Thursday, June 21, 2018

The United States should pay for immigrants

I don't approve of the proposed policy of preferring highly educated people for immigration to the United States. That is not how we have done it traditionally. Our past practice of taking people who wanted to work resulted in huge advantages: if you don't know the story of Sol Bloom, look him up.

But if we are going to lure people with the most expensive skills, we should have the honesty to pay for it. Let's take the example of my mothers GP in Florida. He's from Africa, I don't know what country.

But I have no doubt that his education was paid for from public funds in his home country as that is how physicians' training is paid for almost everywhere. In much of Africa the public funding available for healthcare averages about $5 per capita per year, so if we take a number and say that it takes $100,000 to train a physician in Africa, the cost in human terms is that 20,000 people go without any healthcare.

Everything that Trump and his nazi minions have to say about immigration is false. Probably most Americans don't recognize how false, because how many Americans know anything about the history of immigration to this country?

Let's list a few bugaboos. Chain migration for example.

This has been a traditional method. Whether in the Pale of Settlement or in south Italy, families would scrape together money to send one member -- often an older son -- to America. Once he got established, if he ever did, he would send resources back home to bring over the rest of family one at a time.

In the earlier days of the country in places like the Palatinate in Germany whole villages would hold meetings to debate whether to sell up and move altogether to America.

Most of the people who come have not done especially well. The Irish joke was, "Sure and they told me if I came to America I would find the streets paved with gold.  When I got here I discovered the streets were not paved with gold. They were not paved at all and I was expected to pave them."

A few emigrants like Bloom or Carl Schurz have had an outsize impact on America, but the big gain this country has gotten has been from the second generation. For the most part the first generation scrambled to get a foothold; it was the second generation that provided the inventors, the big businessmen, the scholars.

Events are moving fast concerning separation of families. Thousands of unaccompanied children have arrived alone going back for a decade now and while this too has been a form of government separation context is everything.

It will be interesting to see whether the evangelicals who have expressed their dismay about separating families at the border can manage to keep up this statement of principle. I suspect they will not. Within a week or two if it comes down to a question of ripping children away from their parents or suffering the horror of living under centrist judges, I suspect that they will makes their peace with Trump's nazis.

The irony is that the driver of the migration, especially as regards Honduras and Guatemala, is evangelical Christianity which has been waging a remorseless genocide against the Indians. I would be a lot more impressed with the morality of the Southern Baptists if they would condemn that rather than Trump's separation policies.


30 comments:

  1. The stunt already did what Donald intended. He gave the right signals to his die-hard supporters, who felt he let them down.

    He only really needs to keep that group of faithful, for the not so enthusiastic Trump supporters, like evangelicals, will flock around him by natural repulsion to the other side (Dems/progs).

    This lack of space for more socially conservative voters in the Dem platform is part of the reason Donald exists. You are only reinforcing the mistake with your anti-Christian rants, Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I heard an Italian make that argument with respect to the electoral success of Berlusconi. It is not up to me to change. It is Christians ho need to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Most of the people who come have not done especially well.

    Bollocks.


    [Clovis:] The stunt already did what Donald intended.

    Enforcing existing law is a stunt?

    Something like 80% of Americans think it is wrong to separate children of illegal immigrants from their parents. (NB: it has become increasingly the case that scare quotes belong around "parents".)

    Something like 80% of Americans disagree with open borders.

    Square that circle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Skipper,

    "Enforcing existing law is a stunt?"

    The way Donald did, sure it is. He is a political stuntman. He needs to keep the hoi polloi always entertained by his tricks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mendacious Drudgespeak talking points do nothing to enhance this blog and I wish Skipper would take his racism to a more congenial place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Harry, you have just proven once again that you have absolutely no idea what the word "racism"* means. Just as you have proven you have absolutely no idea what the issues here are, and refuse to take them on board.

    *Alternatively, using the definition of the word "racism", and, using direct quotes, demonstrate how what I have written is racist. I'm quite comfortable that you can't, and you know it. That makes you a liar, which I very much wish you'd stop doing.

    The way Donald did, sure it is. He is a political stuntman. He needs to keep the hoi polloi always entertained by his tricks.

