May 5, 2009

George Will almost gets it

George Will writes:
California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty. The latter is not California's fault; the former is.

But the rest of his column doesn't acheive that level of insight.

I think there could be a case made that a high level of Mexican immigration is only manageable under a Texas Republican-style system of low government spending, low taxes, and low environmental regulation. But there are a couple of problems with that. It assumes a Texas-size supply of habitable land so that land prices don't go through the roof and there will be enough resource extraction jobs, which California really doesn't have even before all the environmental regulations that the beauty of California inspires. And it assumes that there will be enough Republican voters to keep voting against the new poor people's urge to vote for tax and spend programs. And how much longer will Texas have that?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

19 comments:

Roach said...

Dallas and Houston have become real dumps b/c of mass immigration. That said, Texas' pride in itself and the generally rural Mexicans who come there seem to fit in OK especially when they go to rural areas. I've met a surprissing number of highly assimilated Mexican-Americans from rural Texas who distinguish themselves from "wetbacks."

Anonymous said...

Will and Saletan are getting closer and closer to having their "Come to Sailer" moment.

David said...

George Will has made a career of "almost" getting it. He curbs himself in order to keep the butter on the right side of the bread.

Anonymous said...

Actually, California may have more oil of its coast than there is in all of Texas. Not that the Dems (or your liberal Republican governor) will let you drill any of it.

Ronduck said...

Steve wrote:

And it assumes that there will be enough Republican voters to keep voting against the new poor people's urge to vote for tax and spend programs. And how much longer will Texas have that.

It isn't just the new poor immigrants that vote for this wealth transfer. As all of the Northern states decline they export part of their population southward to the Sunbelt. As these Northern transplants move in they vote for the same crap that impoverished them in their home state. This Northern migration is what slowly turned North Carolina from a state that elected Jesse Helms into a state that voted for John Edwards, and later Barack Obama.

This means that Texas gets hit from both the north and the south at the same time.

If I wanted militant unions, light rail, mass transit, public acceptance of homosexuality, and larger flocks for the RCC I would move to Michigan, Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey. When GM finally collapses how many of the former UAW members will actually understand the reason why their state couldn't generate any other jobs, such as the high taxes and militant unions.

I guess this proves something else: you can't run from yourself.

The same Northern elite that is supporting the Obama administration is also consuming the capital base of its home territory, a capital base that was built up over 350 years by greater men.

stari_momak said...

Yes, Will, who I believe has a PhD in political science, fails to go beyond the most superficial analysis. He fails to make even the fairly obvious connection that Steve makes, that poor people have poor citizen kids that vote for high taxes. What's Will decries teacher's unions without taking into consideration that high demand for teachers, due to high birthrate immigrants, creates the conditions for a powerful union. Likewise the prison guard union. Indeed California has to spend a lot in general on public goods (or quasi-public goods) simply because not doing so means the place will revert to something approaching Mexico. One wonders how much Will gets paid for an 800 word column which shows about zero thought, let alone new thought. Couldn't the WP put that money to better use?

tanabear said...

I read that column by George Will a few days ago at townhall.com and that same line stood out to me as well.

George Will tends to be "soft" on both legal and illegal immigration. As he wrote back in 2006 during the height of the immigration debate,

"Conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France."

I believe that George Will considers himself to be to "mainstream" and to "respectable" to come out and stridently oppose immigration, like Pat Buchanan does.

travis said...

"And how much longer will Texas have that."

How much longer will Texas remain in a union with California?

Mr. Anon said...

"tanabear quoted

George Will saying:

Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty.""

George Will is a faux conservative. An empty suit wrapped in a bow-tie.

Anonymous said...

"How much longer will Texas remain in a union with California?"

You talkin' secession, Johnny Reb?! Secession is getting a bit of press these days, most of it bad. Why is that? Because the left runs the MSM/Establishment and the left/Establishment is scared, terrified in fact. That's why the MSM labeled the "Tea Parties" as gatherings of Nazis, rednecks, right-wing loons, etc...The Tea Parties were the first shot in what will become the Revolt of the Productive Class: White, middle class people who are getting fed up with funding what in essence are giant lab experiments and Leftist whims of fancy being inflicted on the US. Vermont has had a secessionist mov't for years, but they never got any press. Now when TX even utters a peep about it, why General Lee himself is about to rise from the dead! Wonder why that is? Who lives in VT? Who lives in TX? The left is terrified because if secession or even a states rights mov't gathers steam, the good times are over, funding will dry up. This country is closer than many think to breaking apart.

tanabear said...

Mr. Anon: "George Will is a faux conservative. An empty suit wrapped in a bow-tie."

Indeed. Moreover, some basic facts seem to contradict Mr. Will's assertion that allowing illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship" will hasten their integration into American civic life.

George Will, "Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France."

