provoke the Republican base into going totally off the deep end
Yep. And they're hoping to sew up the Latino vote as solidly as they have the black vote. That's why Lindsey Graham is now threatening to filibuster *his own freaking energy bill* if they don't push back immigration reform until after the elections.
And they're hoping to sew up the Latino vote as solidly as they have the black vote.
Yep. And if they can do that, it is a long term demographic victory. I think it is worth trying for.
I'm not sure about the short term politics of this ("tough" i.e. racist immigration control is pretty popular right now, even among non tea party types).
I do know that if the Republicans become officially the anti-Hispanic party, the long term politics overwhelmingly favor the Democrats. The smarter Republicans know this. They can read demographic trends and they saw what happened with Prop 187 in California -- basically, locking up the state's key constituency for the Democrats for 20 years and ending Cailfornia's long history as a swing state -- and they know that going crazy on immigration will cost them decades out of power. (And will piss off their base of small and mid-size business owners). Karl Rove was very smart about this, as are most of the Texas Republicans, and was very, very solicitious of the Hispanic vote.
But the Republicans have a base that is foaming at the mouth on this issue, and that they can't control.
OK, we all agree on this one. Problem solved!
It's nice to feel like there's one area where the Democrats are savvier than the Republicans.
That's why Lindsey Graham is now threatening to filibuster *his own freaking energy bill* if they don't push back immigration reform until after the elections.
Yes. He'll filibuster his own energy bill if they don't push back the immigration bill that he also says he supports (but that he's also willing to filibuster, of course).
I hope it works too, because the alternative is the Republicans sweeping congress with a mandate to be totally dickish about immigration.
5: I'm not sure "savvier" is the right word--Republicans are in a real bind here. They (or at least most of them) know that alienating hispanics is a big problem, but their white base is sufficiently up in arms about immigration that they're at real electoral risk if they come across as insifficiently anti-immigrant.
8: But at least we're finally exploiting one of their stupid weaknesses, instead of turning up our hands and saying "Gorsh, boss! Whoda thunk!"
I sure as hell hope it works.
Me too, I guess
provoke the Republican base into going totally off the deep end.
See, I have meanings of this that are very very bad.
I know what these people did in the 1850s 1960s and 1890s and 1960s and most of the time between (1920s immigration laws & KKK?) I do not underestimate (overestimate?) them.
There is a portion, at least 30-40% that are violent crazy, and I am not sure the "moderates" ("small and mid-size business owners") will leap into the arms of the Democrats. They will have to live with their wingnut neigbors for generations and as happened all the times before, the undecided will go tribal.
Wingnutland could put up the metaphorical barricades, decide to heighten the contradictions, and ask the Yanks whatcha gonna fo about it? Huh?
Listen to what you are saying. If Hispanics are about to become the forever mortal enemies of Republicans, along with the blacks & gays, wingnut Texans, for instance, have little to lose by taking extraordinary measures to drive them out of their states.
insifficiently anti-immigrant
unsufficiently anti-ummigrant?
If Hispanics are about to become the forever mortal enemies of Republicans, along with the blacks & gays, wingnut Texans, for instance, have little to lose by taking extraordinary measures to drive them out of their states.
This is true, but it's kind of mind-boggling because wingnut Texans are way outnumbered by Texans of hispanic descent plus non-crazy Texans.
Ruy Teixeira (?) and his fucking demographics.
What does he think, Rick Perry and Tom DeLay are going to give up control of Texas, like forever?
Fortunately, Texas now looks relatively sane. Thanks, Arizona!
Also, I don't know how I can still be amazed by right-wing hypocrisy, but it's breathtaking that they can simultaneously:
1. Accuse Obama of creeping Nazism
2. Implement a law which allows the police to stop and ask you for papers, depending on which ethnicity you look like. Literally a first step to Nazism! Not even hyperbolically!
Texans, for instance, have little to lose by taking extraordinary measures to drive them out of their states
Driving 1/3 of their population out of the state would hurt Texas. Even the crazies can understand that math.
I get stymied by the words "immigration reform", because everything politically possible seems stupid or useless. (To be clear, I think probably the best possible outcome is something that I think of as stupid and dishonest -- a 'path to citizenship' for people now in the country illegally, without any provision of a reasonable way for the people who are going to enter the country and work here to do so legally in the future -- but better than the politically possible alternatives). What I want to happen; a change in the laws that would allow people who want to come to the US to work to do so legally without an unreasonable amount of difficulty, and that would allow people resident in the US and working to become citizens after a reasonable amount of time, seems to be just off the table completely in terms of what's possible.
So, I have a hard time getting involved in 'immigration reform' positively. I can enjoy seeing Republicans tie themselves in knots, but any plausible tweaking the Democrats are likely to do to the immigration laws is just going to annoy me.
a 'path to citizenship' for people now in the country illegally, without any provision of a reasonable way for the people who are going to enter the country and work here to do so legally in the future
I didn't realize the paths to citizenship was supposed to be a one-time thing, like amnesty. I thought it was really a path, like a trail, that would stay put for new people to come along.
18 reminds me that, despite hearing lots of generic talk about it, I actually have no idea what specifically the Democrats are thinking of proposing with respect to "immigration reform". Is there a bill in the works, or even a concrete proposal in the air?
I'd been assuming that they'd be trying to move forward with something that looked very much like GWB's 2004 proposal, but I realized I have no basis for that assumption.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that it's a process for currently undocumented immigrants; even if it's around in the future, it's a path you get on by breaking the law. I sound like a surly teenager, but that's just stupid.
even a concrete proposal in the air?
The White House website is awfully vague about it.
22: Yeah, from that link:
Bring People Out of the Shadows
President Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
All very nice, and better than what we've got now, but it means that our immigration process is either (1) go through the byzantine and impossible process we've got now, with literally no way for most people in the world to immigrate legally, or (2) break the law and hide here for long enough that we forgive you. Both (1) and (2) are stupid, and using (2) as a safety valve to soften the inhumane effects of (1), rather than fixing (1), is particularly inane.
I'm not hoping for anything better, but I'm not going to be able to get excited about this in anything but a negative way.
24: Welcome to the chair I was sitting in for the health insurance bill. I tried to keep it warm for you.
It's not that bad -- I don't think what we're likely to do is going to be particularly harmful, and it might be an improvement over the status quo, just in a way that I find irrational and seriously non-optimal.
What I want to happen; a change in the laws that would allow people who want to come to the US to work to do so legally without an unreasonable amount of difficulty, and that would allow people resident in the US and working to become citizens after a reasonable amount of time, seems to be just off the table completely in terms of what's possible.
If this is ideal legislation, then obviously the backlash would be that the sheer number of people who'd like to be here is too big for the US to hold. Is this counter-argument worthless?
I call dibs on the chair for climate change legislation.
What I want to happen; a change in the laws that would allow people who want to come to the US to work to do so legally without an unreasonable amount of difficulty
Anyone?
(Serious question. Immigration policy is something I don't know enough about to feel like I know what should happen, ideally.)
Can I have the chair for Financial Reform?
It strikes me that we might need to invest in more chairs.
Is this counter-argument worthless?
I'm in an unpleasant, bitchy mood, so the temptation to say "Yes" and leave it at that is probably one to be resisted.
The only reason anyone wants to come here is that there's room -- jobs, opportunity, and so on. If the US 'filled up', to the point there weren't jobs to be easily had that were more attractive than what was available back home, people would stop coming.
This seems rough on people competing with immigrants for jobs? Sure. On the other hand, not letting people immigrate, or making them outlaws when they do, is rough on people in much worse shape. If capital can move freely across borders, labor should be able to.
29 basically preempted by 27, which is what I was asking.
(I'm not sure the sheer number is of people who'd like to be here is definitely too many for us to hold, in an absolute sense, but I'm quite sure the rate of inflow would be far too high.)
It strikes me that we might need to invest in more chairs.
Pews! Pews is the answer!
24 -- I hear what you are saying, but I think you are overly cynical.
Getting people who are now in the US illegally -- particularly those who have been here for a long time, like a guy I know who has been here for 20 years, has three daughters in high school and his own business, but whom ICE has been trying to deport for 5 years -- into a legal and regularized system where they can become citizens is a BIG deal. Like, one of the biggest and most important humanitarian things that we could do as a country, and one that affects millions of people, even if nothing else is done. "All very nice" massively underestimates the importance of this issue.
Clarifying and regularizing the rules for bringing people into the country is important, too, even without a lot of liberalization. Most of the proposed reforms try to cut down on the byzantine nature of the system, particularly for skilled immigrants. I don't know if those reforms will work, and a lot depends on the details, but it's hard to do worse than what we have now.
I don't particularly like guest worker programs, but I would rather have people coming in as guest workers with some legal protection than the system we have now.
I think you may be underestimating how massively fucked up the current system is. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is as dumb in this instance (sorry, Apo) as it was in the health reform debate.
The implicit question behind "is there a number that is too many" is "if we want to keep or improve our current quality of life".
Then I suspect the argument goes to whether more immigrants grow the whole pot, or if we'd have to divide the same chicken smaller between us and all the new people.
34: I did call it the 'best possible outcome' -- I'm not going to argue that any reform bill that tweaks our currently insane system in a plausibly better way should be defeated. But the sort of tweaking that's the only thing on the table is something that I know I'm not competent to judge: "a lot depends on the details" indeed.
I'm just imputing attitudes to people I don't know, but now I'm wondering. How come people who think that there's only so much middle-class lifestyle to go around in the immigration debate think that resources are infinite in the climate change debate. Do they believe in limits or not?
