April 11, 2013

Gang of Eight: Complete Cave-in by RINOs?

Am I being too cynical here? From the NYT:
Broad Outlines of Senate Immigration Agreement Emerge 
By JULIA PRESTON and ASHLEY PARKER 
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators has largely agreed on a broad immigration bill that would require tough border measures to be in place before illegal immigrants could take the first steps to become American citizens, according to several people familiar with drafts of the legislation. 
But in a delicate compromise worked out over weeks of negotiations, the bill does not impose any specific measurements of border enforcement results that, if they were not met, would stop the immigrants from proceeding toward citizenship. 
Instead, the bill allows a period of 10 years for the Department of Homeland Security to make plans and use resources to fortify enforcement at the borders and elsewhere within the country before it sets several broader hurdles that could derail the immigrants’ progress toward citizenship if they are not achieved.

Does anybody imagine that in ten years, the Castro Administration's Department of Homeland Security will announce, "Oh, wow, I guess we haven't stopped illegal immigration after all. No citizenship for you!"?

This is basically a ploy to delay the switching of Arizona from Republican to Democrat until after Senator McCain is gone, but that's about it. Those of us who have a longer time frame than John McCain, well, too bad, you should have carpe diemed when you had the opportunity.
... The senators’ compromise allows Republican lawmakers, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida, to say that they achieved border enforcement advances in the bill as a condition before any illegal immigrants can apply for permanent-resident green cards, the first step toward citizenship. 
But it also allows Democrats to describe the border measures as goals that can be achieved with the resources provided, so they will not become roadblocks that could stop the immigrants from reaching the final stage of citizenship. 

Is this just a good cop - bad cop charade with Rubio claiming to be the good cop who just couldn't stand up anymore to Chuck Schumer's Wall Street zillions?

63 comments:

Dave Pinsen said...

More like the rube who couldn't stand up to Chuck Schumer's 1600 SAT score. I'm not sure why Wall Street should care whether amnesty gets passed or not (unless it's part of some triple bank shot where they help Dems get a permanent majority in return for regulatory obeisance, but wouldn't Wall Street be safer with a viable GOP it could play against the Dems?)

It makes sense that the smart guy is a member of the party that would benefit from amnesty, but Schumer is also a guy who has thought about the plight of the middle class -- he's got to be smart enough to understand amnesty would be bad news for them. Maybe he has his own triple bank shot in mind?

I just don't get it. The economic impact of millions of 4th grade dropouts coming to American doesn't seem like it would move the needle enough for Wall Street or any other industry to risk the downsides of radical demographic change. Is it worth it for big ag to lower meatpacking labor costs fractionally but risk a rise of Latin American-style leftism in a decade?

Orthodox said...

The left won a total victory in the 1960s and for that reason, most conservatives today are leftists. The question is whether the right is going to organize into paramilitary units and secede or go off into the sunset, cause there is no victory ever coming at the ballot box. Look at the best shot for secession, the south, where they will never achieve a 50%+ vote for secession among the total population.

If you are right wing and don't want to be stomped for eternity, your only path is to reject democracy entirely. Good luck, considering the Founders were the leftists of their day and the conservatives revere them.

OSS said...

Cave-in? More like cavern-in. Chasm-in. Grand Canyon-In.

anony-mouse said...

Where's the House in this? Why is everyone just focused on the Senate?

I thought in order to pass a law...

Matthew said...

The bill keeps being presented as a trade-off of amnesty in exchange for enforcement, but based on all of the reports I heard of the negotiations, the issue of enforcement didn't generated any heat, probably because all 8 senators know it's bullshit. All the arguments between the various sides were about citizenship for the illegals and adding massive numbers of guestworkers.

The bill is a baby whose father is the cheap labor lobby and whose mother is the leftist lobby trying to increase Democratic voters. Enforcement is the cuckold who is now being presented the baby as his own. I demand a paternity test.

Evan McLaren said...

Homeland Security is going to need some more funding during this ten year practice period.

Anonymous said...

Amnesty passing the senate was always going to happen.

The question is whether the speaker allows a vote on it in the House. He can block it if he wants under the "Hastart Rule"

seth said...

