.
[1] http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x?cookieSet=1
[2] http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/04/diversity_destr.php
May 21st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
aengus,
And thank you for the comment, as well!
One consequence of importing a large number of works (that is, experiencing a labor trade surplus) is that they bring their culture with them. For the durability of that culture in the face of the free market, I have to agree with Marx. [1]
Seerov link to Putnam’s work is informative. A benefit from social science is that it moves the conversation away from anecdotes and toward correlations.
Seerov,
Excellent point about the shift in neighborhoods. The transition from ethnicity to class divide is a simplification of social structure doubtless has a role in the increase of crime.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/04/12/the-manifest-destiny-of-the-american-nation.html#comment-74670