    What you haven't accounted for is that very often the only way to resolve a problem is to force the contradiction. Existing immigration law had become unenforceable, yet Congress refused (and still refuses) to do anything about it.

    What's your alternative?

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least 200,000 Indians murdered by evangelical Christians in Guatemala.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What you haven't accounted for is that very often the only way to resolve a problem is to force the contradiction."

    It is the reason I advanced the conclusion of this sad matter to you: he is a coward who takes children hostages to advance his political agenda. And so are you for supporting his shameful acts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is the reason I advanced the conclusion of this sad matter to you: he is a coward who takes children hostages to advance his political agenda. And so are you for supporting his shameful acts.

    What's your alternative?

    ReplyDelete
  10. [Harry:] At least 200,000 Indians murdered by evangelical Christians in Guatemala.

    I trust you have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "What's your alternative?"

    I already answered that. I've meant every word. If Trump opens up a donation campaign to build that Wall, I may well contribute.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting. Trump's shameful act is to enforce existing law. Assuming the wall won't get built tomorrow, or next week even (how quickly you ignore Democrat opposition to building it), what to do until then?

    And what responsibility do adults dragging children through hazardous conditions to violate US law bear?

    Your alternative is no alternative at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Skipper,

    ---
    "Interesting. Trump's shameful act is to enforce existing law."
    ---
    Did you read this link I gave the other day at GG?

    BTW, have you really never relfected upon the lessons H. Arendt drew from Adolph Eichmann? Do you really see yourself as a conservative?


    ---
    "And what responsibility do adults dragging children through hazardous conditions to violate US law bear?"
    ---
    You know the main reason the executive must exercize discretion when applying the legislated laws? There are far too many of them, and you can easily violate one when trying to apply another.

    Whatever you have in the books to deal with the parents, there are other laws, concerning the well being of children, as well as international treaties among nations ratified by your Congress, that are of no less importance.

    The real scandal here is that you need to be remembered of such trivial things, given your insistence of parroting this "Law & Order" shallow narrative.


    ---
    "Your alternative is no alternative at all."
    ---
    Considering you voted for it, the joke is on you then.

    ReplyDelete
  14. [Clovis:] Did you read this link I gave the other day at GG?

    Yes, I did.

    It essentially advocates open borders, so, in that author's view any laws restricting immigration are unjust. I think his argument for open borders is extremely weak. But never mind that, per a very recent Economist/YouGuv poll, Americans by more than 3 to 1 support arresting illegal aliens.

    So, the extent that government policy should reflect the desires of the citizens, then US policy should be borders secure to the extent that the difference between legal and total immigration is very small.

    That means there is a very real contradiction between law — supported by the vast majority of Americans — and reality on the ground.

    And that reality on the ground is a very predictable outcome of the Obama administration's policies. They positively incentivized adults bringing children across the border.

    Word got out, and it started a wave of child-involved illegal immigration.

    So when I keep asking you to resolve the contradiction, you continually fail to address the elements of the problem, weigh them, and provide some sort of way out.

    Just as you, and Harry, fail to recognize that the Trump administration is only applying more thoroughly policies the Obama administration was itself applying. In fact, there has been a great deal of propaganda relying on pictures and incidents that happened before Trump became president. This week, Time magazine's front cover was yet another instance of completely fake news.

    Which is why, above, Harry has shown himself once again to be completely incontinent when it comes to his list of slanders.

    Whatever you have in the books to deal with the parents, there are other laws, concerning the well being of children, as well as international treaties among nations ratified by your Congress, that are of no less importance. 

    Okay, fine. Be specific. What are they?

    [Hey Skipper:] "Your alternative is no alternative at all."
    ---
    [Clovis:] Considering you voted for it, the joke is on you then.


    Two things. First, regardless of my vote, your alternative is no alternative at all, since the fundamental problem exists regardless of Trump, or my vote.

    Second, nothing is not an option. Existing policy incentivized unacceptable outcomes. In my ideal world, we would have a secure border that would render all of this moot.

    But we don't, and, won't any time soon.

    So, until then, what is your solution?

    BTW, have you really never relfected upon the lessons H. Arendt drew from Adolph Eichmann? 

    Remember when I said you provide insults where arguments belong?

