All across the country May 1, people will be wearing white shirts and not buying things- That’s right, Monday is the Day Without an Immigrant Boycott. With over 2 million strong, will South Asian Americans make a difference if we all boycotted? A doctor that calls in sick, a taxi worker that stays home, a professor that cancels class? Though not as numerous as other immigrant communities, these days we can be positive that there is a South Asian American representing in almost all lines of business and a boycott by our people will make a mark in a lot of industries.
Choosing May Day for this boycott is significant in itself – it is International Workers Day, and 120 years ago was the mark of bloody riots for workers rights.
In 1884, the U.S. Federation of Organized Trade and Labor Unions had passed a law declaring that, as of May 1, 1886, an eight hour workday would be the full and legal workday for all U.S. workers – the administration had that much time to recognize this new law and put into effect. The factory, workplace and corporation owners refused.On May 1, 1886, workers took to the streets in a general strike throughout the entire country to force the administration to recognize the eight-hour working day. Over 350,000 workers across the country directly participated in the general strike, with hundreds of thousands of workers joining the marches.
In what they would later call the Haymarket riots, during the continuing strike action on May third in Chicago, the epicenter of the U.S. labor movement at that time, the Chicago police opened fire on the unarmed striking workers at the McCormick Reaper Works, killing six workers and wounding untold numbers.[link]
May 1st here in Los Angeles, there will be a group of South Asians taking part in the boycott at MacArthur Park at 3:00pm – listen for the sounds of the dhol to see where the desis at. I highly encourage you to organize (& post in SM events tab if you do!) your own posse of desis to take part in the activities all across the nation. Take pictures and send them to us. If you are able to take off work or school, please do it on behalf of the rest of the desi immigrants who can’t because a day without work would be too big of a loss. I know we’ve been discussing the debate here for the past few weeks, but it’s because when Congress goes back into session this week, this will be at the top of their agenda. Let’s make sure the South Asian voice is heard in the debate.
How about this comparison – entering a country versus enrolling in an elite university. If I want to enroll into Berkeley, I apply, but I get rejected. But, if I am a resident of California, by what right can they take my taxes and deny me entry? How does that advance the cause of social justice. So, one day I show up in class, without paying tuition, take tests, and then expect a degree. I did all the classwork, read all the books, and participated in all the discussions – just like my admitted classmates. But then when time rolls around for graduation, and it comes out that I was never legally admitted into Berkeley, so they will not grant me a degree. But I worked just as hard, why should I be denied the opportunity that a Berkeley degree affords its graduates. Isn’t the whole notion of college admissions horribly selective? Why should a bunch of well-to-do admission officers have such power?
How about….Berkeley really needs the added brain power you provide, uses my material in discussion, and overall the quality of education recieved by all students at Berkeley is enhanced because of your contribution, and at off times, the administration even explicitly acknowledges this. And lets add to this that at the time you entered Berkeley, it was not a secret you were not formally admitted, but it was wink wink nod nod all around.
And now, when you’ve not only done the hard work, in some cases working harder than fellow classmates, and contributing to the education of your fellows by participating in class discussion and team projects at a relatively high level of commitment, now, when you claim what you might assume are the benefit that might accrue from this situation, your efforts are denied
If there were no illegal aliens…
Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.
OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.
Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.
In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer.
M. Nam
You’re attributing the problems of social infrastructure in a country of 290 ish million people on a group that consists of 12 million people?
I believe the point is that while the benefits of illegal immigration, namely a large, pliable, unregulated, and unprotected labor force, is dispersed over the nation – while the costs, such as providing medical care, law enforcement, are borne by state and local governments.
First of all I apologize for name calling (as in “lefties”) as it doesn’t contribute to the discussion. I don’t believe in the progressive vs conservative as people who call themselves progressives are not really progressive as in progressing the civilization or economy. Being a socially liberal and fiscally conservative, my opinion is different as some of these issues impact both and in that case I have to look hard at the fiscal impact. getting this out of the way, here are my cooments:
amaun:
I couldn’t have said it better. I totally agree with you.