No need to apologize to me, Halford. I'm confident that come 2018, it will be be widely acknowledged that the health insurance bill didn't manage to fix much of anything.
38: Heh. And it's funny, I'm firmly on the global resources are limited, population should go down if possible bench. But as long as people are on my planet, I don't see any justification for not letting them live wherever they want.
As somebody who think CC is a hoax and immigration leads to an inferior quality of life, I fit your description and do believe in limits - that's why I'm against endless wars and inviting the world to the US. I don't really see a connection between CC and immigration. CC is a theory, immigration is a reality and I see the consequences around me every day.
And if you really are worried about CC, they're just going to emit far more CO2 in the US. The best thing that could be done for the climate is reduce immigration.
The only reason anyone wants to come here is that there's room -- jobs, opportunity, and so on. If the US 'filled up', to the point there weren't jobs to be easily had that were more attractive than what was available back home, people would stop coming.
This strikes me as remarkable econ-101y, coming from you. At what population level would you expect something like this to happen? We have minimum wage laws; peasants in India work for pennies. Even long after all the "help wanted" signs were gone from all the fast food restaurants, many people would (rightly) believe they'd be much better off here, hoping for a job and living off our social safety net (stingy by western standards, but generous by world standards) than staying at home. Could we afford that? How would it work?
If capital can move freely across borders, labor should be able to.
If this is supposed to be obvious, could you elaborate on why? There are some pretty important differences between capital and "labor" (i.e., people).
I do understand the social-justice arguments you're gesturing towards, and I'm very sympathetic to them--I'd love to see a vastly more egalitarian world. But I'm not convinced an open immigration policy is a way we can get there from here.
immigration leads to an inferior quality of life
Which is why a nation built 100% through immigration is the largest economy in the world.
A hoax?! C'mon! I'll sort of respect "exaggerated" or "unproven", but just who do you think is faking what?
37 -- I think the impulse is "hands off my stuff." People think that both immigrants and environmentalists are after their property and "way of life."
As I'm sure you already know, there is a nasty and evil strain of the US environmental movement that is anti-immigrant, and that caused huge problems for the Sierra Club.
OT for grammar/usage snobs:
Is it deprecated to use an anaphoric personal pronoun before mentioning the referent?>> "In his new book, The Sticking Point, Jermaine Dupri. . . "
The best thing you could do to combat global warming is punch a hippie. True fact.
Wait, no hyperbole in blog comments? Hoax, exaggeration, unproven, all meet international blog commenting standards.
This seems rough on people competing with immigrants for jobs? Sure. On the other hand, not letting people immigrate, or making them outlaws when they do, is rough on people in much worse shape.
I agree with this in principle, but I bet there is a real-world scenario that would get me to abandon my principles and scream NIMBY!
I haven't seen that strain of environmentalism first hand, so I don't know much about how that plays out.
I bet you're right about "hands off my stuff" as the underlying impulse, but their arguments don't match up. Which, you know, whatever.
We have minimum wage laws; peasants in India work for pennies.
Peasants in India work for pennies partially because prices in India are such that they can live off pennies; $5/hour in the US isn't necessarily a better standard of living than $.25/hour someplace in the developing world, when you factor in the cost of living here. And I'm not sure what safety net you're talking about for childless, non-disabled adults that's attractive enough to uproot people from their homes without the prospect of work here.
To be clear, I'd like to see much more liberal immigration quotas, etc. But I don't see a way we could absord the flow that would result from a truly open policy.
Actually, all my resentment against immigrants comes from the fact that they didn't date me in high school because their parents disapproved. Immigrants need to date more daughters!
46: I want to do exactly that all the time, but since college, people have been red-flagging it in my prose. Probably shouldn't do it.
And if you really are worried about CC, they're just going to emit far more CO2 in the US. The best thing that could be done for the climate is reduce immigration.
Poverty does lead to less emissions, but the BEST thing that could be done for the climate is just kill everyone.
I like your use of "hoax" and "theory" as synonyms too.
52: I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Off the cuff, the fact that people here don't cripple children to make them better beggers is evidence that American poverty is somewhat better than Indian poverty.
Peasants in India work for pennies partially because prices in India are such that they can live off pennies;
Uh, they're pretty poor, even with Indian prices, no?
I basically agree with 34.
In a sane world there would be a guest worker program, sensible and intelligible and practical routes to citizenship, and real enforcement of penalties against people knowingly employing illegal migrants. I'll be satisfied with even minor fixes to the law that move in the right direction.
34: Your job is safe if millions of people move here. That's not true of most Americans.
If my kids couldn't get into any colleges, say, because all of a sudden we were swamped with terrifically qualified international students, I'd be upset. For example.
Are you serious with 52, LB? You don't usually troll.
People move mostly because home has gotten very bad, not because one destination on a menu looks attractive. Immigration sucks, changing countries is very hard on people.
The real question is how many unskilled immigrants can be absorbed per year. The US isn't the only place coping with this, and it doesn't always mean dealing with foreigners. Okies in the thirties in the US are an example of internal migration causing real friction. Internal restrictions preventing rural flight to big cities exist in China, Russia, and indirectly in much of Europe is another example.
Too many people too fast creates real instability. I don't have an ideal solution either, but unrestricted movement of people in the face of steep income gradients has not worked at all well in the past.
Capital is not actually especially free to move across borders-- the US is unusual in allowing foreigners to purchase real property. Opening a bank account as a foreigner in the US and Europe requires overcoming huge hurdles. Bond markets are pretty open, but that's because all governments run deficits and are desperate for lenders.
I agree that the current US system is restrictive in unpredictable and unpleasant ways, and I think that something looser would be better. But wide open seems pretty clearly wrong.
Is there a good Arizona newspaper? Well-written local news out of there would be worth reading.
55: Really? It seems pretty common to me in magazines.
57, 58: See my "partially", and "isn't necessarily". Sure, people poor by US standards are rich (in consumption terms) by developing world standards. But there's a crossover point where an income that sounds ridiculously low in cash terms in the US can be quite livable in a poorer country, in some cases more livable than grinding poverty here.
"Guest worker program" wouldn't be so popular if it were called "indentured labor program." If we're going to have immigration or labor programs, the workers should have the opportunity to work for any employer and find the best use of their labor. Tying them to one employer is a recipe for abuse and it subsidizes uneconomic industries, like agriculture.
If my kids couldn't get into any colleges, say, because all of a sudden we were swamped with terrifically qualified international students, I'd be upset
Colleges already admit a lot of international students. I know people who feel this way now. (Of course, they're probably wrong about the causation.)
And yes to 63.1 -- open borders doesn't mean that everyone in the world will suddenly appear here. Moving to a different country is something you do if you're desperate.
I think the only sense in which 65 can be true is in the "at least my neighbor is as bad off as I am, so i have nothing to be jealous of" sense.
68: What about yes to 63.2, 63.3, 63.4, or 63.5? I think you underestimate how many desperate people there are.
68: You don't think 5% of the world population would move to the US if it had the chance? That would double the US population overnight.
"Taking into account dependents, there are more than 10 million participants in the 2008 Diversity Visa Lottery"
aka the "Green Card Lottery". Every year. For only 50000 slots.
Certainly, immigration would go way up -- I'm not saying it wouldn't.
This has been yet another episode of do not make statements about deregulating social policy based on Econ 101 theories and no research. Immigration needs some regulation, like anything else.
But I'd certainly like much larger legal immigration rates per year, and increased clarity and rationality to the system.
swamped with terrifically qualified international students
It's odd to read this from a mathematician. I realized that I was on the needs-help end of a quota in a physics PhD program, as was almost everyone educated in the US. Paper qualifications don't tell the whole story, so I don't see this as a serious issue, but formally, weak US secondary education makes this very situation a reality now.
Regarding 100% immigrant US: land occupied only by animals and defenseless natives served to absorb immigrants in an agricultural economy.
And yes to 63.1 -- open borders doesn't mean that everyone in the world will suddenly appear here. Moving to a different country is something you do if you're desperate.
Unlike if you're capital.
Someone spell out for me what terrible thing happens when all this immigration occurs? People show up, they get jobs or they don't, if they don't, they probably go home. If they get jobs, then that means they have skills that someone here thinks are worth paying for, and everyone's better off.
The standard of living between here and the developing world equalizes some? Can that really be described as a bad thing?
74: Is there a level of competition that would trigger you to be defensive about resources available for your kin? I'm not saying that people can't be pushed past their defensive triggers, necessarily. But I still think there's a line somewhere.
76.last: And after Obama sends the ACORN shock troops in to forcibly disarm Kansans and Nebraskans, we can recreate that simpler time.
75: Obviously, based on what I remember from Econ 101, the only market-based solution that is fair to immigrants is to open the borders but make things so unpleasant that about as many people want to leave as want to come. This can be easily achieved by giving national-level responsibilities to the people who run the Pittsburgh Department of Public Works and the editors of Reason.
Someone spell out for me what terrible thing happens when all this immigration occurs? People show up, they get jobs or they don't, if they don't, they probably go home. If they get jobs, then that means they have skills that someone here thinks are worth paying for, and everyone's better off.
Also, everyone's wages go down massively.
The standard of living between here and the developing world equalizes some? Can that really be described as a bad thing?
Isn't the government of our country supposed to represent the people of our country? Not take the side of people in other countries, against the people of our country?
Someone spell out for me what terrible thing happens when all this immigration occurs?
Jammies loses his job because he's decently skilled but there are a million just like him. My kids don't get into colleges because college construction hasn't kept up with all the smart, incredibly driven graduating seniors. We're unexpectedly sunk several SES levels with no real understanding of what we should have done differently to protect ourselves.