Has no one noticed that this is all taking place only in the Senate? The House has no similar group hammering out deals.

Are the Democrats hoping to arrive at a "consensus" decision on immigration and then shame the House into going along? Or is the whole thing a charade? The House will reject the bill, and then the Dems can run against the obstructionist Republicans in the midterms.

Everyone is acting like this is a done deal, but if the House rejects the compromise then it was all just a lot of noise. Is there something wrong with my logic here?

Aging Slag said...

You're not being cynical enough. You're just wrong. The RINO's are not Republicans in Name Only, they are classic business Republicans who believe in cheap labor above all. And if this ends up destroying the Republican party then that is simply karma. Sow, reap, etc.

Steve, were you ever in favor of unions back when they were the preserve of Democratic working class whites?

Anonymous said...

In the 1960s, Jewish intellectual Katzenelson wrote the 'Ashkenazi revolution'. The book was one of the very few banned in Israel by an Israeli Jewish author, part of the reason is because he foresaw a degradation with the Mizrahi Jews flooding into Israel and he wanted to keep Israel Ashkenazi(read: white) dominant.

Well that ship has failed. White Jews are now intermarrying at very high rates and are less than 40% of the Jewish population(and even less if you count all the Arabs).

Why does he matter? Because he knew Jewish history very well, even if he bastardized it. But his central insight was this: Jews have been able to preserve themselves through the ages because of a central concept:

peoplehood, not land.

Compare/contrast this to the WASP model where you stick it out to the bitter end and identify with the land/nature more than the culture. A good example is whites in South Africa who still cling all they can do that piece of land.

You saw the same thing happening in places like Rhodesia up until the bitter end.

Whites have this obsession about land. As a result they don't have a culture set up around cultural self-preservation. Preservation becomes dependent upon ethnic homogenity itself. But once the homogenous ideal is broken, the social contract between whites quickly deterioate.

This is why the U.S. used to have a de facto welfare society(for it's time, in the 1950s) and where people trusted each other. Not anymore, even among whites. Charles Murray has documented this, by focusing on white America alone.

Part of this is because of what Putnam has identified as the negative consequences of diversity. Communal trust plunges.

But it's also culture. Whites just can't seem to relate to each other based on race/culture across boundaries. It's all based on land.

This is the central difference between Jews and whites. A second difference is that we should get our own religion - a eurocentric religion which should be infused with cultural elements. Christianity is the biggest cultural marxism out there, if you think about. It's also totally beta. Always forgive your enemy? It's a totally universalistic religion with no space for ethnocentrism, unlike, say, Judaism.

(Yes, I know, Jews intermarry at very high rates in America, at 50% or above. But two counter-points, this blends both 1st and 2nd, 3rd etc marriages. But the 1st marriage is by far most important due to childbirth being concentrated here. And intermarriage among 1st marriages is lower. Second, this is only secular Jews. Jews have the Orthodox. We have what? The evangelicals? They'll be overrun by black/latino evangelicals in a heartbeat because they are tools. It's not an eurocentric religion. It's just more fanatical which scares non-whites off, but only to an extent and even that effect is rapidly declining).

I'm past the GOP/Democratic gibberish. In history, the people who make a difference are rarely more than 5-10%. The vast majority of people will go where the most active people tell them to go.

This is why communists were only 5-10% in Russia but won the revolution. Most disciplined/visionary. Even if communism itself is horrendous.

The point remains: the focus should now switch to a cultural focus, a strong eurocentrism. We need only a strong core, the rest will take of itself. The donor class in either party is either evil or stupid and neither are helpful to us. Don't eat from the hand that attacks you.

Anonymous said...

Neither side really wants amnesty because legal latinos are worthless. Only workers who can be exploited without recourse are valuable as well, slaves of a the sort that are definitely second class and lacking the same rights.

A majority of both parties oppose illegal immigration. It is a losing issue. So they have to promise enforcement and very delayed legalization. Most Americans just want them deported.

Chicago said...

