Here’s the thing, though, Kevin. I know damn well that the Republicans have the winning political argument when they say that they’ll protect the country at all costs, even down to denying three year-old orphans a sanctuary. So, yeah, I get that they totally have the finger on the pulse of America, and also that they’re going to do even better if they can keep that pulse raised to just short of panic-level.
So, what’s the counter to that?
Do we agree with them?
Do we also try to make people more afraid?
The problem is that we disagree substantively, not politically. And if we’re compelled to take the losing political argument because it’s the right thing to do, then we should at least point out that our opponents are bedwetters who become incontinent every time they think of a Muslim terrorist- even when that Muslim terrorist is shackled in Guantanamo and being fed orange-glazed chicken, rice pilaf and two kinds of fruit.
Frankly, it’s not mockery that I am going for, but shame. I want to shame grown men into being embarrassed to admit that they pee themselves in fear.
If nothing else, it keeps me sane when I’m surrounded by the worst kind of charlatans and demagogues.
Sadly it’s even worse than what you’re portraying.
Ramping up the fear of actual terrorists is one thing, but the amount of bigotry that is being pushed right now to stoke the fires of fear is appalling, disgusting, and extremely dangerous.
Friday night: ISIS bombs Paris
Saturday night: 10000 Syrian “refugees” arrive in the US
Any problem with that? Any concern that the implications may be a little less than optimal?
well, evidently the guys who bombed Paris were Euro citizens, so what’s the connection you are trying to draw?
Need you ask?
My sister is totally on your side and is shocked that I’m more on dataguy’s. Yes, the terrorism risk isn’t raised much, but who supports all these people? If they are wards of the state, our existing welfare programs don’t have enough resources. Should citizens be kicked off to provide for foreigners that hate us (I’ll concede the rightly so)? If not, do they take jobs from our our own young people? Or does business just fire the old people to hire the cheaper foreigners? The Mexicans are our neighbors and they are here. Twelve million people can’t be ignored or deported. We have to make an accommodation. but what do we owe Syrians? The point has been made, and rightly so, why don’t their Arab brothers take them in? No matter what sect they belong to there is some country that’s the same. Let them go to Turkey or Iran or Saudi Arabia or UAR or Egypt.
I’m tired of being Uncle Sugar Daddy to the whole world when we don’t have enough for our own citizens that are desperate. Do you feel sorry for them because of shells and bullets in their neighborhoods? Well, how about feeling sorry for the people of Chicago’s south and west sides that go bed on the floor with mattresses on the walls to stop stray bullets from the NIGHTLY shootings on the street? I care about them a whole lot more than some guy that curses America but likes the Yankee Dollar.
I’m tired of being Uncle Sugar Daddy to the whole world when we don’t have enough for our own citizens that are desperate.
What on Earth makes you think that we don’t have enough for our own citizens? Our own desperate citizens don’t have enough because of decades of deliberate policy decisions designed to make sure they get nothing while a smaller and smaller number of richer and richer people get everything.
This is the corrosive influence of our Republicans, misdirecting reasonable electoral anger away from their collaborators and toward the least empowered and most helpless members of our society. It is dishonest and betrays the instincts of a bully.
The DLC and DNC are complicit too. When both parties are telling us something maybe we ought to listen.
Who is fighting for us? No one! The right wing of the Democratic Party tells us we can’t afford what we used to afford and ships jobs overseas, while the left wing cares about every man woman and child in the world except American citizens.
Where did you get this crap: left wing cares about every man woman and child in the world except American citizens.
Well, our elected representatives tell us we don’t. We can’t provide health care for everybody. We can’t keep our promises on Social Security. We have to cut food stamps. The new budget reconciliation contains even more cuts because we are told we can’t afford it. The state of Illinois isn’t even mailing out license plate renewal notices because they can’t afford to. It’s not just Republicans. I see it from Democrats too, both at the State and Federal levels. The FCC is closing half their compliance offices to save money. The President is thirsting to screw seniors with chained-CPI and means testing. The news media is reporting almost nightly about some state or county program that’s being cut to save money. All the houses in my subdivision that are for sale are bank owned. The damn country is imploding.
Well, our elected representatives tell us we don’t.
Well, obviously if a politician says it, it must be true!
Yeah, and Hillary only takes money from Wall Street because of 9/11.
Listen to your sister.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve opposed every single one of the US military foreign adventures and was always overruled by the majority in this country and in Congress (mostly Republicans but including a lot of Democrats). But, I’m a freaking adult and recognize when we turn a country into a hell hole, that we have a duty to welcome some of those that flee into our country. My thirtyish neighbor is a Cambodian-Chinese refugee. Works hard and is kinder and more generous than 90% of the ignorant, racist white folks in this country.