In other words, the rules for success change too fast for the bottom 2/3 to keep up and adjust, and they plummet in SES.
82: Yes, the people at the bottom of the U.S. economic ladder will get massively fucked-over without a government redistribution.
And that holds for the bottom 2/3 of immigrants in my scenario, as well.
78: You're surprised that a political idea that would cause a massive drop in living standards is off the table in a democracy? How do you think mass suicide would poll?
Also, everyone's wages go down massively.
Not everyone's. Low-paid workers, disproportionately.
Well, not that they plummet. But that there's no achievable "American Dream".
78: Would you feel differently if it was likely that many of those immigrants would be qualified for your job and willing to work for half your salary?
79, and way back to tologosh in 59. I'm not viscerally afraid about what's going to happen to my family in almost any plausible social change short of McManus taking over and the blood of the bourgeoisie running in the streets like borscht; I'm incredibly privileged (like most of the rest of you reading this), and I and mine are probably going to do fine. This means that anything I say about any kind of social change can freely be dismissed as no skin off my nose -- my social position, as an American professional, shelters me from the consequences of anything I advocate, which means that my opinions are worthless. Taking that as a given:
Sure, at some point if I felt a threat to the well being of the individuals I cared about, I'd fight for their access to resources regardless of justice. That doesn't change what's just.
46: This would be prescriptivism of such an overeager and intrusive stripe I'd want to label it Hasidic prescriptivism. In writing, there is no barrier to comprehension inherent to such a construction. In speech, very little unless a lot of descriptive info is popped in between pronoun and referent and then the issue isn't really the relative position anymore, anyhow. Is there some other possible objection to this usage?
46 is a standard thing to write. It's much better than "In Jermaine Dupri's new book The Sticking Point, he writes," which is something I was taught to avoid.
91 -- Don't be so sure you'll be safe. I don't think lawyers are immune. Eventually, more people will start to notice that India is pumping out millions of highly trained, English speaking common-law lawyers who can do document review about as well as any big firm associate, driving down the wages for the profession as a whole.
The standard of living between here and the developing world equalizes some?
What will happen to the legal and political system in the country that equalizes down? What about the water quality when desperately poor people shit in the same creek where they wash? In Chiapas, there is more space, so they don't need to do that, but look at the outskirts of Dhaka or Nairobi on google earth for an answer to this question.
91
Many people believe that what's just is a global averaging of resources. Would you be willing to accept a salary of $10000 a year for your family in the name of justice? It requires a lot of bravery to honestly do so.
94: I think my standards of 'doing fine' are probably lower than you're thinking. If I can find work that keeps a roof over my head and my family with enough food, that's wealth by global/historical standards.
But yes, there's all sorts of protectionism for high paid professions that shouldn't exist either.
LB: They would come here, have handsome sons who were skaters and also good in math but wouldn't date me because I'm not a good Baptist Korean girl. Is that what you want for our country?
96: What does it mean to say yes or no to that? It's not an option -- an actual averaging of resources -- that's within my power, so nothing I say about what I'd do if it were is either actually brave, or particularly likely to be reliable. I can talk about what I think would be right, but not terribly meaningfully about what I'd actually do in the situation.
What does it mean to say yes or no to that?
Whether or not you'd support a policy which directly led to that possibility.
(I finally posted a thread where someone took a big stand and everyone's arguing! I've been TRYING, you guys.)
101: I think I would (generally, we'd have to talk about specific policies and so on) be right to do so. Anyone who wants to tell me that I wouldn't really support a policy like that if there were any chance it were going to happen might easily be right -- I'm not going to posture about how brave I'd be under circumstances I'm not in.
Okay, it's technically true that you can't know what you'd really do if such an option were presented, but how about Heebie's question?
You guys are taking the same-size chicken spread over more people perspective. Which may be true, I don't know. And then, LB's saying, right, but more people will be better off than worse off, so it's worth it. And other people saying, but what if some of the worse off people are me? (And I'm saying, Ernie Hwang should have dated me, is all.)
Are there no takers for the immigrants add ability to do stuff and make life better for everyone and lift all the boats side of things? (I'm not generally an optimist, so I'm not the person to make that case.)
Marat we're poor
And the poor stay poor
Marat don't make
Us wait anymore
We want our rights borscht and we don't care how
I'm an open borders guy.
Oops too late. Anyway, I don't think I could bring myself to choose that route.
I wouldn't want to come to your god-forsaken hole of a country, anyway.
re: 102 -- Will that help, heebie?
And other people saying, but what if some of the worse off people are me?
I think it's more than this. It's "What if I'm worse off and the sheer influx of people means the immigrants mostly aren't better off, either?" Someone upthread mentioned sufficiently desperate people crapping in streams, for example.
91.last: That's more intelligible than what I'd assumed you were saying. The problem is then what kind of unjust law is both politically viable and less unjust than what we have now? Pretty much the same issue as in reforming health care, the financial services industry, yada yada...
My strong preference for a long term solution to the problem of illegal immigration is strengthening the economies of the places immigrants are coming from. Unfortunately there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from those crappy economies (and associated crappy governments), and lots of well meaning do-gooders who want to use third world countries to prove their theories about the way things should be done. There are also lots of well meaning do-gooders who want money spent on development but can't be bothered to pay enough attention to ensure that it's spent effectively, allowing it to be diverted into projects that are useless or actively harmful but which put money into the pockets of some corrupt interest or other.
Perhaps the best way to develop third world economies is to let people migrate here as long as they repatriate some fraction of their pay prior to gaining citizenship. That money would at least be going to people who would use it.
The robust comrade McManus appears to be cooling on heightening them contradictions, no? I'd have thought La Migra III: 'Baggers Vs. Zetas would be right up his street.
Re:Heebie worries
I got your economics right here
1) Open borders;50 million new Texans
2) Open up the printing presses
3) Use new money to build schools, colleges, windmills, solar farms, high speed rail, free hospitals, soccer stadiums, rooftop farms
4) tax the fuck out of everybody
5) repeat
1) Open borders;50 million new Texans
And very few of them big enough to make a decent linebacker.
immigrants add ability to do stuff and make life better for everyone
Sure, but how many in a year? There's agitation because unlimited immigration is like unrestricted building, creates lots of transient problems that do not exist if there's moderate planning. Like building, though, it's hard to agree on what it is that the zoning laws are optimizing.
Actually, immigrants have a real effect on the country they left as well, both by sending money back (short-term improvement) and by depriving it of skilled and ambitious people (long-term deficit).
113:The robust comrade McManus appears to be cooling on heightening them contradictions, no?
Zero:Do whatever it takes to implement 114.1-114.5
Lots of borscht.
Of course, the UK has been running an experiment on more or less unrestricted immigration for a few years now. I don't know if anyone's done much research on the effects on wages at the low end. Much of the debate seems to be dominated by racists and little Englanders.
118: Well, yeah. I'm coming into this both believing that global equalization of standards of living is just, and that unrestricted immigration isn't likely to have an immediately catastrophic effect toward that end.
And I can sign on to 112.2 and .3.
re: 119
The UK hasn't opened its borders to the world in general, but within the EU there's been a large migration of people from the former communist states to the UK. As far as I know those numbers are decreasing now as people return home now that the employment opportunities are drying up. That might not happen if they were from, say, sub-Saharan Africa, where the income calculation vis a vis staying or going might be different.
The bad consequences of immigration aren't off in the future, they're happening now.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/look_at_the_jobless_rate_for_t.php
"Workers in the lowest income decile faced a Great Depression type unemployment rate of nearly 31% while those in the second lowest income decile had an unemployment rate slightly below 20% ... Unemployment rates fell steadily and steeply across the ten income deciles. Workers in the top two deciles of the income distribution faced unemployment rates of only 4.0 and 3.2 percent respectively, the equivalent of full employment. The relative size of the gap in unemployment rates between workers in the bottom and top income deciles was close to ten to one. Clearly, these two groups of workers occupy radically different types of labor markets in the U.S."
In my schools the good Koreans were Baptists. The bad Koreans were car thieves.
122: The difference between the economy today and the economy in a strong labor market, like the 90s, is explained by differences in the level of immigration? I don't see that at your link.
123: Were there intermediate Koreans who maybe sold loose cigarettes or used high-volume shower heads?
I have little to add, other than that I agree with pretty much everything LB is saying.
Also, this country is aging. We are going to need a lot of young workers to support everyone who's going to be on Social Security in the coming decades. Seems to me that if we don't open the borders significantly, the most realistic alternative is to hike the retirement age. And I'll be damned if I'm going to work until age 70 because some xenophobe is freaked out about Pressing One for English.
Those were the Congregationalists.
Look around you. Who do you think is competing for jobs at the bottom decile?
122:That is not the fault of immigrants. That is the fault of the oligarchs for inadequate stimulus, for not creating the jobs. (I would say fault of Republicans, but Obama is not looking so good either.)
China is handling a whole lot of internal migration, by going Keynes pedal-to-the-metal.
Jobs aren't hard. You print 30k and pay somebody to do something. Anything.
Jobs aren't hard. You print 30k and pay somebody to do something. Anything.
Bob, you're in charge of hiring at PA's state liquor stores, aren't you?
Aggh, this is like being in law school. Econ 101 arguments are not sensible ways to think about social policies, people, and the choices aren't open borders or nothing. Breathe in the truth of what 116 is telling you, and think about how moderate planning is necessary in all areas of life.
Look around you.
Anecdata are the best data.