Ten years to make plans and set about some course of action? And then in ten years maybe talk about it some more, perhaps. It's all been some big game to deceive the public, allowing things to go on year after year whilst talking about 'virtual fences' and other schemes. Meanwhile the facts on the ground have been changing irrevocably and everybody can see that. If they'd really wanted to do something it'd have been done pronto and done twenty years ago. The public just gets lied to and hoodwinked over and over again; democracy is just an encumbrance to be overcome, not something to be dealt with in an honest manner. The part about enforcement "elsewhere within the country" would most likely just be a ruse for Homeland Security to exert greater powers of spying and monitoring of legal citizens, rather than about finding illegals. Yeah, 2023 is just around the corner.

Anonymous said...

Paradoxically, do you suppose the leftization of the rich slowed down the possibility of real change?

When FDR came on the scene, most of the rich were Republicans and anti-big-government. Since FDR knew most of the rich were against him, he could use a broad coalition to get the rich. But suppose during FDR's time, the rich had been ideologically leftist and behind FDR. Would FDR have done what he did... or would he have acted like Clinton and Obama, the tools of Wall Street and the superrich?
FDR could stick it to the rich cuz the rich opposed him. But what happens when Democrats now have more backing from the superrich?

Also, can there be a real left without powerful labor? The working class made demands because they felt they did all the heavy lifting. They felt pride in their work and demanded a 'fair share'. They didn't feel they were asking for handouts but asking for what was rightfully their since they sweated for it. And when people make things, they feel proud as producers, which cannot be said for service sector employees. Manufacturing beds for hotels is more proud-feeling than making beds in hotels.

Workers felt pride in their work and thought they had every right to demand more. But those on welfare or working for government cannot feel the same kind of pride--and don't have the same kind of sympathy from most Americans. Workers made things, but welfare people just take from others and government workers depend on our taxes. So, welfare folks and government folks cannot feel the same kind of pride that factory workers used to do.

There's more pride in 'we do all the work, so pay us more' than in 'we don't do any work, so give us more'. With the decline in the American working class, there is no effective labor power anymore. Thus, the rich don't feel any real pressure from the bottom. Thus, most of the pressure comes from the top. Wall Street says 'bail us out cuz if you don't, you're antisemitic'. Gays say 'give us 'gay marriage' cuz if you don't, you're 'homophobic'.'

What kind of 'left' is this?
The neo-'left' is the playground of the rich, privileged, decadent, globalist, and narcissistic.

With no effective labor movement, there is no real pressure on the rich and privileged.

But another valuable thing about powerful labor was its conservatism as well as progressivism. Labor pushed for economic progressivism but stood for cultural conservatism. When people work, get paid, and raise families, it makes them conservative. They feel they are not bumming off anyone; they feel they're working and paying taxes and being good citizens. They feel responsible and they feel good about the country, and that makes them culturally conservative.
But the decline of the labor movement killed not only economic progressivism but cultural conservatism. So many workers who lost work or got service sector work no longer have any pride in what they are or do. Conservatism is dead without self-pride.

But it must be said the labor movement shot itself in the foot with corrupt unions that did much to undermine private enterprise.

Auntie Analogue said...


Whatever this bill is, it is neither reform, nor is it comprehensive. It's just a rejiggering of the status quo's holes so big that through them you can drive fleets of NAFTA trucks and, "wink-wink, nudge-nudge," admit yet more millions of illegal alien invader colonists.

Anonymous said...

'This is basically a ploy to delay the switching of Arizona from Republican to Democrat until after Senator McCain is gone, but that's about it.'

No,Steve, it is basically an accounting sleight of hand.

The Congressional Budget Office only scores the cost of legislation ten years from enactment so if the 'Gang of 8' delays green cards for 10 years, the bulk of costs associated with amnesty will not be counted by the CBO when reporting the cost of the amnesty bill. Once these amnestied aliens receive green cards, they are eligible for a host of public benefits that they could not receive before. Because illegal aliens are disproportionately low-skilled with little education and thus have very low incomes, they are likely to depend on those benefits. The costs to the US associated with benefits for the original group and just their immediate families could be astronomical. The immediate costs, however, such as loss of jobs and depressed wages for US workers would be hard to quantify in exact costs.