Granted I’ve had the privilege of meeting and knowing and working with people from all of the world. With a single exception, every one of them have been first class. Perhaps they represent the best from their countries but I’ve always been mindful to represent the best from our country in my interactions with them.
well, yes. I’m asking
See Booman’s down thread response.
to be honest, I wasn’t asking you, I was asking dataguy
2 came through Greece within the last month, and they have fingerprints and proof of travel through Serbia.
In addition, I agree that they were EU citizens. So, you have Muslims in the EU. They turn around and become terrorists. So, in turn, you admit MORE future terrorists. Now that is FUCKING stupid. Germany is admitting hundreds of thousands who cannot speak German, who have no skills or no qualifications in Germany and who will be unemployed, and later will become terrorists.
Good plan.
I don’t think you’re correct about refugees to Germany; first of all, they actually have a social infrastructure in Germany to help refugees with the transition; second, many are educated professionals and now college students [big problem is both Syria and previously Iraq has lost their professional class] and the kids have no problem learning a new language;
as you know, Germany has had a large Muslim population, though mostly Turkish, not Arab, since the guest worker programs of the 60’s – you are imagining a situation that is not based on the facts
problem on the USA side is most domestic terrorists are Christian, so by analogy you’d say don’t admit more Christians [hence, Syrian Muslims welcome, Syrian Christians stay home]
and along the lines of “let them take care of their own problems” why do you care what happens in Europe?
other prblem- how many generations are required before one is no longer “an immigrant”
OK, many are educated professionals. What do you say to a Syrian lawyer in Germany? Waiter, ein Beer bitte.
A Syrian professional who has no German and no German credentials is not a professional. They are simply another incoherent person. Many of them do not speak English. So, I doubt that you will see much.
Plus, there is displacement. Germany does not have a lot of high-paying jobs as yet unfilled. Germans actually want jobs in their own country. Why should they help someone displace them? And that crap about the “nut of labor” is crap. That is an economic fantasy that makes no sense.
What Syrian immigrants are going to do is displace Turkish gastarbeiterin. Just what they need in Germany, more kabob shops.
well, I mentioned the guest workers to say there are support system to help them make the transition which can be expected to take weeks or months depending on language skills and job aptitudes. the students will go to university a finish their education then get a job.
what do refugee doctors do here in the USA? many become medical technicians, underemployed, yes, but a job.
did you visit Germany in your trip last year? is this what you looked at? I think you are responding from ignorance, frankly, speculating based on no facts. You should study how it’s actually been done and being done; the refugee flow started 10 years ago, do some actual research into how it’s worked. what I saw is stable neighborhoods with small family run shops.
I don’t think you’re correct about refugees to Germany; first of all, they actually have a social infrastructure in Germany to help refugees with the transition; second, many are educated professionals and now college students [big problem is both Syria and previously Iraq has lost their professional class] and the kids have no problem learning a new language;
as you know, Germany has had a large Muslim population, though mostly Turkish, not Arab, since the guest worker programs of the 60’s – you are imagining a situation that is not based on the facts
problem on the USA side is most domestic terrorists are Christian, so by analogy you’d say don’t admit more Christians [hence, Syrian Muslims welcome, Syrian Christians stay home]
and along the lines of “let them take care of their own problems” why do you care what happens in Europe?
other prblem- how many generations are required before one is no longer “an immigrant”
Here’s the problem with that, ejmw.
Kevin’s arguing that there is enough merit in the fear that Republicans are exploiting and inflaming that we need to be more respectful.
My counter to that is not that there is no merit whatsoever to the fear that a person or people who have been accepted as refugees might turn around and harm us. My counter is that you can’t let fear overcome the need to do the right thing.
So, this isn’t an argument about some irrational fear of every Muslim in the world, but an argument about how you deal with legitimate fear.
I am shaming them for being afraid of actual terrorists, not fantasy terrorists they’ve made up in their delusional minds.
When a soldier is guarding some embassy or consulate in a friendly country, there’s a chance that they’ll come under attack. It may be a small risk, but it’s a risk that they are expected to take. And if they keep wetting their pants every day that they guard that embassy, then they need to either man up or get another job where there aren’t responsible for our security.
Most of our citizens aren’t soldiers and we shouldn’t ask them to take too many risks, especially unnecessary risks. But our leaders are different. They shouldn’t be cowards and they should do everything they can to help others be brave and to do the right thing even if it entails some measure of risk.
That’s true if we’re talking about some restrictions on how much privacy we’ll cede to the government, and it’s true when we’re asking them to let us house Gitmo prisoners in domestic Supermax prisons.
And it’s true about accepting refugees from war-torn regions of the world.
God damn right. Also, the fact that what the President had to say about religious tests is even remotely controversial says a lot about how Enlightened we truly are.
If you have not seen his remarks, I encourage you to do so:
Link
And boom, again!
“At first they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”
Kevin Drum thinks we need a response? Here it is.