"We are going to need a lot of young workers to support everyone who's going to be on Social Security in the coming decades."
How is somebody who is a net tax consumer going to support you in your retirement? How about you support yourself in your retirement?
66 really was just a flash in the pan, wasn't it.
How about you support yourself in your retirement?
By selling loose cigarettes.
Look around you.
Cube wall, cube wall, cube wall, wall. While the last is reasonably solid, none of the three cube walls is likely to keep out any determined Mexicans.
134 veers toward incoherence. I doubt your average immigrant is a net tax consumer, and I suspect the ability to support oneself in retirement is intimately connected to having the good fortune to be born non-working-class.
There's this fantasy that we can outsource our childrearing and retirement savings to third world workers. It would be so much easier if somebody else could do it all for us, raise the next generation of workers and support us in our retirement.
116, 132: I'm not firmly committed to absolutely open borders, if you look back at my 18 ("change in the laws that would allow people who want to come to the US to work to do so legally without an unreasonable amount of difficulty, and that would allow people resident in the US and working to become citizens after a reasonable amount of time"). But what I want -- immigration allowed on approximately the scale of the number of people who want to immigrate -- is politically close enough to open borders that there's no real distinction in terms of it being politically salable. If you've got a detailed regulatory plan for me to critique, there's a good shot I might think it's reasonable.
140 is making me hungry for a croissant.
But I have no croissant -- you must imagine me saying this in the most extravagant fake French accent -- so I am sad.
somebody who is a net tax consumer
Assumes facts not in evidence.
140 is making me hungry for a croissant
Fresh ones will be out of the oven in just one minute, Señor Bridgeplate. I'll bring you one as soon as I finish starching your shirt cuffs.
144: My brother consumed a tack once. But he isn't an immigrant.
I'd like to jump in on LB's side without having read the thread. The ideal--the utopia--would be open borders, at least within any zone where there is free trade.
The question is how to get there, and that is compatible with all the sorts of planning talked about in 116. This probably means bringing in skilled labor. Also we want to bring in people from countries with yummy ethnic cuisine. All this points to bringing in more people from India.
Apostropher's link is good circa 1994. Nobody has good data . . . the question is in dispute. So think about it then: if immigrants are at roughly breakeven, give or take a few billion, how are they going to support millions of retirees? Not gonna happen.
Surprisingly, replacing the next generation with Mexicans is not a sure-fire retirement strategy.
Pat Bertroche (running in the Republican primary in Iowa) has an interesting suggestion for immigration reform:
"I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going...I actually support microchipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal? That's not a popular thing to say, but it's a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under."
If my kids couldn't get into any colleges, say, because all of a sudden we were swamped with terrifically qualified international students, I'd be upset. For example.
There's some suspicion that international admissions are up at some public universities because they usually pay a higher tuition rate.
bjk, one might be more inclined to listen to your opinions about "good data" if you hadn't said AGW is a hoax.
153: What about the illegal/Orthodox Jewish population?
154: Huh. Apparently there are jokes I won't make on the internet.
118: The research you were looking for has been done">http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2009/05/immigration-gdp.html">done, and it suggests that immigration had a very modest positive net effect for the native population, and of course a very significant net positive effect on the immigrants.
155: Yes, sorry. I was just thinking of the prohibition on intentional body modification and did not think all the way through.
157: Oh, dude, nothing wrong with what you said. I just found myself heading for the next obvious joke and balked.
Apparently there are jokes I won't make on the internet.
That's probably why you and I were brought on at the same time. For balance.
The post topic edges close to Nazi anyway. Balking was good.
I'm about to go teach my last class of the semester! I'm so, so glad. So glad. So very glad.
There are realistic concerns about the speed of latino assimilation:
The majority of fourth generation Mexican Americans continue to live in Hispanic neighborhoods, marry other Hispanics, and think of themselves as Mexican.
If you change Mexican to German or Norwegian this could fairly accurately describe parts of the upper Midwest.
Shorter 164: Mexicans are not yet white.
To unpack that comment a bit, I think that much of what is going on is not some inherent lack of Mexican American assimilationability, but the fact that Mexicans get treated as a different race and are subject to the legacy of American racism, making assimilation for them rather different than for Germans or Norweigans.
Who posted that great local article about an LA suburb run by a Mexican-American caudillo?
Everyone's poltics are dirty-- Daley senior or LA police chief Gates, but there are aspects of Mexican politics that make me nervous. New Irish immigrants in NYC led to Tammany Hall, roughly speaking.
I wonder what the stats look like for Puerto Ricans on the East Coast (not actually immigrants, but immigrantish, and with similar racism issues). My anecdotal impression is that they're way, way successfully assimilated these days, but I may be confused.
So which is it? Is it racist to assume that Mexicans should assimilate, or racist to assume that they won't? Racist either way, it seems. They have a word for this in Canada, the two solitudes.
167: yeah, "inherent lack of assimilationability" doesn't sound like something sociologists or demographers would use in their explanations.
|?
Is evvvverrbodddy watching Club Med?
James Howard Kunstler If I was really a troll I would label the link "boobies" or "kittens"
Animosities brewing as they are among the white trash elements of the country, I just hope this sucker doesn't resolve into an ugly bout of attempted ethnic cleansing. Certainly Obama's racial make-up has inspired a revival of the Ku Klux spirit around the Nascar ovals. I'm sincerely worried that the misdeeds of people name Blankfein, Rubin, and Madoff could provoke a red-white-and-blue pogrom.
"Lately, I wonder if there will even be an election six months from now."
|>
168 -- Me! Let's turn this into the all Cudahy, all the time blog.
169 -- Too lazy/busy to look it up, but IIRC all of these assimilation measures are even worse for Puerto Ricans than for Mexicans.
170: What do you mean by assimilate?
Some people use it to mean adopt the exact same values, attitudes, and lifestyle as conservative white middle class protestants, others just want basic English and a respect for the law. Still others view assimilation as a two way street, so the host population might pick up a little basic Spanish while the immigrant population learns English and both groups converge towards a new shared identity. The latter is my preference, incidentally.
immigrant population learns Englishagrees to allow their sons to date Megan.
White people have been in the Southwest for over a century and they've done a terrible job of assimilating to the pre-existing Hispanic culture.
171 -- right, of course not; I one-offed that "Shorter 164" comment and then got worried for a second that people might take me to be a racist freak who was saying something like "Mexicans aren't white, and therefore we should not expect them to be capable of assimilating into our culture" when what I meant was "Duh, maybe the lack of assimilation has to do with good old fashioned racism."
Not sure why Kunstler is so worried about an election six months hence when we all (according to him) froze to death in the winter of '05.
I listened to Kunstler and filled my garage with barrels of gasoline. Don't tell the neighbors as my house, like my attitude, is what the British would call "semi- detached."
"Still others view assimilation as a two way street, so the host population might pick up a little basic Spanish while the immigrant population learns English and both groups converge towards a new shared identity. The latter is my preference, incidentally."
People are all for assimilation, and then they have kids. And then they're willing to spend an extra $100,000 to send their kids to a "good school," by which they mean a school with a white majority. Same street, different school district, the premium is easy to calculate. That's how people act, not how they talk.
Reading Kunstler is like reading the book of Revelations after it has been sprinkled with efforts to push liberals' buttons. "An there shall be a great darkness upon the land (because of a bunch of short sighted racists). And brother shall turn against brother (because of propaganda from the power elites)."
Reading Kunstler is like reading the book of Revelations after it has been sprinkled with efforts to push liberals' buttons.
Analogy ban!
180: It's hard to tell whether you approve of that behavior, and think people shouldn't be ashamed of it, or disapprove of it, and think they shouldn't act that way. Personally, I'm on the latter bench. You?
People are all for assimilation, and then they have kids.
I have three kids, bjk. How about you?
175: I think we can all agree that if you won't let your son date Megan you are not a Real American. I bet Sarah Palin would let Trick or Crap or whatever his name is date Megan.
Three kids that are/will be attending public school in North Carolina's most minority-heavy large city (which is also a sanctuary city).
What's the moral injunction being violated here? I'd really like to see it spelled out. It would sound perfectly ridiculous, I suspect.
How about you support yourself in your retirement?
News flash: you can't actually eat 401(k) accounts. Somebody has to be working to produce the goods and services you're planning on buying.
replacing the next generation with Mexicans
When did this get put on the agenda? I didn't know we were doing babies vs. Mexicans. But fine, I'll do the analysis.
Babies: take up less space, can be trained to eat otherwise useless female bi-product. Tender and easily penned.
Mexicans: wiley, speak gibberish, fond of music. Can help with your roof. Not very tender.
I'm at a bypass. Perhaps it helps to know how we are planning to trade our babies for Mexicans. Babies can go in the mail no problem, but Mexicans aren't usually accepted - we'll need some trucks. And what's going to happen when our babies congregate south of the border? There's likely to be an uprising if nobody distracts them with little plastic mobiles.
Is there a moral obligation to send your kids to this high school?
Shit, here I've been spending good money to send my kid to a majority-brown school.
192: Well, it wouldn't work as a categorical imperative -- not enough seats.
I'd note that whatever's wrong with that school, it's not immediately obvious that the problem is the immigrants.
I think we can all agree that if you won't let your son date Megan you are not a Real American.
How does Megan feel about younger men?
Is there a moral obligation to send your kids to this high school?
There isn't any moral obligation to send or not send your kids to any school, but keep punching that strawman. He'll tap out eventually. You are the one who stated that once I (as a member of the set "people") had kids I'd change my mind about immigration.