To Tashie
Unfortunately for a complex problem you want a simple solution – amnesty, immediate citizenship and open borders. You think that is a workable solution. So why don’t want we open the borders and invite the people from Africa, South Asia, China and Middle East also. You know what – there are billions of people who would like to come in the US and you think letting them all is workable. Or is your solution only for Mexicans which the protests are really about. If I had my dithers, I would spend a few billion dollars and improve the conditions in Mexico especially with respect to health & schooling which the Mexican government has been failing even though they got Nafta. Also, bringing up a taboo subject – part of the solution is controlling population as the resources of Mexico is not enough to support the population there and birth control is not promoted because of the church influence.
If the so-called progressives in India hadn’t ruined the opportunities in the country by their socialist policies and command economy where they had suppressed entrepreneurship, I would have probably stayed and flourished there. Unfortunately people who had entrepreneurial tendencies or were academically smart were either denied opportunities or were heavily discouraged. I come from a second tier city which is heavily entrepreneurial and I saw how people had to go through loops to continue their business and how the trade unions destroyed once flourishing industry by their greed. So don’t preach to me, unless you had been in my shoes.
KXB & Sahej
KXB – Yours is a good argument. Sahej – Your take on the example of Berkeley given by KXB is like your clutching for straws. If Berkeley really needs your brain power they will accomodate you legally and the state of California will open other resources (like opening new state universities) if they are turning away really smart people. I haven’t seen that happening in California unless you want to include people with less than god GPA’s. We can provide more avenues for legal immigration without compromizing on illegal immigration. This is not a either/or case as some of the pregressives would like to make it out.
And if you want to talk about taxes and sevices and the net impact of illegal immigrants, that is a separate topic, where I can show the impact is overall negative atleast in California except for businesses employing illegal labor and also a well supervised and implemented guest worker program is probably beneficial to both the US and Mexico.
original was we didnt land on plymouth rock, the rock landed on us.
Sahej etc,
I don’t think you are getting the point I have been trying to make. The issue of illegal immigration is not about race or discrimination. The effects are not solely economic or criminal in nature. The underlying problem with all this is that of ideology.
If you read about history of immigration to America, you will find that with the exception of slaves, all immigration has been voluntary. More importantly, immigrants have come to this country with the explicit knowledge that the economic and political system of America, in a nutshell, the Ideology, is superior to that of the land they left behind. Hence they took into the American ideology wholeheartedly, even though they still stuck to their food habits/religion etc. To give some examples: Irish knew that America was better than Ireland. Russians knew that Russia was bad because of Communism. I knew that America had to be better than India because of India’s socialism and other crappy policies.
In short, throughout history, Immigrants were nothing but Americans who were born in the wrong country, and rectified Nature’s mistake by immigrating legally.
However, this thing with Latino illegal aliens is something different altogether. There’s very few of them who recognise that their home countries are poor because of bad policies. Many of them blame American Capitalism for their home countries’ ills. Yet others still cling to silly claims that California belongs to Mexico. A great majority of them refuse to accept the American credo and ideology of Capitalism and Personal Responsibility – in this respect they are similiar to Europe’s Muslim population, and in a few decades they will become a similiar thorn in our side.
Ultimately, it is American citizens who have to decide what kind of people they let in. This should not be dependant on race or religion or language, but Ideology. Going by the protest marches, it is clear that illegal aliens do not share our views of Law and personal responsibility, but still cling to their home countries’ outdated notions about entitlements (which is what causes poverty in their home countries in the first place, thus forcing them to flee).
Considering this, HR 4437 is a step in the right direction.