This is amazing and another aspect needs to be brought out about this issue. The fact that the GOP is AGAIN breaking the LAW and getting away with it. If they are allowed to do this one can only imagine what will be next for them. They could easily then say no one not a Christian can live in my state,all blacks, Hispanics, any other race then WHITE not allowed. Think about it folks.
The other is these are the people running around on the streets with holsters strapped on, AR-15 strapped to back . These are the GUNLOVERS oF the USA saying NO! These people are pathetic. They own the guns, first to jump up out of their chairs to yell send troops, as long as they do not have to fight that is.
The GOP the PARTY of the GUN with no GUTS but plenty of NUTS.
All of these Governors no matter which party breaking the LAW should be arrested and charged to the full extent of the LAW.
Hey GOP, AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
What a bunch of douche bags!!!
100% agree with you Martin! Absolutely!
A successful ISIL attack is not an ISIL victory unless we react like a bunch of bed-wetting pansy’s and show the world our cowardice–unless we act as if ISIL is a major league baddie that we are afraid of.
Neil de Grasse Tyson tweet:
$trillions: Americans spent on the war on terror since 2001.
0: number of Syrian refugee participants in Paris attacks.
Well said! They need to be called cowards to the news and to their faces.
yes, agree. push the cowards label. I’d say forget about even talking about the refugees, talk about the cowards.
Its a Bluedog losing argument.
But it should be an opportunity. Attack! These people are spineless bedwetters, scornful of real american values like empathy and tolerence, and unwilling to own what we broke with Shrub’s invasion.
10000 Syrian refugees are 10000 terrible stories to illustrate the heartlessness of these demagogues.
Fear and re-victimization of 3yr old orphans should be a terribly damaging thing to a politician, but only if the American people and its media make it so.
Seriously, where’s the media in this? Other than in some serious person’s pocket, that is.
And I realise it is a very personal choice, I agree completely with Kevin Drum that we should knock it off and that electoral disaster is on the table.
As posted already, above and beyond the ramifications of this incident there seems to be a headwind worldwide against liberal immigration policy which it may be counter-productive to resist. Perhaps better, for progressive aspirations, to let it blow over and find other issues to defend in the meantime. I’m thinking mostly of Europe and others, such as Australia, where it is a losing electoral proposition at the moment.
There will be other times; this is exactly the kind of thing which fuels a Trump candidacy, or worse. I’m guessing the dust will have settled by 2016 but if it hasn’t we need to think this through very carefully.
Yes, the election is a year out and this incident will most likely be forgotten. The facts will come out, but with the Republicans, the facts don’t matter. Only fear. The comment about gun-toting Americans is right on. But that’s because they all live in the land of swagger. I’m just reading from Politico that the Christian churches are calling out the Republican charlatans. I suppose the best we can do politically right now is to have the churches shame them — and big time. Talk to your faith leader (whatever faith) and have them speak up.
Link:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/refugees-christians-215991
Also this:
All this fuss over what exactly? Two thousand heavily screened immigrants? It is shameful; no argument there. My dark suspicion is that US anti-immigrant attitudes are once again obscuring very basic economic motives; most Americans probably think that they’ve lost their prosperity to immigration not the global predations of their favourite brands. At this point I’m thinking it is probably not worth losing an election over.
What the electorate will remember is that Democrats want more foreigners to come here, but Republicans wanted to protect them. If it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, the electorate ignores it. All the nuances are fine at elite cocktail parties, but the typical voter is lucky to read at an eight grade level.
Sadly you are right. Fear sells and motivates. Reasoned, nuanced discussion bores and is ignored.
Perhaps Boo is onto something here with the shaming angle.
that’s why I say push the cowardice angle – it refutes the emotional appeal with another emotional appeal, i.e. an appeal to the citizen voters sense of pride, courage, manliness etc
That’s more likely to aid the war hawks.
OTOH, if their ignorance is allowed to go unchallenged, they’ll continue to drag this crap out in every election cycle.
Anecdotal: A few months ago the Sis wanted to take me out for lunch; so, we head for our cheap-eats standby. Only to discover that it had closed. After dickering over the other choices, we ended up at a newer place that wasn’t too much more expensive. The menu was huge and the man that took our order at the counter was patient, helpful, and charming.
As we sat at a table waiting for our lunch, the Sis said, “He’s cute. Wonder where he’s from?” Had to agree that the thirtyish, tall, and somewhat pudgy man was cute, but couldn’t identify where he was from. The Sis said, “I think Greece.” I disagreed and offered Lebanon or Iran, although neither felt quite right. After he served us our lunch, we decided to be rude and ask him and he was fine with answering, “Syria.” If he has family or friends in Syria that want/need to get out, I hope they do.
It is going to be a long struggle but it will not be made any easier by losing elections over it.