So which is it? Is it racist to assume that Mexicans should assimilate, or racist to assume that they won't? Racist either way, it seems. They have a word for this in Canada, the two solitudes.
In America we call this either a deliberate misreading, or being stupid. The concept being discussed was that Mexicans have more difficulty assimilating because they are considered to be of a different race than the dominant group in this country, whose ancestors came from Europe. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but it doesn't require anyone to be racist. Though I do suspect that somebody is.
What's the moral injunction being violated here? I'd really like to see it spelled out. It would sound perfectly ridiculous, I suspect.
Being violated where? By the people you describe in 180?
198: Presumably by the idea that we ought to care as much about people who live in other countries as about people who live in our own. In which case the Golden Rule comes to mind, among other bits of commie dogma.
199: well, right, I just didn't know if bjk was asking about that generally or about 180 in particular. 180 seems hard to defend, but it didn't seem to be phrased in a way that suggested bjk was trying to defend it, so.
Yeah, 180 is still bothering me, too. No doubt there are places where parents treat "good school" and "school with a white majority" as synonymous, but one suspects that those also tend to be the parts of the country that are most inclined to worry about Those People in other respects. Good schools here are very integrated, and I'd bet that the same is true in areas elsewhere that have large, established, affluent non-white populations.
Oh, there's plenty of 180 type behavior around here; it's not that I don't think it exists, just that I disapprove of it.
202: No argument with that, but in better-integrated places it can orient more along SES lines than racial lines.
And very few of them big enough to make a decent linebacker.
"Guest worker program" wouldn't be so popular if it were called "indentured labor program." If we're going to have immigration or labor programs, the workers should have the opportunity to work for any employer and find the best use of their labor. Tying them to one employer is a recipe for abuse
Hark, the truest thing bjk has ever said on this blog.
Perhaps the best way to develop third world economies is to let people migrate here as long as they repatriate some fraction of their pay prior to gaining citizenship. That money would at least be going to people who would use it.
It doesn't have to be a requirement; remittances are already widespread (and not as damaging to the US economy as some people contend).
I hope this thread is still going when I finish work.
204.1: Tongans can't be Mexicans. They're not Persian.
The "good schools" white lie is just another example of how wealthy whites sell everybody else out on the immigration issue. Would they send their own children to anything less than a "good school"? Of course not. Is it fine for everybody else? Of course it is! Because diversity is a moral imperative for somebody else's children.
187 and 193 just whooshed right by you.
205: They're not Persian.
Racist. Tongans can be Persian if they want.
Bjk, like most conservatives, actually works hard -- including being willing to pay extra money in taxes -- to improve the public schools in his area, so he knows what he's talking about.
I'll be happy to bash on rich people with you, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
206: Your own damn link was about immigrants being on the RECEIVING end of abuse in school. When did immigrants become the problem with American public schools? I thought that was black people.
207: Just because we have some freaky outliers commenting here doesn't change the larger picture.
I'm sure there are wealthy parents that are pro-immigration and send their kids to fancy private schools. I suspect this isn't a significant percentage of the electorate, but I suppose it could be a disproportionately powerful one.
You know who really sucks? Rich black immigrants.
I, personally, was enraged by Coming to America.
Actually -- to be 100% honest, and why am I admitting this with bjk present -- I literally just a few hours ago wrote a check for a ton of money as a deposit to send my kid to a majority white and asian preschool in a mostly Mexican area.
But I would happily have paid much more than that in taxes to fund decent public preschools.
My neighborhood is about 5% white, and is basically the ghetto with a few nice restored older houses in it. One of my neighbors, also white, took her kid for a visit to the neighborhood elementary school before kindergarten, to see about enrollment. The teachers told her to do everything in his power to avoid sending his kid there -- white enrollment at the school is 0%. Probably a violation of all kind of laws by the teachers, but she didn't end up sending her kid there, and I won't either.
They pretend to be poor, come into our homes, then take all our pretty women off to Zamunda.
214: Well, you have to admit it did kind of suck.
My guess is that 213 is wrong. It's like how a negative times a negative equals a positive. Rich people suck, and immigrants suck, but rich immigrants are actually pretty good. They lack the defining negative features of either individual group.
213: Worse yet, the rich black children of immigrants. First thing you know, they're taking over all the good jobs.
a negative times a negative equals a positive
Rich black immigrants = three negatives, Brock.
Oh, shit, I didn't really notice that 213 had three negatives, not two. A negative times a negative times a negative--you're right, those poeple do suck.
(And to be clear, 218 was a guess at popular perceptions, not a statement of my personal views.)
And don't even get me started on illegal termagants.
The teachers told her to do everything in his power to avoid sending his kid there -- white enrollment at the school is 0%.
It might be hard to ignore the advice of a teacher sternly warning a parent to keep his kid out of that teacher's school, but I would hope some other, more compelling reasons for the warning were also offered, because presented all alone like this, it sounds racially motivated.
Was the teacher also white?
(way back in 99:) regularizing the immigration status of millions of people creates a powerful new constituency for immigration pulling the ladder up.
I helpfully fixed that.
Also, the only problem with those rich black immigrants is that they're straight.
175: The only test that matters.
(I am about three-quarters serious on that. I like pretty wide open borders for immigration, but once here, I'd like to see a basic willingness to consider this home and engage the locals.)
engage the locals
IYKWIM, AIKYD.
223 -- I don't know if the teacher giving the tour was white or not; I heard this second hand. The message was basically "your kid is going to get beaten up every day if you send him here, so do whatever you can to put him someplace else." Pretty clearly racially motivated, but of course the message might have been accurate.
227.1: Except that trying to pull the ladder up doesn't work very well, and then the nativists go apeshit and the established immigrants realize that they're still very much Them rather than Us to a substantial chunk of the population.
white enrollment at the school is 0%
I dunno. White (non-Hispanic) enrollment at my high school was damn close to zero. My sister and I certainly stood out among the 2,500 students. But it was one of the two best schools in the LAUSD.
The message was basically "your kid is going to get beaten up every day if you send him here, so do whatever you can to put him someplace else."
"White enrollment is 0%" and "your kid will be beaten up every day" don't sound like the same message to me--do you know which was said? (There could be situations where one statement might accurately imply the other, but they're certainly not generally equivalent statements.)
230: You don't need me telling you what to feel guilty about, but of course you don't need to feel guilty about not sending your kid to a dangerous school, or one where s/he isn't going to get an education. I get scornful at people using the ethnicity of the student body as a proxy for dangerousness or educational non-functioning, but as long as you're not doing that, and it doesn't sound as if you are, you're fine.
(There's a separate obligation to do what you reasonably can to make sure that no one has to go to a dangerous or non-functioning school, of course, but while there are injustices, trying to protect your kids from them doesn't seem wrong to me.)
Because we weren't beaten up every day. Except emotionally, by skaters with black eyes and dramatic bangs over their face who wouldn't date us.
I was also definitely in a small white minority during my time in LAUSD -- we were never more than 20% of the class, tops. Still, I thought 0% was pretty striking, especially combined with the warning. To be clear, the school near my house is mostly serving poor non-white kids, not non-white middle or UMC kids.
Californian public schools are shaping up to be largely latino with a big achievement difference between latinos and whites and asians:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8829545?nclick_check=1
This makes a lot of public schools look pretty bad based on test scores. It isn't real clear that whites and asians going to these schools are less well educated than if they went to the majority white and asian schools that get better test scores. A big chunk of white parents think they would be though.
On the other hand, here is an article on white flight from predominantly asian public schools with good test scores:
http://wsjclassroom.com/teen/teencenter/05nov_whiteflight.htm
Yep, well, you know what the school is like. You'll be able to make a better judgment call than we can.
Digby has a chart showing the progress of other states toward laws similar to Arizona's
233 -- Sorry for being unclear. The message (relayed to me second hand from my neighbor) was "your kid will get beaten up every day because he is white, so send him somewhere else." I don't actually know how explicit the teachers made the "because he is white" part of that message, but we're talking about a normal looking five year old boy, so it's not as if the teachers were judging him on a scrawny physique.
234-- Thanks; I do feel a bit guilty, but I'm mostly mad at just how bad the LAUSD has gotten outside a tiny few wealthy neighborhoods (of course, partly because it's in a death spiral of bad schools make the involved parents leave make bad schools make the involved parents leave).
Tongans can be Persian if they want.
The last time I went to the Mall of America, The Jets were signing autographs in the East Rotunda. It was one of those bizarre moments that often occurs when you see former celebrities behaving like they are still celebrities. I was torn between a desire to go say hi to them and a desire to berate the people waiting in line to have their merch signed. In the end, I simply walked on.
237: On the other hand, here is an article on white flight from predominantly asian public schools with good test scores:
That's fascinating -- god forbid your kid shouldn't be a member of the majority/assumed smartest ethnicity. I wonder if that's happened with Stuyvesant in NY (public school with a test to get in). It's well over half Asian these days, which is higher than I'd expect based on city demographics, even allowing for Asian kids being very academically successful. I wouldn't be surprised if there are white parents reluctant to send their kids there for that reason.
The last time I went to the Mall of America, it was with a big group of urban historians, and we all rode the roller coaster. It should have been more fun in an ironic, aren't-we-cool sort of way. But instead it was just fun.
Actually, from Wikipedia, 2/3 Asian.
Also, they should change the name to the Mall of the Americas -- just so my comment could be onthread.
242.1 gets it exactly right.