Couldn't the real reason that the 'Gang of 8' (10 years), the White House (8 years) and La Raza (8-12 years) are recommending these numbers be nothing more than an accounting trick that will enable them to low-ball the cost of this legislation to US taxpayers and thus keep opposition down? Of course, once the 11+ million have their probationary legal status and work permits, there is nothing to stop Congress and the White House from pressing for a 2-3 year waiting period for green cards, or no waiting period at all in the name of humanitarianism. This is basically what happened to enforcement after the 1986 IRCA amnesty. Once the amnesty was enacted, enforcement disappeared.

It appears to me that the ten-year wait is an accounting trick that will help immigration expansionists hide the true costs of their proposals.

Anonymous said...

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-25/book-review-why-i-left-goldman-sachs-by-greg-smith

Funny. A Jewish guy named Smith. Though the book is titled 'Why I LEFT Goldman Sachs', it's more interesting as an account of how he got in. Very engaging.

pat said...

Recently we have had a lot of gang trouble. Senators and Congressmen forming gangs.

Senators continue to need headline generating ploys. But I think the public has grown tired of Congressional investigations. Good thing too.

A Senator with upward aspirations has a problem. No one cares about some state based hot-shot. You have to have a gimmick to reach out to the whole nation.

Harry Truman was maybe the first. He got on the ticket after becoming famous for his investigations of war profiteers.

After the war Estes Kefauver chose to investigate organized crime. Alas it wasn't enough to get him into the White House, although Keefauver did get national exposure and was considered a legitimate Presidential candidate for a time.

The next public problem to merit senatorial scrutiny was union racketeering. Both Jack Kennedy and Bobby used the TV exposure fruitfully. Only an early Muslim terrorist kept us from having two Kennedys in the White House.

Frank Church investigated the Intelligence agencies. He never got much further politically but he did manage to change the national attitude towards some agencies. He took the romance out of the spy business.

Walter Mondale rode his investigation of organized charities almost into the White House. Like Church he hurt the the institutions he investigated. Church is generally considered to have crippled our national intelligence efforts ever since, while Mondale only impacted the level of voluntary giving.

The most harmful senatorial investigator was undoubtedly Al Gore. In a lather to gain the national spotlight he created the whole global warming fru-ha-ha. My question is, "Gore is finished as a legitimate Presidential candidate, can't we now just forget all this warming nonsense?".

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

You can kiss the Republican party goodbye.

x said...

"most americans just want them deported"

is that even true anymore? seems decades of media brainwashing and the unrelentingly presentation of immigration as unequivocally good is finally shifting public sentiment.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/01/immigration-tip-sheet-on-u-s-public-opinion/


http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-28-13-3.png

seems like the public have finally given in. the media has won.




Auntie Analogue said...


WWII British soldiers, exasperated by their assignment to dirty undesirable places bereft of civilized amenities, sang "We're Here" to the tune of "Auld Lang Syne"; and now our politicians may as well be singing to us of the millions of illegal invader colonists whom they intend to amnesty and burden U.S. citizens with:


They're here because they're here because
they're here, because they're here.
They're here because they're here,
Because they're here, because they're here.

They're here because they're here because
they're here, because they're here.
They're here because they're here
because they're here because they're here.

Anonymous said...

"Neither side really wants amnesty because legal latinos are worthless. Only workers who can be exploited without recourse are valuable as well, slaves of a the sort that are definitely second class and lacking the same rights. " - Ah but fellow Anon, passing another amnesty will flood the country with even more illegal cheap foreign workers. This is the 8th time they've done this, they know what they are doing.

Icepick said...

Steve, there's a typo in your headline. That question mark shouldn't be there.

Whiskey said...

I told you Obama's victory had consequences. This is one.

And no, most Americans don't want illegals deported. A new WSJ/NBC poll shows a fairly substantial majority (56%) favor amnesty. So there's that. Most working class/middle class Whites desperately want to join the upper class, and will ape anything and everything the Upper class says is correct. Add to that the gender disparity -- icky beta male working class Whites get hammered, while middle class Whites get cheap household help, and you get the perfect storm. If it results in America turning into Tijuana, well that's a problem for those Whites not born into wealth and money, or lucky enough to get there.