If Democrats stopped acting like wimps whenever the rightwing toddlers throw temper tantrums, maybe they’d win more often and on principles that would allow them to lead. How did DEMs fare in the 2014 election by trying to cater to the racists? In the long run, better to lose standing on principles than standing for nothing and losing half the time.
And I’m not prescient or particularly gifted with intuition but you fight the battles you have a decent chance of winning. Which are those? That’s the argument it seems to me.
Politics is ruthlessly the art of the possible; that the US has only accepted 2100 Syrian refugees after a lengthy screening process probably gives an insight into what the current administration believes the political terrain can bear. I could be wrong but we risk way too much otherwise; it is bad enough as it currently stands.
The “wimps” argument is profoundly weak.
I have always found the argument collapses as quickly as an explanation
As to the dust settling, it really depends on what ISIS does, doesn’t it? Another Paris in October 2016 will change the equation in some ways. And ISIS is brutal and filled with killers, but they live in the real world and may be thinking that thought.
And ironically some bombastic Republican oaf would probably suit their purpose admirably. Furthermore I am convinced that at least Cruz would confidently play a ‘black swan’ strategy in the general election, depending on some economic or violent mayhem.
All the more reason to defend policy prudently and leave the Republicans fulminating unprovoked. They sound most ridiculous on this topic already. Let it be a solo part.
I agree. The cowards argument strikes me as a really weak one as well.
There is a case for saying the risk is low and in 6 months this argument is largely forgotten. So as a result we should tough it out given the moral issue.
That case is not made stronger by the arrogance those on the left are articulating.
There are facts which are very difficult for the liberal mind to understand.
All of this is difficult to fathom.
I’d be willing to discuss these issue your raise but I have a problem that prevents me from being interested in doing so.
My problem is that you are consistently opposed to immigration, with seemingly no real exceptions.
Sometimes it’s about skilled workers and visa policy. Sometimes its about Latino immigrants. Now it’s about Syrians.
Sometimes you make a political argument like, “how’s this gonna look to the average Joe?”
Sometimes you make your own argument, “these folks are going to turn into terrorists in the future even if they aren’t terrorists today.”
You’re all over the place but you’re pretty consistent in just not being supportive of immigrants coming into this country.
And I can’t argue with that. That’s how you feel. I’m not going to be able to change how you feel. So, why entertain your individual arguments on their merits?
Your arguments are lawyerly. Whatever works.
Some day I will post pics of my relatives, who came here in the 1620s and 1920. Legally. I support legal immigration.
I strongly oppose work visas, which replace US workers. Hundreds of thousands of US workers have been replaced by H-1Bs. Hundreds of thousands of J-1 visas are given to teens from Belarus to work here as lifeguards, while US kids cannot get summer jobs. My friends who are IT workers cannot get jobs in IT. People in know have had to train their replacement workers.
I strongly oppose illegal immigration, which replaces US workers at the bottom of the wage scale. It used to be that lower class workers could get jobs as dishwashers, house painters, roofers. Today, no such labor market exists.
So, I do have a problem with illegal immigration and with work visas. I stand with Barbara Jordan, who also opposed illegal immigration, and who wanted them deported.
And I have a problem with the insanity of the current European situation.
So, there’s your answer.
yes, I know these things about you because you’ve discussed them many times.
But, collectively, what this amounts to is opposition to skilled workers, unskilled workers, and war refugees, and that pretty much covers everyone who might want to emigrate to the United States.
Let me try to help.
Just take illegal immigration.
Try just giving up on saying things like “I oppose illegal immigration.”
It’s an almost meaningless thing to say. Do you think I’d help someone understand my position if I said “I support illegal immigration”?
Look, I don’t support unwanted pregnancies, okay? I’m against them. But so what? Does that tell you anything about what I’m willing to support from a policy point of view?
Likewise, I join you in expressing my lack of support for illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s great when a woman unhappily discovers that she’s pregnant and I don’t think it’s great when someone decides that their best option is to sneak into this country to find work.
But I don’t spend time worrying about the many things that happen in this world that I didn’t support and wish didn’t happen.
I wish we didn’t have people fleeing Syria by the tens of thousands, and I don’t support they people who are forcing them to flee.
I don’t support committing petty crimes that cause the police to overreact and tase you to death.
You see where I am going with this yet?
People do bad stuff and bad stuff happens to people whether they deserve it or not. Public policy can’t be informed by how we feel about people’s bad luck or even their bad decisions. It has to take into account that the world is filled with people who make bad decisions and who have bad luck.
People will come into this country to work as long as there is work to be had. They’ll seek asylum here as long as it’s a safer place to be than their home. The question is always going to be what we ought to do about it.
There are a variety of ways to combat illegal immigration, many of which I would support. But your starting point should be to realize that much of our illegal immigration is driven by demand and that it therefore ought to be legal. In other words, we should provide for a process that has realistic goals for what our labor needs will be. Figure out what we’ll need and it’s fine to try to fill that need first with existing labor rather than bringing in fresh hands. But if new hands are needed, we shouldn’t force them to scale a fence to get here and provide it. We should invite them in in a legal, orderly way.