Well, really, if turnabout is fair play, they should change the name to "The Hubert H. Humphrey Shops at Mall of America"
god forbid your kid shouldn't be a member of the majority/assumed smartest ethnicity. I wonder if that's happened with Stuyvesant in NY
Now those Jews finally get to know just how I felt in 1935!
Also, the only problem with those...immigrants is that they're straight.
Because US laws do not allow gay partners or spouses under family immigration paths.
Groups like this one will be important if immigration reform actually comes to a debate in Congress, because there's the potential for a significant fissure (e.g. with some organized Catholic groups).
237 - I tell you what. One of my best friends, from my own high scoring high school, lives in Cupertino. She's completely baffled too. Her kindergardener does three hours of homework a night. No joke. She can't imagine that's right, but she can't switch schools. There're no public schools in Cupertino where that isn't true.
I tell her to skip it, but then her daughter is the one who has show up in class the next day with her work undone.
If you don't want that academic intensity, or anything besides that, you're out of luck in Cupertino.
241: It took me a minute to realize that you were not talking about the professional football team.
251: I have to say that sounds like the flip side of what I said to Halford -- if you're running from an insanely pressuring school administration, rather than from the competition from the smart Asian kids, more power to you. (Come to think of it, if you're talking about a high school friend, she's probably Asian.)
244: Oh, it'd all be anecdatal. I've just noticed there's a marked tendency among first generation immigrants who have been in the country for a long time to develop similarly idiosyncratic opinions regarding immigration.
251 sounds like there's a need for a PTA revolution complete with torches and Pitchforks. Three hours of homework for Kindergarten is abusive.
I can't even think of what a kindergartener could do for three hours a night that wouldn't be busywork.
256: Nope. The parents in Cupertino are all first gen software coders. NOTHING is too intense for their kids.
My friend (yes, Asian-Am) has nowhere to run to, though. Unless she sends her kids to a private school, to get more lax schooling. It is a very strange dilemma.
Reading, spelling flashcards, math worksheets.
The parents in Cupertino are all first gen software coders. NOTHING is too intense for their kids.
Maybe I should start trying to drive the Google people out of town before it goes to far.
253: It took me a couple of weeks to realize that The Replacements (Howard Deutch, 2000) was not a biopic about the band. Bonus trivia: Minnesota's State Economist is named "Tom Stinson".
I mean, specifically targeting coders, not just my general purpose attempts at irritating people.
Eh, their grandkids will be a lot mellower.
261: I didn't feel bad for not knowing who The Jets were. I felt bad after I figured it out and then recalled "Nick Rocks."
What are the mean test scores of asian-americans admitted to Berkeley or UCSD? I thought that the test scores suggested that there was strong discrimination against asians in UC college admissions.
Given this bias, I do not know what rational parenting would be. 3 hours in kindergarden seems nuts, but some amount of effort to jouice test scores makes sense.
I just looked up this year's demographics for the schools my kids have attended/will attend (one's in 7th grade, one enters kindergarten in the fall):
Elementary (705 students): 32% Hispanic, 29% White, 28% Black, 6% Mixed, 5% Asian
Junior High (893): 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, 18 White, 4 Asian, 4 Mixed
High School (1900): 38 White, 37 Black, 14 Hispanic, 6 Asian, 5 Mixed
They're all good schools.
265: Didn't they go to race blind admissions?
Certainly among people I went to school with, the "lock'em in and make'em do more homework/revision" model was correlated with mediocrity. This could be a selection effect.
268: That's the next county over, Wake. We're in Durham. They had a good and successful replacement plan based on income but that is a big unfortunate mess that demonstrates what happens when people don't bother to vote in off-year elections. I will note that the people who really drove that include large numbers who aren't even native North Carolinians, but have moved down here over the past decade.
Given my druthers, I'd keep the Hispanics and send those fuckers back up the east coast where they came from.
Caroline's first grade homework normally only takes her about ten minutes to do. But it requires three hours of cajoling to get her to do it.
||
Holy shit! I was looking at the referrer logs for my math blog, and I have a link from last week from the National Review's blog, the Corner. Apparently they endorse my view on the Axiom of Constructability.
|>
143: Are you partial to the Chinese throwing croissant?
three hours
For a kindergartner? Fuck that noise.
273: Are you and Jonah besties now, Walt?
273: that's hilarious. Tell me that had to do with the whole "epistemic closure" thing.
You know it. Jonah and I will romp together in Vegas. Now that I've hit the big time, I'm outa here. I'll remember you fondly, oudemia. Everyone else can go to hell.
278: Just don't forget your passport if you're driving through Arizona to get there.
278: I'm sad it wasn't the Derb himself who expressed approval, but a correspondent.
Man. This puts me very close to busting right through Walt's veil of pseudonymity.
Don't bother, Sifu. He's just some guy.
Hey! Someone out in nature liked a chart that I helped develop for the water plan. I had to push really hard to get the department to make information rich charts, so I'm really pleased to see spontaneous mention of them.
Not only are those great charts, but you can tell they came from an underfunded government agency because the icon for that particular web address is the Netscape logo.
It looks to me that if you just got rid of the wild and scenic rivers all of California's water problems would be solved.
Megan do you read LA Creek Freak?
"WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS" S/B "MEXICANS"!
No. I don't usually read water blogs, because they're boring. I just checked it out, though. Cool pictures.
It's often more historical/geographical than about water resource issues per se.
the icon for that particular web address is the Netscape logo
The little picture next to the address? There is no day of the week in which we have the savvy to switch that out. I am positive that has never once crossed the minds of our water overlords.
They do sometimes say that it'd be good to get involved with some of that social networking stuff. Get a twitter or a blog or something. They did send around word that we have a facebook page now. When they mention blogs, I sit very still and hope that no one can see me.
LA Creak Freek looks well done, very location specific and detailed. I just don't follow LA River stuff very much.
Brits are old school on immigration prejudices - East Europeans, particularly Poles, are the evil others, cf Brown's Kinsey gaffe today. The idiocy of blaming the UK's budgetary mess on East Europeans is mind-boggling. A bunch of twenty and thirty somethings (no pensions, lower health care costs) with below average unemployment (less social spending) are obviously a clear net positive for the budget. Even education spending is lower on an age-adjusted basis than for natives since they often leave their kids behind or choose to delay having kids until they return.
The parents in Cupertino are all first gen software coders. NOTHING is too intense for their kids.
I also believe that this attitude doesn't produce good code. But I admit that there's an element of self-justification in that belief (that certainly isn't the recipe for me to produce good code).
I do have a certain admiration (and fear) of people who are able to be completely single-minded.
I don't even know what to make of the story in 294.
295: Southies have to register in PDBS.
A few years ago I was second in line for a sandwich at a chain sandwich place in Union City*. The woman behind the counter addressed the woman in front of me in Spanish, possibly thinking based on appearance that it would be her primary - or at least not an unfamiliar - language. The woman in line answered in English, with a Valley-ish accent.
*Across the bay from Palo Alto, more or less, for those who don't know the area.
299: When I was in Germany, probably based on my appearance, people kept talking to me in German. I answered in English, with a midwesternish accent.
Huh. With some exceptions, it's generally possible to distinguish local Asians from Asian visitors at about 50 paces.
I was in the European Germany, not the one in Asia.
Everyone in Europe always thinks I am theirs -- except the British who always think I'm French. Oh and in Newark, everyone thinks I'm Portuguese.
39
Heh. And it's funny, I'm firmly on the global resources are limited, population should go down if possible bench. But as long as people are on my planet, I don't see any justification for not letting them live wherever they want.
I consider collective self-interest completely adequate justification for not allowing unlimted immigration into the US.
Or to put it another way, how many homeless people are you sharing your apartment with?
Or to put it another way, how many homeless people are you sharing your apartment with?
I let my son stay with us even thought he has never tried to get a job.
91
Sure, at some point if I felt a threat to the well being of the individuals I cared about, I'd fight for their access to resources regardless of justice. ...
In other words you don't care about the well being of most of your fellow citizens, just about your family and close friends. A common attitude in third world countries with malign consequences.
Trolling rating: C-. You can't dance to it.
New Mexico has Truth or Consequences.
197
... The concept being discussed was that Mexicans have more difficulty assimilating because they are considered to be of a different race than the dominant group in this country, whose ancestors came from Europe ...
How about the concept that Latinos have more trouble assimilating because they are of a different race?
How about the concept that Latinos have more trouble assimilating because they are of a different race?
Oh for fuck's sake, James. How about that concept? What about it?
Which part of the relativity of racial designation do you not understand? Irish was once considered a different race.
Bah. Someone else may have to speak in a measured tone to James on this matter.
Someone else may have to speak in a measured tone to James on this matter.
You can't make me. I suppose I could point out that "Latino" incorporates several races, none of which are unknown in the U.S.
311: How about it? It's pretty stupid as concepts go, since most Latinos have a lot of European ancestry and there's more genetic variability within the members of that group than there is between American whites and latinos. But it's not the stupidest thing I've heard all day, so you have that going for you.
313: "Latino" incorporates several races
I think you mean "ethnicities," but we can probably let it pass. For now. You'll have pesto later, I hope.
In Civ 3, I could never win if I played as Aztec. Mexico must have some kind of cultural weakness.
From back in 24: President Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. [my emphasis]
How did that "learn English" requirement get in there. What, the sign welcoming one to Louisiana doesn't also say Bienvenue en Louisiane? It sure as shit does, and so what? There's no need for a single national language, and it bugs me that this issue has seemingly sneaked in (ho-ho!) without opposition.