M. Nam
How about….Berkeley really needs the added brain power you provide, uses my material in discussion, and overall the quality of education recieved by all students at Berkeley is enhanced because of your contribution, and at off times, the administration even explicitly acknowledges this. And lets add to this that at the time you entered Berkeley, it was not a secret you were not formally admitted, but it was wink wink nod nod all around.
And seeing as how I was able to get away with it, I encourage a couple million of my friends to do the same. We will buy some books and pay a fee here or there, but not the tuition. To cover up the additional expense of all these additional students, tuition will need to be raised on those students legally admitted. You’ll have to build additional dorms, buy more food, and expand the university health services as well.
Moor Nam,
its as if you’re arguing social policy on the basis of what you assume are the viewpoints of people. This is not rational. First canvass those people for their views or get some actual documentation about their views
KXB,
You went away from your analogy’s boundary by adding that you would send millions of fellows; Berkeley does not have room for millions of people to enter Sproul Hall or whatever buildings you want to go into. But, I hope your friends enjoy the weather…..and I hope you all meet some nice girls while you are there
You went away from your analogy’s boundary by adding that you would send millions of fellows; Berkeley does not have room for millions of people to enter Sproul Hall or whatever buildings you want to go into. But, I hope your friends enjoy the weather…..and I hope you all meet some nice girls while you are there
one can be more quantitatively proportion, say “thousands” and still have the same effect. i think he got his point across.
Illegal immigrants embody the American spirit. We’re a nation that was built by squatters and penal colonists, not exactly like we got a holy commandment from above to create the United States. The most patriotic people IÂ’ve ever met are Mexican-Americans.
Even though you ripped your own analogy apart at the seams, to address your unwritten point that one has to guess at because you don’t say it clearly;
This country has a problem with health care delivery without the 12 million undocumented, if that is the basis of your analogy. If your concern is with land and affordable housing, there is a lot of land in the US, ans the undocumented drive the cost of building down. I don’t know too many people who attribute the problems with social infrastructure on 12 million people in a nation of this size. If you personally do, thats scapegoating and not a rational basis for solving real infrastructure problems. Are you really meaning to tilt at windmills while your own home burns?
Illegal immigrants embody the American spirit. We’re a nation that was built by squatters and penal colonists, not exactly like we got a holy commandment from above to create the United States. The most patriotic people IÂ’ve ever met are Mexican-Americans.
no I think if you need to say thousands to make the analogy work, thats different than saying millions. If he would have said thousands I wouldn’t have objected. Can a person contstruct his own analogy and then destroy it by using parameters not appropriate to scale?
Anyway, if the arguement is that the US can not afford the cost of illegals because they constitute a reason for problems of social infrastructure, thats an arguement that I would need more evidence to buy
Anyway, if the arguement is that the US can not afford the cost of illegals because they constitute a reason for problems of social infrastructure, thats an arguement that I would need more evidence to buy
of course we can afford it. but the contention is that they are either a wash or a net negative in raw economic terms.
We’re a nation that was built by squatters and penal colonists, not exactly like we got a holy commandment from above to create the United States
that’s not true. e.g., mass. bay colony routinely deported the illiterate and indigent in the 18th century.
I think thats for economists to tell the rest of us. But the contention here seems to be that undocumented people are a drain on social resources. At a time when there’s a clear problem with health care delivery, to refer to the strain caused by the undocumented on health care delivery is to misappropriate blame and make a solution to the problem of the health infrastructure less, not more, probable
anyway, my interenet is bugging me, I plan to bug out of the discussion before it gets too mired in he said/i said. I don’t actually care…there’s an actual world out there and i’d love to see how these problems get solved on “tha streets” 🙂
sahej, your handle loox 2 much like saheli’s.
And early Catholics were not allowed to vote because they would take directions from the Pope. Only when Catholics “divorced” themselves politically from the Vatican were they accepted into the political mainstream.
Immigrants did not have any rights until they became citizens. The Irish immigrants who protested and refused to go fight the Civil war were massacred without mercy. The Pennsylvania German immigrants who refused to speak English were jailed and made to work in chain gangs.