In other words, I support legal Latino immigration. Much more of it. And I support setting up a rational system that is much better than what we have now and that seeks to reach full employment for people who are already living here and that are citizens. But, that still doesn’t say what I support doing about the folks who are already here or what I think should be done in the absence of a rational alternative policy.
The problem as I see it is that most of the people complaining about illegal Latino immigration are actually opposed not to the illegal part of it but to the Latino part of it. And they don’t have any humane impulses for dealing with the millions of undocumented people who came here and worked hard and did the job they were paid to do.
This gets to what EJ Dionne wrote about earlier this week: about how both elite conservatives and liberals are insulated from economic reality.
So about 2 weeks ago you wrote that things are better than people think they are.
But you are dead wrong about that. Peoples wages are not rising. There is little doubt at the lower end of the scale unskilled immigration undercuts wages.
Is it the primary cause of wage stagnation at the lower end of the income scale.
No.
But it is a factor.
So when you say you are for greatly increased immigration, you don’t want to be bothered with the practical results of the policy you advocate.
You say this
Which virtually everyone would agree with. But because you don’t get the economic reality, you reach a conclusion without considering what it will do wages.
So then you shift the conversation to the people here – which is a separate issue entirely. Any decent person wants those people to become citizens.
But that is not the same thing as we need much more immigration.
people are giving me grief for that comment but how come I am never quoted correctly, and also the error is never in my favor?
On your last point, you’re just nitpicking. I said that we should first establish what the labor needs are, and only then decide how many people to invite in to do it. It’s my guess that this will require lots of legal Latino immigration. If I am wrong about that, I don’t care at all about being wrong. I don’t want immigration for immigration’s sake. If we don’t need any labor, don’t authorize any new foreign laborers.
Back to the original point, if Obama’s record on job creation and providing greater access to health care isn’t enough for people to approve of the job he’s been doing on the economy, there’s really nothing he could have done without magic to satisfy them. Things are not as bad as they are often portrayed. And they certainly were immeasurably worse under the prior occupant of the White House.
You didn’t really say that: you presumed an answer. An answer not based on an understanding of the economic realities people face.
WHY do you think we need a lot more immigration? What shortage exists in the labor market? Are employers facing labor shortages? Or are they using immigration to undercut the existing wage rate?
What you miss, and I think it is an enormous miss, is the deterioration in incomes is bigger than politics. The disconnection between productivity growth and labor compensation is 15 years old. It’s causes are structural: diminished bargaining power of labor resulting from globalization, automation and immigration. Of those forces at the very bottom of the wage market immigration has had a non-trivial effect – though it is not as large as the other two.
In point of fact that were and are things that could have done: but because Obama and establishment thinking is limited, they weren’t done. That was Dionne’s point. A larger stimulus would have mattered both in economic and political terms. There are a list of things that could be done that will not be done because they require the premise that the longer terms trends are not susceptible to the traditional policy measures.
I’m going to somewhat agree with you, but we need to drill down a bit to appreciate the dynamics. The very poor and very white counties in KY provide a window into a larger phenomenon.
Democrats pushed for and gave them food stamps and now their bellies are less empty, but they still don’t have jobs and don’t see any coming their way. Republicans tell them that is because Democrats want to kill coal and coal is their only hope for jobs. Democrats pushed for and gave them expanded Medicaid and they like that very much, but they still don’t have jobs and employers and businesses have been leaving their towns over the past two decades. Then they hear that immigrants are flooding into the country (always overestimating the number) and getting jobs that could have gone to them and public benefits that must reduce/limit how much flows to them. So, they don’t vote for the candidate from the party that allows them to eat and see a doctor, but the guy that tell them their lives still suck because Democrats hate them and are just trying to buy them off with meager bits of free stuff while they lavish more on the blacks and browns in other locations. IOW, Democrats don’t want them to have jobs.
Of course Republicans aren’t going to give them jobs either. Strip mining and machines have taken away most of the jobs in coal. Those with money that could invest in the region, see nothing worth investing in. Un/undereducated population, rampant substance abuse, dysfunctional families (a major part due to substance abuse), and intolerance of outsiders. But those white Republicans pay them the lip-service that they are his/her kind of people, the heart and soul of Americana. It’s an effective con. However, Democrats can’t answer it because they have no ability, intention, or idea how to bring jobs and a thriving and vibrant economy to their towns.
Elsewhere, entrenched white populations aren’t feeling much better. For the most part, they have jobs. Can see that they earn far more then the minimum wage, but can’t quite grasp why they’re living paycheck to paycheck. When they hear Democrats pushing for a higher minimum wage and admitting more immigrants, they abstract from that that it will mean that they continue treading water. If only their taxes were lower, they believe they would be doing better. They can’t quite grasp that their economic plight is far more complicated than that. So, given a choice between a Republican representing wealthy elites but promises tax cuts and a Democrat representing wealthy elites and promises nothing directly impacting their lives, they vote for the former.