315: No, I meant races. Government-wise and for most demographic and research purposes I have encountered, Latino is used an a synonym for Hispanic and is considered an ethnicity. You can be Latino and white, Latino and black, Latino and native, Latino and Asian (not that you run across that one much in the U.S.).
Latino and Asian (not that you run across that one much in the U.S.).
Yeah, Fujimori is in jail in Peru, so not so much with the in-the-US thing.
234
... I get scornful at people using the ethnicity of the student body as a proxy for dangerousness or educational non-functioning, but as long as you're not doing that, and it doesn't sound as if you are, you're fine.
Why scornful? Because it isn't 100% predictive?
Shearer you racist goofball. Learn some statistics!
319: I think there may be more than just that one guy.
318: Oh. I actually did wonder whether you really meant races, and thought I might have been hasty.
You can be Latino and white, Latino and black, Latino and native, Latino and Asian
Huh. I didn't know.
I'll offer the reasonable interpretation of James' statement: Latinos have difficulty assimilating since the dominant group in this country perceives them as racially other. If and when that changes so will the assimilation into generic 'Americanness' cf Jews, Slavs, Italians on one side, and blacks on the other.
240
Thanks; I do feel a bit guilty, but I'm mostly mad at just how bad the LAUSD has gotten outside a tiny few wealthy neighborhoods (of course, partly because it's in a death spiral of bad schools make the involved parents leave make bad schools make the involved parents leave).
And the fact that this deterioration has coincided with a massive influx of immigrants is just an unfortunate coincidence?
How did that "learn English" requirement get in there.
Eh, I think it's just a strategic rephrasing of the existing requirement for English ability to pass the citizenship test. At present everybody who becomes a US citizen has to speak basic English, except certain categories of elderly people and those with a medical disability (stroke, cognitive impairment) that prevents them from learning.
Latino and Asian (not that you run across that one much in the U.S.).
There are a not-small number of Philippine-Americans who would identify that way (at least when forced to fit themselves in US categories).
323: You can obviously define things differently, but for most purposes, people follow what the census does except that they don't treat "Irish" as a separate species.
Is a number, are a number, whatever. I am too a native-born English speaker and USC; why do you ask?
326: Keep trying, James, you're at like .10 cookie on the trolling scale. I'm going to sleep and it would be excellent to have fresh pancakes in the morning.
James, I realize that we all have our little conversational quirks. However, and let's leave aside content, going through an entire 300 comment, 12-hour old thread and posting series of one-shot replies to a half-dozen old comments is not conducive to any type of discussion.
312
Which part of the relativity of racial designation do you not understand? ...
The idea that race is just a social construct is as mistaken as the idea that global warming is a hoax. See here . The abstract:
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity--as opposed to current residence--is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.
321
Shearer you racist goofball. Learn some statistics.
What statistical error do you think I am making?
332: an elementary one, my dear Shearer!
No, really though: you're making assumptions of causality, you're using p-values as a stand in for a valid model, you're not even thinking about controlling for other relevant variables.
I love you (that's a lie. I do kind of like you, though), but this is so, so sloppy for an engineer.
330
James, I realize that we all have our little conversational quirks. However, and let's leave aside content, going through an entire 300 comment, 12-hour old thread and posting series of one-shot replies to a half-dozen old comments is not conducive to any type of discussion.
Unfortunately I can no longer comment during working hours. And who says discussions can't take place over long periods of time?
Unfortunately I can no longer comment during working hours.
You should try to get on with the SEC.
You can be Latino and white, Latino and black, Latino and native, Latino and Asian
Huh. I didn't know.
Probably easiest to see with Hispanics of Caribbean origin: Dominicans, Cubans, Colombians, etc.
Thinking more about 325, there's a difference between assimilation into 'whiteness' and social mobility. The descendants of the Slav migrants of the turn of the century haven't done that well in getting above middle class levels relative to others who came in that era. This is especially true in getting onto the SWPL path to success whether you look at top universities or favored careers. I don't have any stats at hand, but I've seen them and spoken to people who've studied the issue, and the numbers are pretty dramatic for Polish Americans once you exclude the children of university educated immigrants who arrived over the past half century.
Here is some links on latinos and race:
http://www.votolatino.org/becounted/2010/03/is-latino-considered-a-race-on-the-census-form/
http://www.alcoff.com/content/chap10latrace.html
here is the current racial breakdown in Mexico:
336: Yes. I've had to reverse my categories in order to get this -- apologies for being so slow. Apparently I usually think more in terms of ethnicity than of race. I'm not sure why. In any case, yes, I see.
333
No, really though: you're making assumptions of causality, you're using p-values as a stand in for a valid model, you're not even thinking about controlling for other relevant variables.
I am not asserting anything about causality or p-values, just that knowing the ethnic composition of a school allows better than random predictions of dangerousness or educational non-functioning.
... this is so, so sloppy for an engineer.
I am not an engineer.
this is so, so sloppy for an engineer
Engineers: not always known for clear thinking.
I am not asserting anything about causality or p-values, just that knowing the ethnic composition of a school allows better than random predictions of dangerousness or educational non-functioning.
An assertion as nearly devoid of meaning as anything ever said on this blog.
343: Shut up, Sifu. We're gonna get croissants, man.
And the fact that this deterioration has coincided with a massive influx of immigrants is just an unfortunate coincidence?
Did that transition coincide with anything else? Any other variable that might have had an impact on the performance of those schools? Anything at all? Darn it, I can't think of a thing. I guess this round goes to James, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, and Charles Murray. Get these filthy spics out of my state! It used to be so golden around here!
Latino and Asian (not that you run across that one much in the U.S.)
Eh, they're a majority in my house.
We're gonna get croissants, man.
More likely empanadas, thanks to our lax border controls.
re: 291
I like the massive generalisation about 'Brits'.
291. There's widespread anti-Eastern European feeling in Britain IME, but it doesn't blame them for the budgetary mess. It accuses them of 'taking British jobs', that is working at rates that Brits in the same trade refuse, same as Mexicans are supposed to do in the United States. The woman who got into a spat with Brown yesterday does not represent anybody's views because she clearly doesn't know what her own views are
348: The best thing you can do for global warming is make massive generalizations about 'Brits'.
I like to put 'Brits' in scare quotes, because let's be honest, they're pretty scary.
They are cool now, though, thanks to New Labour.
Brits drive like this. It's true!
As I just pointed out on CT, I think in response to yourself, NuLab lose their cool at the least provocation. That's why they hate talking about global warming, even at the level of massive generalisations.
I would be very hesitant to generalize about Hispanics from the results of the study James cites in 331:
On the other hand, geographic matching of Hispanic subjects is likely to be of much greater importance, given the larger genetic differentiation between Hispanic groups on the basis of current geographic origins. In this study, we could not evaluate this question directly, since Hispanics were recruited only from a single site.[emphasis added]
Site was Starr County, Texas on the Rio Grande.
306 is great.
James, you are quite wrong about race, but I doubt anyone will be able to change your mind. Why are you so obsessed with this topic, anyway? It's unseemly.
Oddly, people who are weirdly obsessive about statistical differences among races tend to get defensive when others use heuristics like "just knowing that someone is weirdly obsessive about statistical differences among races allows a better than random prediction of whether that person is a racist."
I just wanted to quote this statement bc I like it so much. Sometimes, I love KR.
I actually meant r values but luckily Shearer doesn't know statistics.
If loving KR is wrong, I don't want to be right.
It wasn't until the Blogging Era that appreciated how many people thought the central task of the social sciences was to establish the existence of races and that some races were superior to others.
349: While at his parents' house, I once said something to CA about "electing racist parties to seats in the EP." CA's mother overheard me and went off on a rant about "that's what you get when you let all these eastern countries in." I answered, "But I was talking about the UK." To which she replied, "No," and I replied, "Yes." Then we dropped it. (She insists that there is no racism in the UK. None. Used to be, long ago, not anymore, that's you lot in the States.)
(She insists that there is no racism in the UK. None. Used to be, long ago, not anymore, that's you lot in the States.)
How can there be? There are no black people.
Am I racist because I think about delicious curries whenever someone mentions the UK?
There are no black people
No, that's wrong. There's that one guy from Block Party, but that's it.
What about Lennox Lewis?
Oh yeah, he's Canadian.
363: To be fair, you don't have to go very far back in time to find lots of social scientists who thought the same thing.
365, 367: David James (and Ashely Cole, but, you know... immigrant).
365, 367, 370: Steve Ferrone, since 1994, drummer for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
If you are listing black British people, you'll be at it for a while.
345: I know! I racked my brain, but I couldn't come up with anything. So I went back to daydreaming about skaters that were sooooooo cute and went on to become senior software engineers, but ruined our schools by not dating me.
Now I'm starting to worry about possibly sending Sally to Stuy in a couple of years -- what if none of the cute boys on roller blades I bike past in the morning will date her? Of course, I went to a majority white high school and couldn't get a date to save my life, so it probably wouldn't make any difference.
372: it's possible we're kidding. What about Jimi Hendrix? Does he count? I mean, he died there.
what if none of the cute boys on roller blades I bike past in the morning will date her
Someone doesn't know the hardest-part-about-rollerblading joke.
375: Won't really know until we do a genetic cluster analysis.
374: I was feeling kind of bad for Future Sally, thinking of what her commute would be, but then it is basically your commute now. Your alma mater is much closer!
Does 376 go on Standpipe's blog? I thought LB was alluding to that joke...
So wait, do people like Nasser Hussain count as black?
Do you know whether their parents are first or second generation? If the parents are second generation, I'd say no problem. I ran into trouble with the first generation parents. (Not that I can see any way you could tell this from glimpses of rollerblading kids.)