M. Nam
That is true, they saw something better and moved towards it. I like their risk taking attitude. There is a i will make my life better attitude in them, the underneath mechanism is the same i see in entreprenuers. I dont have a problem with changing their status to a legal resident after paying some taxes and possibaly a fine. But i allways had problems with the libbies who wanted to give them access to subsidized loans etc.
well Saheli is cool so I’ll just pretend you think I’m cool too
anyway I’d like to use a new nickname but the hassle involved is too much. Something like DJ Dirty Poonjabi would be nice
Gaurav: This is what I had written (#172):
It still doesn’t cease to amaze me the level of racism, xenophobia, and condescending hatred that has been unleashed towards undocumented immigrants. Anytime anything goes wrong in this country, the collective fingerpointing is always directed towards illegal immigrants.
Read your response (#193):
Words have meaning. Especially, I consider words like Nazi, fascist , xenophobic or racist to be pretty serious and of grave implication for a person. I think these charges should be used only after thorough deliberations
Where did I accuse people of being Nazis and Fascists? I’m talking about the level of racism and xenophobia. Read a little closer, you twat, and practice what you preach:
Words have meaning. Especially, I consider words like Nazi, fascist , xenophobic or racist to be pretty serious and of grave implication for a person. I think these charges should be used only after thorough deliberations (cit. #193)
Given that you are an inept twirp who has put words that I never said into my mouth, you are:
1) He/she is not mature (a kinder explaination) 2) He/she is not sincere (cit. #193)
and
therefore I can not take CA~ seriously (cit. #193)
since
He/She (Gaurav) has wilfully slandered person who disagree with his/her stand (cit. #193)
Are you one of those creepy guys that that sits behind a computer all day and lurks in forums, defaming people for things THEY NEVER SAID?
This country has a problem with health care delivery without the 12 million undocumented,
No, the delivery is fine. It is covering costs that is proving to be so problematic. The federal governnment does not enforce its own immigration laws, but requires public hospitals to deliver health care to illegals. I also did not set any “boundary” on my Berkeley example, so arguing that I can encourage “millions” to do as I did is not so outrageous. Just cause a university had a certain policy in the past, with a certain expected number of students – why should I allow myself and like-minded persons to be limited by such an arbitrary ceiling? But if I grant you that I replace millions with thousands – does that change the thrust of the argument? And while we are at it, we can institute a policy whereby no college official can ask a student whether they were legally admitted or not. And if those families that are paying increased tuition to cover such costs, you can silence them by calling them bigots.
Aw, thanks Sahej. The levenstein edit distance can hold both of us. maybe go SaheJ and i’ll go SaheLI or something equally dorky. 🙂
Just think how confusing our names are in Spanish! 😀
leva what? actually i noticed that before about our names and it’s always given me an appreciation for your comments on that basis alone, dorkily enough
Firstly, nobody denies that Latinos are hard working. I would add that all immigrants everywhere work harder than the native population. That’s not the issue.
Regarding patriotism – again, not the issue. The issue is: Do they recognise what brought them here? Do they understand the ideology that ravaged their native countries? What policies do they want America to follow? Based on the answers to these questions, American citizens get to decide whether they are partiotic or not.
I recognise that India has had poor public and economic policies. I am very happy that from the mid-1990’s (unfortunately after I immigrated here) India has reversed its course and has opened up her markets. I am pleased that Indians are globalising and doing very well for themselves. I hope that all remaining vestiges of “social justice” policies will be removed and discarded.
Do these illegal aliens wish for that in their home countries? Or do they want their home countries’ mistakes repeated here in America?
M. Nam
everbody wants to be poor and have bad sanitation. its the rule
“Do these illegal aliens wish for that in their home countries? Or do they want their home countries’ mistakes repeated here in America?”
setting aside the fact that illegal aliens are illegal and breaking the law and the debate about that….but these illegal aliens are not responsible for the mistakes in their home countries that created the conditions that drove them to America. they are the “victims” of those policies. they would hardly want to “recreate” or “repeat” them in America given that they didn’t have the power to create any policies in their home countries.