    ReplyDelete
  15. [Harry:] At least 200,000 Indians murdered by evangelical Christians in Guatemala.

    One and a half million killed during the partition of India. Bangladesh genocide, 3 million. Hutus and Tutsis, a million plus. Soviet Union and the PRC, over 60 million.

    Is there nothing those evangelical Christians won't do?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Skipper,

    ---
    [Clovis:] Did you read this link I gave the other day at GG?

    Yes, I did.

    It essentially advocates open borders, so, in that author's view any laws restricting immigration are unjust. I think his argument for open borders is extremely weak.
    ---

    Quite sincerely, Skipper, I am aghast at your text interpretation. No, that link does not "essentially advocates open borders", and no, the author did not express a view, in those lines, that "any laws restricting immigration are unjust".

    Please, give it a second try, this time with 2 or 3 doses less of whatever you were drinking.

    ---
    So when I keep asking you to resolve the contradiction, you continually fail to address the elements of the problem, weigh them, and provide some sort of way out.
    ---
    I can only conclude you have not been reading what I write. Back at GG, your preferred solution ("an EO negating Flores and establishing facilities to keep parents and their children together") was given only *after* I wrote, replying your question of "What's the answer?":

    "There are far too many trivial solutions (among them, the one presently adopted by Trump's EO). What you are asking me though is "How do I make my Congress to stop kicking the can and solving this utterly trivial issue?". "

    IOW, I gave your own answer before yourself (not because I am a genius, but because this is trivial), and here you are scolding me for not providing any answer.



    ---
    BTW, have you really never relfected upon the lessons H. Arendt drew from Adolph Eichmann?

    Remember when I said you provide insults where arguments belong?
    ---
    Here I am, aghast again.

    You are making arguments over and over about what is The Law. I posted three consecutive links, all related to the same message, and you look to have completely missed it anyway. What do you think I was possibly pointing to?

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, Trump today said law should not apply at the border. As I said a few days ago, no one would dispute the complete nazification of the US government, at least in the executive branch.

    Time for Trumpters to admit their nazi ideals or get out.

    I think the Restaurant Revolt may be significant.

    ReplyDelete
  19. [Clovis:] Quite sincerely, Skipper, I am aghast at your text interpretation. No, that link does not "essentially advocates open borders", and no, the author did not express a view, in those lines, that "any laws restricting immigration are unjust".

    From the link:

    Instead I want to suggest that this distinction [between legislation and law] is helpful for understanding why those of us who are deeply appalled at the latest cruelty of U.S. immigration policy are correct to insist that this policy is so outrageously immoral that it should be disobeyed by all who are in positions to disobey it.

    The policy that I write of is the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy toward immigrant border crossings, including the forced separation of children from parents.


    This is part of the reason why I said he is essentially arguing for open borders. Distilling these sentences, the author is appalled at the "zero tolerance" policy, full stop: it is so outrageously immoral that it should be disobeyed.

    Please explain to me how that isn't arguing for open borders. He goes on to say:

    The people currently victimized by the Trump administration are guilty of nothing other than what the ancestors of all Americans were guilty of: wanting to live in America. Acting to make that wish come true is itself not a crime; it is not, as lawyers say, malum in se. Acting on that wish is a crime only because the state declares it to be so; it is, as lawyers say, malum prohibitum.

    I'm not sure where he got his legal training, but there are plenty of things that are crimes regardless of mental state. Improperly securing classified information is just one example.

    Then:

    I submit that the law is violated by the Trump administration and those U.S. government officials who follow the Trump administration’s commands to separate children from their peaceful parents.

    So it is a violation of some law to put an end to a perverse incentive, because the law, and court settlements, requires separating children from their parents after an arrest.

    Which leaves him in the position of advocating open borders, because no allowable implementation of law impedes illegal immigrants with children from being arrested: they must be released.

    What's worse, though, is the astonishingly superficial viewpoint: the worst, most unconscionable thing is forcefully separating children from their parents. (NB: I have no idea why a judge prohibited holding children for more than twenty days with their arrested parents, but there it is. Which means the administration can't remove this perverse incentive without itself violating the law, which it is constitutionally prohibited from doing. So the administration must rely upon an extra-legal EO to circumvent a baffling restriction which the judge will not remove.)