Martin, one of the reasons I keep coming back to the frog pond is that, in addition to usually being right on the politics, you are one of the clearest and most coherent writers in the blogosphere. Given what I do for a living, bad writing makes my teeth itch and it’s an enormous relief to see consistently good writing. I rarely comment on any political blog these days because I’ve given up on arguing with ideologues on the internet–it doesn’t buy me anything and it costs me time and words that could be better spent elsewhere.
I read pretty much everything you write here, and I should probably say I like your work more often, since I very much do, and since I occasionally hop in and disagree with you on things. That probably creates the illusion that I disagree with you more often than not, when I’m normally in about 85% agreement with you. I think that both that earlier post and the comments here are quite clear and pretty much spot on.
That’s all a long prelude to saying: thank you, I appreciate your work. Also, congratulations on the broader gig at Washington Monthly. It’s well deserved.
Wages for undocumented labor are low because its under the table and the laborers are in a vulnerable position.
I think the hope and the goal should be that rationalizing, legalizing this labor would put an UPWARD pressure on wages as the laborers have some legal standing to demand their rights.
In the long run, hopefully that would help push up low-skill wages everywhere.
Helping people come out of the shadows would help, but why are people so resistant to the idea that supply and demand works in the labor market?
There is a simple reason for the failure for people to appreciate supply and demand in labor. Because it certainly is existing.
There is a persistent economic notion, which I call a fallacy, termed the “nut of labor”. The idea is that new persons in a labor force do not compete or provide zero-sum access to jobs, but rather both fill jobs and increase demand for services. If a new person comes, that person needs to buy stuff, which creates other jobs.
The reason that this is a fallacy, and a pernicious one, is that it is absolutely false. Let’s say that you are a finish carpenter. In addition, let’s say that a huge number of illegal finish carpenters arrive in your town, and displace you from your job as they will take less money. How does the situation work for you? You have spent 20 years becoming a great finish carpenter. Why should you have to retrain to become a journeyman tile-setter or whatever? Yet this is what the illegal proponents continually harp on. They believe that these persons can be retrained to the “jobs of the future”, and can make the same money. These are both false ideas.
The whole reason why I oppose illegals is that illegals do displace workers. The skilled trades sector was predominantly domestic workers as recently as 1995. Since then, the illegals have totally infiltrated this. And this is exactly why the WWC no longer votes D. The D Party supports the flood of illegals, who have deprived them of jobs. They do not believe that they are gaining from D policies. They are losing. Obama has been a DISASTER for the American worker.
but the immigrants are already working these jobs, we’re not talking mostly about new immigration but legitimizing people who are already here and doing work and getting paid for it.
If they were legalized and we fixed the immigration system in general to make it work and not cause massive numbers of undocumented workers I think that transparency could help us all make better decisions.
I realize that I annoy you and I probably seem to be OCD on this subject. I probably am a little on the deep end.
I do suggest that you think carefully about my comments, and about Donald Trump. He is an idiot savant politically. He has found an issue. He’s not smart about the issue. His comments are idiotic, and I don’t support him. I don’t think that he will be the nominee, although he has been on top of the wheel longer than I expected.
But you need to think of why he is doing so well. He is doing well because of immigration. Every time he gets away from that, he drops in the polls. When he pushes it, he rises. A lot of people are very concerned about immigration. And some, even a lot, are not concerned due to the old standby, racism. A lot of them have lost jobs. A lot see no opportunities, and see illegal immigrants doing jobs they used to do. I bet you think, incorrectly, that a majority of jobs that illegal immigrants have are in ag. This is false. They are in restaurants, high tech (when H-1b jobs end, they don’t go home, they go underground and continue to steal American jobs), all sorts of other areas.
Immigration is a big issue. You and the D party dismiss it at your peril.
If I were still a D, which I ain’t, I would approach immigration in 3 steps:
So, there you have it. Immigration is going to be an issue this time. D stalwarts think that Americans want open borders. Trump and Trumpism says that D stalwarts are wrong.
Wonder what will happen in LA gov race? Because Paris and Syrian immigrants are going to affect that. KY was also a little warning for D stalwarts.
you’re on much more solid footing when you stick to making political arguments. I know people are angry about immigration. I know people are finding it hard to find good work at good pay. I know that economically stressed people are less generous and more resentful. I know that the right in this country is seeking to win the upcoming election almost exclusively with white votes and I know what they need to do to get the margins they will need.
So, don’t be one of those people and don’t fell for their crap.
And yet again another comment. OCD – yep.
Tomorrow is the end of the 60 day comment period on the extension of the F1 OPT extension. I hope you will consider making a comment opposing this extension.