“What policies do they want America to follow? Based on the answers to these questions, American citizens get to decide whether they are partiotic or not.”
isn’t that being applied to all these days? even legal (conservative and liberal) Americans are considered unpatriotic for having one view or the other.
Sahej
Then your solution to the breaking infrastructure is to throw more people at it? The health care problem will be solved only by rationing certain services and procedures by age and having some kind of universal coverage for basic health care. But the problem will never be solved because the free market people will want the market to take care of it and the bleeding hearts will want gold plated services availabe to everybody. I personally know doctors who work in smaller towns who are concerned that the Emergency depts are closing dowb because they have to provide basic care for the indigent and their budgets are going out of whack.
It is basic economics 101 – limited resources and how you distribute it. For better or worse, free markets are the best option available, but it does get prone to excess sometimes and gives the so called progressives an opening to enter the debate and say I said so.
well i didn’t propose a solution to the problem with health care, but i would say that 12 million people are not making or breaking that problem
Sahej,
At the least they are worsening or will the worsen the problem. So how is this going to help find the solution to the problem? It is going to make it more complicated and complicated problems are simply postponed until they go away or as in this case, the bank is broken. If the current problem is difficult by a factor of x, the addition of 12-20 million people is going to make it difficult by a factor of x+y. For simplicity we can say y is a fraction of x in the same proportion as the problem population. So if currently 40-50 million people are uninsured, then the addition of 12-20 million people simply makes it worse by a factor anywhere from 20% to 50%. As I have mentioned I am assuming a very simple formula. It can go either way if you assume other factors but not by very much.
H.I.C,
ya know i see where you’re coming from on that. i think the health care situation needs a larger answer, because i think if undocumented people are not in the equation, there would still be a problem. i agree there’s an added strain, but i don’t think the immigration question rests on this point
i agree there’s an added strain, but i don’t think the immigration question rests on this point
but the immigration question does not rest on one point, but a multiplicity. immigration is a marginal peripheral issue in other topics.
yeah i can see that too. i think all the aspects of the economic impact can be packaged together into one analysis, or thats my assumption.
anyway, sorry for bringing the harsh earlier, i’d have liked to have been more happy in tone. Alas the internet lends itself to antagonism
anyway part deux…arriverderci thread
one love
Such as Baptists, Quakers, and other undesirables, sure.
The Puritans were the squatters I mentioned. Not to say I think they were evil, but they sure as Hell had no moral high ground to stand on.
Such as Baptists, Quakers, and other undesirables, sure.
no, this was a minor issue. rather, the mass. bay colony made a proactive effor to draw from the more literate and well off elements of east anglian puritan society. there were fees to be paid and resources to be declared. there was even discouragement of noble emigration, because the bay colony was aiming for a more middle class calvinist society where privileges of rank were not transferred.
there’s a lot of history out there beyond what you learn in high school.
Yes, I’m aware that there is more history beyond what is taught in high school. Thanks for the heads up, though.
I still don’t see your point. The Puritans were religous refugees squatting on others land. The fact that they didn’t allow certain kinds of squatters to join their ranks doesn’t tell me anything more than that they were close-minded and judegemental, which I already knew. Surely you can’t seriously be suggesting we follow the example of people who threw Quakers and Baptists in stockades for commiting the vile crime of not following the right brand of Christianity?
gosh this thread has turned.
razib — i am truly impressed with your vast knowledge. zal — i’m equally perplexed as to the point.
Maybe we should lock up ALL of the Quakers.
They are pacifists, and that’s downright unpatriotic, dontcha know?