    The perverse incentive exists, and is directly responsible for an increasing number of illegal immigrants bringing children with them. Which means subjecting these children to very fraught, dangerous passages from Central America, or even further away.

    Now, I have utterly no idea if the administration thought through the serious, concomitant, consequences of catch-and-release when children are present, but they are there, nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  20. [Clovis:] I can only conclude you have not been reading what I write. Back at GG, your preferred solution ("an EO negating Flores and establishing facilities to keep parents and their children together") was given only *after* I wrote, replying your question of "What's the answer?"

    Kind of, but that is likely because I wasn't specific enough with the question.

    Nothing isn't an option, and what you proposed is post-hoc. What I should have asked is this: The perverse incentive was in place. What is the best way — keeping in mind the risk to children of making that trek for the purpose of getting the get-out-of-jail-free card if caught — of ending it?

    You are making arguments over and over about what is The Law. I posted three consecutive links, all related to the same message, and you look to have completely missed it anyway. What do you think I was possibly pointing to?

    The first effectively promoted open borders, the second made the case that Arendt swung and missed, and the last excoriates ICE enforcement for insufficient discretion:

    There are 11 million unauthorized [sic] immigrants in this country. Every past administration has used some discretion in targeting whom to deport. They targeted those who were destroying society, not building it. They tried to take account of particular contexts, and they tried to show some sense of basic humanity.

    There are two problems here. First, it elevates illegal immigrants above US citizens, who get arrested for violating the law. Second, granting the assertion that massive illegal immigration is harmful (I'm not asking you to agree with it; rather, it is a significant reason Trump got elected, and it is a point of view that beats by more than three to one open borders.)

    Probably the most effective way to secure the border is a physical barrier — the Chinese have proven it can be done. However, until it is in place, hi-profile disincentives are the next best option.

    I have no idea how Arendt got into this.

    This isn't the first lap around this track. There have been previous deals that traded amnesty for enhanced border security. The amnesties happened, security never did.

    In case anyone is wondering why amnesty is such a dirty word.

    ReplyDelete
  21. [Harry:] So, Trump today said law should not apply at the border. As I said a few days ago, no one would dispute the complete nazification of the US government, at least in the executive branch.

    Time for Trumpters to admit their nazi ideals or get out.


    Do you not know how links work, Harry?

    If not, don't be ashamed, I can give you a quick tutorial.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Replies
    1. In which he argues for the wall, a solution I gave here before too, only to be harassed by you.

      Delete
    2. Clovis, that wasn't harassment. Rather, I pointed out that you provided an answer for the future, not the here and now.

      Delete
  23. The Internet isa wonderful place. It has Jennifer Mendelsohn in it, and she is making mincemeat of all the anti-immigrant politicians.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/immigration-resistance-genealogy-jennifer-mendelsohn-trnd/index.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Harry, this is truly interesting.

      Delete
  24. Harry, your link proves you, and Jennifer Mendelsohn, don't understand what is going on.

    The question isn't whether we should allow immigration, but rather how much illegal immigration we should tolerate.

    And the next question is what kind of legal immigration is in the country's best interests.

    ReplyDelete
  25. [Harry:] So, Trump today said law should not apply at the border. As I said a few days ago, no one would dispute the complete nazification of the US government, at least in the executive branch.

    Oh, really?

    The Fifth Amendment mandates the due process of law, and the 14th Amendment, in part, expanded due process rights for immigrants, with case law asserting those rights dating back to 1886. But Justice Department lawyers under both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that noncitizens apprehended at the border lack due process protections, said Adam Cox, a law professor at New York University, and the Supreme Court has never clearly resolved the dispute.

    Who knew nazification went back so far?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bill Clinton, Nazi.

    And Fordham law professor Jennifer Gordon said that some undocumented immigrants get almost no due process in removal proceedings.

    In 1996, Congress created expedited removal for undocumented immigrants without a hearing. Initially it only applied at the U.S. border. Then it was expanded to within 100 miles of a border for undocumented immigrants who had been in the country less than 14 days.


    You'd think the NYT could hire some fact checkers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. [Harry:] I think the Restaurant Revolt may be significant.

    In that it points out what flaming hypocrites progressives are, I completely agree.

    ReplyDelete