Here is the link to comment:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=ICEB-2015-0002-0011
Please consider saying that you OPPOSE that extension. Because if Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison are in favor of something, you KNOW that it is a toxic shitberger for normal Americans.
I think you’re both making valid points.
We need to ask ourselves why there is such extreme social instability around the world. Because that is what’s forcing more and more people to emigrate.
I believe most people would prefer to stay where they are, if they could have a decent life. What is making that impossible for so many people? Can anything be done about that? Is anybody even thinking about that?
Also let’s not forget that the capitalist system profits from bringing in impoverished migrants. Illegals will work for even less than legals.
On the other hand, many of the jobs they “take” are jobs few others want.
We’ve become a nation of bedwetters. Perhaps made that way by GOP rhetoric. It is deeply embarrassing. I think responding by shaming them is the right approach.
Frankly, it’s not mockery that I am going for, but shame. I want to shame grown men into being embarrassed to admit that they pee themselves in fear.
What happens when they are impervious to shame? Mocking seems to be the only answer.
take a clue from the Vitter Edwards campaign; it doesn’t matter, it matters what the voters think
When it was a joke:
Now it’s pathetic: Given a choice between their health (life) and hate. White KY voters chose hate.
I called a former student – and awful human being 66% of the time – a coward for his opposition to taking in refugees. His parents immigrated from Nigeria by the way.
Anyway, that rankled him profoundly. I think continually calling them cowards is exactly the right rhetorical strategy.
Oh dear — the one foreigner I’ve known and didn’t like was from Nigeria, but still have to conclude that he was an exception.
Bipartisan then; bipartisan now. The rest of the world is clear about our empty words. Too bad we are now drunk on our self-congratulations to see.
The difficulty is shaming grown politicians who have forgotten how to blush. I believe that is part of the OJT or the initiation hazing or the popping the cherry of corruption or something. It soon affects almost all of them with respect to certain issues. The trouble is that when they talk about separating the children from the adults, the general meaning is the ability to make “tough” decisions–that is deciding without shame to do something that hurts someone who holds less power that those you are accommodating. Like the US, adults talk a good game but when the moral decision comes, they are often MIA.
We’ve been here before. Picked this up from dKos front page:
US – January 20, 1939
American Institute of Public Opinion
It has been proposed to bring to this country 10,000 refugee children from Germany — most of them Jewish — to be taken care of in American homes. Should the government permit these children to come in?
Yes – 30%
No – 61%
No opinion – 9%
David Gershorc:
When the Wagner-Rogers Bill was proposed in Congress, providing for the resettlement of 20,000 Jews, it didn’t even make it to a vote, being rejected by President Roosevelt and a majority of lawmakers, including Senator Robert Taft (R-OH), who argued that even Jewish children would be a threat to the United States. And that year, desperate Jews fleeing Europe on a number of ships, including the St. Louis, were turned away from our shores.
One might say that in 76 years we’ve made baby steps of moral progress.
It seems that a shipping one package of Depends to each governor or other politicians who is wetting the bed over Syrian refugees is in order.
One less RWNJ wannabe POTUS to kick around. Thus joining the club of the “awesome” GOP governors that the national GOP primary electorate no interest in promoting. Plus they still have the awesome Jeb?, Christie, and Huckabee begging for their votes.
And Carson’s slow decline continues. Jeb is running neck-and-neck with “wouldn’t vote”.
Oops — looks like a forgot the awesome Gov Kasich: the “big brain” proposing a new federal agency to spread Judeo-Christian values around the world to defeat ISIS. (Guess he hasn’t gotten around to reading the 1sr Amendment.)
More from Jeb?
Billmon responds:
It seems Clarridge and Carson are both correct. Any thoughts on Clarridge’s motive? Another campaign perhaps? Not buying altruism.
Clarridge appears to be a right-wing, Cold War warrior and likely nuts as well since all of this of his ilk were as well. However, senior CIA folks were never dumb nor totally ignorant. Wouldn’t have caught him saying, much less thinking, the stupid stuff Carson says on FP.
get off my lawn?
Possible that Poppy put in a call to Clarridge and reminded him of that little pardon. However, he was probably also frustrated with working for such a boob.
Rarely hear a credible insider dropping such a bombshell comment with a name attached.
a gem!! thanks – it feels good and then you’re dead? somehow I think he missed the point
As Billmon said, a mangled metaphor. Worse than his bro’s “won’t get fooled again.
They respond to scary three year old refugees today the same way they responded the scary Ebola virus yesterday. They even cringe when confronted by sane but rightwing debate moderators.
What a useless collection of weenies.
Been following this, seems to be heating up now
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39761/anonymous-isis-plan-better-than-republican
s/
I’d describe it as not “better,” but as “no less effective” considering that they’ve been at this for a while and were as dumbfounded by the Paris attacks as the official (and much more expensive) “security” folks.