Surely you can’t seriously be suggesting we follow the example of people who threw Quakers and Baptists in stockades for commiting the vile crime of not following the right brand of Christianity
yes, i am. there were lots of good things about the puritans. in the 17th century they created a middle class society where literacy was higher than 90% and where women had relative equality de jure in many ways compared to men (the laws and customs regarding adultery were more equitable in new england as opposed to other parts of the eastern sea board, especially the lowland south). i hold that it is likely that the character of the founding settlers in each region of the western seaboard has had a long term effect that has echoed down through the generations. the puritans in new england. the dutch and quakers in the mid-atlantic. the southwestern english gentry in the lowland south. and the scotch-irish in the uplands and hinterlands. all have contributed to america in their various ways, but i prefer the puritan and mid-atlantic models the most. what the puritans lacked in tolerance and pluralism the mid-atlantic provides, and what the mid-atlantic lacked in seriousness the puritans provide. there are good things about the lowland south and the upland/border south, but i would prefer that this nation not follow their example (though we are in a time of relativel cultural ascendence of these two elements).
back to the point: the choices we make now may echo through generations. i have stated before, and i will state again, our immigration policy should be geared toward the healthy, wealthy and educated. is it any surprise that the “athens of america” is boston, the puritan capital? or that the northeast has the highest concentration of higher education in this country? that progressive social thought, from abolitionism to feminism, emerges from the institutions that reside in that part of the country?
i will be totally frank: low skilled immigrants from mexico are like the scotch-irish. there are urban sophisticates in mexico city, but they stay there because they get a good deal out of that nation’s corporate-oligarchic economy. what we in the united states receive are the those who feel marginalized and know that their hard labor will win them more prosperity to the north because the mexican state and nation will never give them a fair go. the poor scotch-irish came to this nation in the same situation, as they were marginalized “crackers” in their homeland in southern scotland and the ulster province. today, a substantial subset remain poor crackers nearly 250 years later.
when i say “western seaboard” i mean eastern.
and just a note, there is no shame in poverty. but, i contend that inequality saps the vigor of any republic. most men must abase themselves to others and be slaves to others because of the nature of our economy, but there are grades and shades to this.
They are pacifists, and that’s downright unpatriotic, dontcha know?
careful of generalizations. richard nixon was raised a quaker.
razib — i am truly impressed with your vast knowledge. zal — i’m equally perplexed as to the point.
the point is simple, the immigration of newcomers into this continent can not be contained in one sentence. many people make assertions of fact about the character of past immigrants, and imply that selectivity and exclusion are “un-american.” but they aren’t. someone once contended here that in the past immigrants were “all illegal” as if our nation had always thrown open its borders and allowed done & all to settle. but that’s not true.
some forms of exclusionism were unjust, but i think some forms of exclusionism were probably good. some forms of exclusionism were implicit. australia and other nations can be very proactive in seeking out immigrants, to my knowledge the USA tended to be more hands off and left to the potentional immigrants to put forward the funds necessary to make the journey. this excluded some who were lacking on motivation though possessed of inclination to make this their home. and sometimes the exclusion was explicit, whether it be barring non-whites, religious nonconformists or the diseased, poor and indigent. i don’t think all of that exclusion was bad, especially in the case of the last three.
I just can’t help myself… poor and indigent mean the same thing. where did diseased come from? You said “especially” with regard to the last three, please tell me you don’t agree with racial or religious exclusion…..
Now.. agreed that we need to take care of the poor who are already in society, agreed that letting in more poor is, sort of, biting more than we can chew? But I think we can chew more than we admit. I think we can afford to treat with humanity the folks who pick our fruit. I think the labor cycle can tell us how many more immigrants we can take in and I think it should be much much easier.
I think we have to be careful when we choose efficiency over morality because it is a choice we make. Many of the “laws” this nation was built on were pure rubbish. For example: natives didn’t use the land in a way the white man recognized as valuable, so they did not own the land in the way white man defined the term, thus the land was open to be claimed by the first white man to possess it — this allowed for terribly efficient use of land — from one perspective. Many of us today would call it immoral. I think we have to be careful about relying on history.