"Almost 50 percent of Muslims living in France today are French citizens and eventually nearly all of them will become French citizens. France has an extremely generous naturalization policy, one that permits all legal residents to apply for citizenship after five years in France and every child born on French soil to apply for citizenship, even if his parents are in the country illegally."
The Middle East QuarterlyMARCH 1997 • VOLUME IV: NUMBER 1

"The Muslim population in France is extremely diverse. Although no accurate statistics are available according to recent estimates there are approximately 4,155,000 Muslims living in France...An estimated three million are French citizens."
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 2002"Unlike their parents’ generation, young Muslims are increasingly requesting nationality, signaling their intention to remain in France and participate fully in public life, culture and politics."
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 2002Apparently, this signal came in 2005 when Muslim youth rioted throughout France.

Reg Cæsar said...

This Northern migration is what slowly turned North Carolina from a state that elected Jesse Helms into a state that voted for John Edwards, and later Barack Obama. --Ronduck

In other words, they ended NC's brief flirtation with the Yankee party, and returned the state to its traditional political home.

Incidentally, the "Carolina Hurricanes" left Hartford because that city refused to build them a new stadium at public expense-- something North Carolinians were more than happy to do. Sort of like those foreign auto plants built all over the Sunbelt with tax breaks unavailable to the locals.


If I wanted militant unions, light rail, mass transit, public acceptance of homosexuality, and larger flocks for the RCC I would move to Michigan, Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey.The transit systems in those states were built long ago mostly by private interests, unlike, say, Atlanta's or Houston's. The unions got militant, and powerful, through "card check", which was put in place in the '30s and '40s by Texas and North Carolina's favorite president. All four of those states voted for Reagan twice, for which Gov. Wallace condemned them, as presumably Ronduck did as well.

It wasn't all that long ago that those in the colder states could say, if we wanted cheap swarthy labor competition, a powerful Democratic Party, and loud guitar music, we would have moved "southward to the Sunbelt".

...a capital base that was built up over 350 years by greater men.You got that right!

Reg Cæsar said...

Conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship... --George Will

...and forcibly returning them to their home country does exactly that!

Ronduck said...

Reg Cæsar said...

It wasn't all that long ago that those in the colder states could say, if we wanted cheap swarthy labor competition, a powerful Democratic Party, and loud guitar music, we would have moved "southward to the Sunbelt".

My point is that right now these people ruin their own states with their stupid political ideas and then once their states become unlivable go on to move to other states that managed to avoid such nonsense. Once these people move in they continue to vote for the same crap that made MI, NJ, MA and NY unlivable.

Second, North Carolina used to be a solidly conservative state, and now due to the alliance of Northern refugees, Blacks, and the small community of existing Southern liberals has been turned into a liberal state. In the end it was the Northerners attempting to run from themselves that caused the change.

Reg Cæsar said...

Ever notice how those who spell "black", "white", or "northern" with a capital usually have some axe to grind?

A new study by the Mercatus Center claims that the five freest states are New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota, Idaho and Texas. People running towards more freedom aren't necessarily going south. North Carolina is attracting-- inviting-- the wrong kind of "refugee". E.g., the Hurricanes.

Likewise, the core of the "stupid political ideas"-- Democrats, unions and organized blacks-- were greatly strengthened by an earlier migration from the South which quickly allied with the "huddled masses". (Not to mention the "Truman Capote element"...)

Any number of commentators (Sam Francis, Charley Reese, Brent Nelson, James Carville, "Mudcat" Sanders) have repeatedly pointed out that Southerners are conservative on race and sex, and little else. Certainly not economics.

Birch Bascomb said...

"Second, North Carolina used to be a solidly conservative state, and now due to the alliance of Northern refugees, Blacks, and the small community of existing Southern liberals has been turned into a liberal state. In the end it was the Northerners attempting to run from themselves that caused the change."

-----------------

Ronduck, those are excellent comments re the state to state white flight relocating liberals. And that is why liberalism is often referred to as a mental illness: running away from your unchanging self is pathological behavior.

Steve has addressed the possibility that in these cases the self can't be changed because it's all about STATUS and that is the one thing people refuse to give up more than anything else.

Therefore until whites who engage in this behavior are publicly shamed and stripped of social status -and that day will come as the pressure on white communities becomes unbearable- then migrating white liberals will continue to move from places they've already made unliveable to new places that they have yet to make unliveable; where they will again spread their suicidal social policy poison which is a means of demonstrating their own high status.

Anonymous said...

"As these Northern transplants move in they vote for the same crap that impoverished them in their home state."

This is just a stupid argument. The northern transplants are from states that are richer than the states they are moving to.

Ronduck said...

Anonymous said...

This is just a stupid argument. The northern transplants are from states that are richer than the states they are moving to.

Those Northern states are richer for now but currently they are not accumulating capital, those states are consuming it. Second, if those Northern states are so rich why do they bleed people constantly, instead of employing them at home? Why do these liberals need to move to Texas, Arizona and North Carolina to find work?

Those states are in long term decline, and the movement of young people from these states is only dwarfed by the Mexodus. If they were not in decline these states would either be gaining young people or at least holding on to the ones they have. Weather can't be blamed for the exodus either, since in the past men were willing to move to these states despite the weather in order to find work.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty. The latter is not California's fault; the former is.Really? What's the voting record of California's two senators and 53 representatives on immigration enforcement? What's the governor's position on immigration enforcement? Has the state legislature voted for laws and programs that would help the federal government enforce immigration laws?