I thought LB was alluding to that joke...
Oh, was she? I'm dense and under-caffeinated.
Oh, was she? I'm dense and under-caffeinated.
Stanley's hot chocolate!
375: Can't expect Brits to pick up on that. They just don't get irony.
do people like Nasser Hussain count as black?
Nope, Mexican.
I had never heard the rollerblading joke.
389: they speak an incomprehensible language spend all their time standing around in the sun wearing loose-fitting white clothing. Of course they're Mexicans.
Can't expect Brits to pick up on that. They just don't get irony.
They need to work on their Microsoft Education Competencies
392: That may be the most grimly depressing web page I've ever read.
Oh my god, I love the link in 392 to death. I love the interview questions, in particular.
• Tell me about a time you used humor in a presentation? Did it work? If you had to give the same presentation again, how would you change it?
• Tell me about a time when something really funny happened at work. What benefit did it serve?
Tell me about a time when something really funny happened at work. What benefit did it serve?
It meant the boss was off sick for four months.
I like:
"Timing. There is a time for everything and sometimes humor is not appropriate. Since you are reading this because you or others don't think you are good at using humor, the best technique is to follow the lead of others."
392 is tragic.
Practice learning frivolous and fun skills (like juggling, square dancing, skeet shooting, video games, etc.) to see yourself under different and less personal or stressful learning conditions. Ask yourself why that was easy while developing new persona/managerial skills is so hard. Try something harder with same tactics.
Ask yourself why that was easy while developing new persona/managerial skills is so hard. Try something harder with same tactics. Contemplate personal oblivion.
392
• Am I funnier than I think I am? Less funny?
• Could I start my next meeting, presentation, or conversation by telling a funny story?
Learning on the Job
Learning on your own: These self-development remedies will help you build your skill(s).
The recommended readings are priceless.
The oldest item in the readings is 10 years older than the document, and it's a recording.
(My unspoken response: "You wouldn't like my sense of humor, trust me on that.")
Your spoken response: "Fuck you, clown."
Don't make me funny. You wouldn't like me when I'm funny.
You guys remind me of girls eating Sundaes.
402, 404: I've certainly felt this way.
You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I should be funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, amuse you? Make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How should I be funny?
407: Now there's someone that could use to work a little on his competencies!
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act's plan: hide the amnesty in a mountain of tough talk.
412: the teabaggers, it's worth pointing out, who support the Arizona law.
Maybe we could figure out an algorithm to extract a uniquely identifiable fingerprint from the structure of an individual teabagger's contradictory belief system? Codename the program Operation Snowflake.
And gripy as I was about it above, that does sound like the best and most humane solution available. It annoys me largely because the method -- wink at massive illegal immigration, and then have amnesties at long intervals -- seems insanely irrational to me as a way of controlling immigration. But if it's what there's political will for, better with amnesties than without.
It's doing something about the employers that would change the dynamics, seems to me. Also, if we're getting all gummint-is-for-us about it, it's the employers who are my fellow citizens who are betraying me worse. To the ninth circle with them!
I don't see why you assume that Cupertino is full of first-generation coders. I'm a third-generation coder, and I'm old enough to have kids in school, if three generations of dweebery hadn't completely bred out any urge to do something so ill-defined.
ALso, I was briefly in a Microsoft management competencies program, but it was based on Landmark, which was even worse.
ALso, I was briefly in a Microsoft management competencies program, but it was based on Landmark, which was even worse.
Landmark... Forum?
Because that would be fucking hilarious.
Pretty much, though not officially. Maybe more directly related to... EST? The precursor of Landmark? It made my remembers-the-70s psych nurse mother laugh like a drain and prophesy horror, which came true.
421: yeah that's really hilarious. Both of those groups are basically ripoffs of scientology.
That's how my friend described the parents of the kids in her kid's class. I'm relaying her description.
Those coders all look alike anyway.
Warning: Small novel ahead.
I don't usually bother reading legislative proposals like this because I figure they're so speculative it's meaningless. Nevertheless, I did take a look at the document KR linked above.
1. Whoa baby, some expensive stuff here. The grants to border communities to reimburse them for expenses and grants to Indian tribes to restore damaged land are relatively cheap, as are the toys for the Border Patrol. But the technological fixes and the increased staffing required to do the things discussed in this proposal will cost an unbelievable about of money.
2. Visa Waiver Program will be examined to make sure countries with a high proportion of overstayers are not on the list. Of course, in the meantime, Greece (!) has just been approved. Talk about nonsensical timing.
3. Most of the "we're going to punish wrongdoers mooooorree!" is pretty meaningless in the sense that it just repeats existing law, except for the bit about creating new crimes for trafficking and misuse of passports, which seems like it could catch a lot of people if even minimally enforced.
4. Sanctions against countries that won't take back their citizens? Sounds pretty useless. Most of the countries I can think of are ones that we don't have good diplomatic relations with anyway.
5. Minimum standards for detention facilities would be a radical step forward, as would a systematic taking into account of the impact of parents' detention/deportation on minor children.
6. The shift to allowing refugees and asylees to immediately become permanent residents (aka green card holders) would have huge, huge repercussions for tens of thousands of people. At present you have to wait a year before applying for a green card, a process that is complex and requires (another) major medical exam. Many refugees put it off for various reasons and end up living on year-to-year permits. I can't imagine how the economics of his would work, though, as USCIS depends on the fees that they get from people renewing their one-year work permits while they wait for their green cards.
7. The biometric SS card is a powder keg that will inevitably go exactly the way FDR's original SS cards did -- all legislative protestations to the contrary, it will immediately end up being a de facto proof of ID/residence/status. The "fraud-proof" language is security theater, as a recent audit found that E-Verify was failing to detect half of the fraudulent work permits submitted to it.
8. The national birth and death registration system is so stunning I can hardly wrap my mind around it. My political chess skills are not up to discerning what could possibly be behind even floating this suggestion. It must be the liberal-technocrat version of the Patriot Act stuff -- somebody's been keeping it on a shelf for years and finally found a reason to sneak it in.
9. Removing the country caps on skilled worker visas would have an astronomical impact on China and India, among others. The constituency for this would be massive and likely to have a significant impact on any legislative fight in Congress.
10. The temporary visa for unskilled workers is remarkably benign for a guestworker program; I can't imagine that the US Chamber of Commerce et al. will let it stand, though, especially with the provision that you're allowed to change employers after a year.
11. The legalization of currently undocumented people is remarkably ambitious, although the benchmark of "eight years in, after the backlog is cleared," is ridiculously optimistic. Unless this legislation is removing a lot more caps than it looks like, the backlog will not be cleared in 8 years. Even if it is, that still puts people 13 years out from citizenship (although of course they are currently infinite years out from citizenship).
Apparently I only pay attention to the first letter of a commenter's name as it appears in the sidebar, because as I started reading 425 I thought, wow, this is awfully detailed for Walt Someguy.
8. The national birth and death registration system is so stunning I can hardly wrap my mind around it. My political chess skills are not up to discerning what could possibly be behind even floating this suggestion. It must be the liberal-technocrat version of the Patriot Act stuff -- somebody's been keeping it on a shelf for years and finally found a reason to sneak it in.
We don't already have a national birth and death registration system?
358
Oddly, people who are weirdly obsessive about statistical differences among races tend to get defensive when others use heuristics like "just knowing that someone is weirdly obsessive about statistical differences among races allows a better than random prediction of whether that person is a racist."
There is some merit to such a heuristic as discussed here (warning possibly offensive link).
361
I actually meant r values but luckily Shearer doesn't know statistics.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
419
It's doing something about the employers that would change the dynamics, seems to me. Also, if we're getting all gummint-is-for-us about it, it's the employers who are my fellow citizens who are betraying me worse. To the ninth circle with them!
Blaming employers ignores the fact that current law (at least until recently) effectively forced them to hire illegals. Employers were required to ask for "proof" of legal work status but said "proof" could consist of easily forged documents that employers were required to accept at face value. It is possible that the e-verify system has recently improved things.
James, if I didn't already know that you're for real, I might suspect that somebody had made you up as a caricature.
Do employers yearn for the ability to successfully prevent themselves from hiring illegals? I did not know that.
426: I'm saving all of the details up for my tell-all Unfogged memior. You come off surprisingly well, considering...
432.last: You could call it "Pride and Not Much Prejudice (for the internet anyway)"
"Not in the Good Buttsex Way: Penetrating the Mineshaft"
435 is so funny that now I'm honor bound to write the memoir.
"I never thought it would happen to me. I thought it was the kind of thing you only read about in magazines. But there I found myself, online at the Mineshaft..."
i sort of agree with the Shearer 'the had to do it' post.
its pretty much always the structural forces.
i'm always against overrating the local metis collectors who made the decision to hire people
Walt is going to sell us all out, now that he's part of the right-wing noise machine.
To be fair, they're paying me a lot of money. I wouldn't betray you all for anything else.
Undercover at the Mineshaft: Commenting While Undocumented.
If you read What the Dormouse Said, you'll learn that est is a long-term pathology of the software industry; Doug Engelbart's original research groups at SRI blew up in a stew of ego wars in the mid-70s largely because so many people got into est and other knock-offs of scientology. Killer quote:
A woman who Bob Albrecht, the People's Computer Company guru, had been involved with went through the training and came back transformed into a very un-Zen-like creature. She no longer believed that everything was interconnected, but rather had decided that she wanted it all for herself and would do anything to get it.
Albrecht went along to one of the seminars, identified it as a self-hypnosis technique, and avoided it from then on.