Regarding immigration: yes, I understand — and i think everyone with access to the internet can understand — that resources are limited. I think the difference of opinion is over how much water we can mix into the stew to help feed the neighbor before impairing our own well being.
Razib, you said something yesterday about being a local pragmatist and universal idealist focused on helping those in close geographic proximity while hoping the effects eventually butterfly-effect out to the world. (did i get it right?) I think most of us would agree with this sentiment. I like that you defined your circle of interest by geography rather than family or ethnicity — tells me that, despite the bickering, you and I probably agree more than disagree. Again, I think our differences are of degree and not kind. And, of course, my jealousy of the breadth of your knowings.
Espressa (245#)
As of this moment around 80% of world population will be eager to emigrate to US. This means much more than a billion people. US can not admit everyone and still maintain tne standard of living. Hence a criteria must exist fot selecting potential immigrants, further that criteria should be the bedrock of all policies concerning immigration. In my view, the greatest benefit for US will accrue when she admits the best and brightest.
I do not fully agree with Razeeb, but obviously he has given much greater thought to the issue and he is more aware of the ground realities
Regards
You said “especially” with regard to the last three, please tell me you don’t agree with racial or religious exclusion…..
i don’t agree with racial exclusion myself because i reject ethnicity and racial identity as primary bonds of fellow feeling. but not everyone feels that way, and some of them probably inhabit these message boards. i don’t mean that in a negative way necessarily, many people are more comfortable with “their own kind.” i am too, i just happen not to define “kind” as an ethnicity or race. to be short about it, israel’s jewish preference is not something i smile upon, but, i do not totally deny the right of the swedes to remain swedes, the chinese to remain chinese, and indians to remain indians by controlling the immigration of people who identify with other races or cultures. amerika is a different case because we are a melange and to some extent have transceded more parochial identifications of race and ethnicity. as for religious exclusion, i am very open to excluding religionists who promote views antithetical to liberalism, but i don’t think in practice it is not workable.
I think we have to be careful when we choose efficiency over morality because it is a choice we make.
the choice does not have to be black or white. i am comfortable with have a quota for refugees and family reunification. but, i would hold that a sustainable first world nation which can absorb refugees and family members must admit in greater numbers those who can integrate fully and wholly into a modern economy as peers. i disagree with bryan caplan’s economical argument that specialization and comparative advantage mitigate the downsides of low-skilled immigration. i think that a republic is built on more than economic growth, though to some extent that might be a necessary precondition (or at least a modicum of prosperity). to give a specific example, i live in oregon. on these message boards i occassionally encounter disbelief from people who live in california that a great deal of landscaping or basic manual labor would get done if it weren’t for immigrant labor. but it does get done here, though in recent years immigrant labor has been filling the demand that no doubt exists. there are professionals here who have “better things to do” than mow the lawn, water the plants or cut the hedges. but i think such “menial” acts are important in building the character of citizens. i am repeating myself here over and over because i get the impression that these sort of contentions are very novel and exotic. interestingly, i was once a pretty strident libertarian, but it is funny how i am arguing like a bot against robert nozick’s idea of society as an enforcer of capitalist transactions between consenting adults only. society is more than that. low-skilled immigrants with little education are perfect primed to slot into the working and underclasses of this nation, and the large the “base of the pyramid” gets the weaker a democratic republic becomes as “natural” grades of rank take on more importance that common feeling as peers.
y do you keep spelling my name “razeeb”???
but i don’t think in practice it is not workable.
i mean that religious exclusionary principles are not very workable (e.g., sifting the good muslims from the nutsos).
Razib(248#)
Oops! Sorry. Isn’t ‘i’ in Razib pronounced hard. Being a Hindi speaker I tend to write hard ‘i’ as “ee”
Regards