Various thoughts:
(a) Doing what we have been doing so far may be progress but it does not seem to be enough.
(b) All the talk about refugees does not answer the question.
(c) Not sending in ground troops may be the right thing, but it does not answer the question.
(d) Saying the solution is not an American one (alone) may be right, but it does not answer the question.
(e) Knowing the solution will take time only is acceptable if people are confident in the actions we are taking now.
Best comment I have read about all of this – by far.
Actually, Drum made two critical mistakes: 1) thinking that anything Chris Cillizza writes is going to be fair to any Democratic point of view; 2) thinking that “what he sees on Twitter” is read/written by anyone other than political junkies.
Yes, appealing to the nativist wing of the Republican Party is a sure fire winner in Republican primaries and in state-wide elections in red states. That hasn’t changed because of the Syrian refugee crisis. What has changed is that the Trumpitization of our political discourse, fueled by the lazy press including people like Cillizza, has removed “shame” from the vocabulary.
Shame on the red state governors. They deserve to be mocked because the only other option is to try to engage them and refute their positions … but you can’t argue with people whose basic premise is that one’s humanity is based on their religion and their country of origin.
Given multiple political situations, I think that it is time for Democrats to uniformly refer to the aspirational Islamic State as Daesh, as most of the rest of the world does. And understand that Daesh hates their own acronym because it has the connotation of “bigot”, which they and the bedwetters who want to deliver refugees back to them definitely are.
Also, it cuts off a Frank Luntz gambit to portray Democrats as “soft on Daesh”.
I’m not so sure that ‘most of the world’ refers to Islamic State as DAESH. Anyway, anyone interested in understanding the meanings and connotations of DAESH needs to read this surprising analysis by Alice Guthrie, translator of Arabic.
Above I forgot to add the link:
https:/www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie
They’re not eqiuvalent but yet again I feel compelled to point you consistently ramp up fear of republicans.
Also why would you try to create shame? When is the last time that worked with these people?
Review the procedures in place, modify if necessary, monitor thse admitted (instead of just spying on Americans) for some time as the price of entry.
OT:
But but but…the NSA and all….
What say you, Dudebros?
……………………………..
The Koch intelligence agency
As the billionaires’ network works to reshape U.S. politics, it keeps a close eye on the left.
By Kenneth P. Vogel
11/18/15 05:14 AM EST
The competitive intelligence effort, reported here for the first time, also hints at the audaciousness of the Koch network’s mission. While the Republican Party focuses on winning elections, the Kochs want to realign American politics, government and society around free enterprise philosophies that they hope to spread more broadly.
A key to accomplishing the mission, from the Kochs’ perspective, is countering super PACs and other big-money groups funded by rich liberals, as well as allied public sector unions and academic and media elites. The Kochs’ allies feel that those forces have worked together for decades with Democratic politicians and government bureaucrats to institutionalize the philosophy that heavy regulation and taxation of business is the only way to ensure an equitable society.
The Kochs concluded that defeating this well-funded left-wing infrastructure requires tracking the professional left in real time ― a capability they realized they lacked after the 2012 election. In the run-up to that election, the Koch network spent $400-million-plus attacking Democratic politicians and policies, only to see President Barack Obama win re-election and his party maintain control of the Senate. A forensic audit of the network’s efforts concluded the Kochs had been out-maneuvered by the left on the airwaves, in the data war and on the ground. Vowing not to let that happen again, the network began investing in the competitive intelligence team and other efforts to keep tabs on the left.
To be sure, the Kochs’ operation isn’t the only one focused on pulling back the curtain on its opponents. In fact, liberal activists and groups have frequently worked to expose the activities of the Koch brothers and their network. But the competitive intelligence team, like so many other Koch-backed programs, appears to be unique in its scale and its thoroughly methodological approach.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/the-koch-brothers-intelligence-agency-215943#ixzz3rr4dmU9O
This is funny actually; it is the classic projection of the right that the other side must be doing the same dirty things. So now they think that shining a light on the activities of organized labor and progressive activism is going to repulse the average american voter.
But, actually, these are good works, and should be celebrated. Goodness knows the MSM isn’t doing the celebrating, so maybe a little oppo research will do some good?
Kind of like, even bad press is better than no press…. more than anything the left needs to fight for its ideas in the public sphere, so if the right wants to bring it up, great.
So if we turn away all the refuges, will we radicalize them so that they simply join up with the terrorists? Is it at all possible that if we show some compassion, we can help heal this cancer? Math could easily be just this. Admit a hundred thousand and maybe end up with a few bad guys or send them back and create thousands with a deep hatred and a continuation of the wars.
This is the same fucking country that made kids from Africa — any part — stay home from school for months in light of the overblown Ebola scare.
Humanity fucking sucks sometimes, so I try to focus on the good things.