Anonymous said...

You can never be too cynical in modern politics.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

The Congressional Budget Office only scores the cost of legislation ten years from enactment so if the 'Gang of 8' delays green cards for 10 years, the bulk of costs associated with amnesty will not be counted by the CBO when reporting the cost of the amnesty bill. Once these amnestied aliens receive green cards, they are eligible for a host of public benefits that they could not receive before.

Tax Cost Of Each Low-Skilled Immigrant Household ($10K in, $30K out)

Svigor said...

Always forgive your enemy?

You're describing your own special brand of horseshit, not Christianity. There is no Scripture that says that, and no Christian doctrine that says that, either.

How about people who know nothing about a subject refrain from holding forth on it? They can start by refraining from presenting heresy as doctrine.

Svigor said...

I'm past the GOP/Democratic gibberish. In history, the people who make a difference are rarely more than 5-10%. The vast majority of people will go where the most active people tell them to go

The sign for that is years back for me. I'm coming up on "Anarcho-Fascism, next Right" and my turn signal's on.

Anonymous said...

The media and its silencing of immigration patriotism is disgusting, but this bill still has many hurdles, and marco (along with Rand) have to answer to republican primary voters in 2016. But wow the media amnesty promotion has been effective.

Anonymous said...

To call them RINOs for selling the country down the river is to completely misunderstand Republicans for what they are: the merchant party. Decent middle class and poor white folk simply lack any political representation at all.

Anonymous said...

Oh wow the pagan LARPing crowd made its way over from 4chon.

Also a telephone poll of 500 people isn't a majority of shit.

Luke Lea said...

The WSJ headlines a story today about how e-verify is to become part of the new program of immigration enforcement. In the body of the article we learn that it that it takes two months to e-verify a new employee's status, and that it will be five years before the program becomes fully mandatory.

Average Joe said...

I may be a little too pessimistic but I think it may be too late to save the United States.

File Under Men with Gold Chains said...

Steve, slightly off topic.

Have you seen the recent news article regarding the cardiologist who plead guilty this week to the biggest health care fraud in history (19 million) committed by a single physician?

His name? ... Why it is Dr. Jose Katz...!!! Oy Vey ... what's a nice Spanish mother to do?

I swear you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

Anonymous said...

I told you Obama's victory had consequences. This is one.

Give me a break. Your neocon crowd ruined this nation after the election of 2000, and did every thing they could to bring on amnesty. Though they did not get amnesty, they did next to nothing to enforce the border or fine companies that hired illegals. As a result the nation swelled with even more third worlders, and we even got the diversity recession as Steve has pointed out.

You continually post that the wheels came off with Obama's election. The wheels were loosened with Emanuel Cellar's Immigration Act of 1965, passed when Obama was 4 years old. Yet you never seem to mention this. And it took 8 years of a disastrous presidency to pave the way for someone like Obama to even have a chance of winning.

Go back to watching the Carrie Diaries.

Anonymous said...

is that even true anymore? seems decades of media brainwashing and the unrelentingly presentation of immigration as unequivocally good is finally shifting public sentiment.


If you can go from having a public with no ability to conceptualize homosexual marriage twenty years ago to a public being on the precipice of accepting it today, then support for any issue can be made possible by our sophisticated propaganda machine.

So no. I would not be surprised if there are polls showing people support amnesty especially if the questions are worded in specific ways.

Pink Arrow Gal said...

look, we lost--a second poll has come out recently showing that a majority of americans think immigration is a good thing. We lost. The tide is not going to turn. Of course I think most of the major writers on the anti-immigration side already knew it was a lost cause and were just in it for the money.

Read em and weep:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/04/11/immigation-big-majority-wants-path-to-citizenship-poll/

So, the pro-immigration propaganda has won. What next?

Rohan Swee said...

A second difference is that we should get our own religion - a eurocentric religion which should be infused with cultural elements. Christianity is the biggest cultural marxism out there, if you think about. It's also totally beta. Always forgive your enemy? It's a totally universalistic religion with no space for ethnocentrism, unlike, say, Judaism.

Yet for a thousand years (and few centuries more, in some places), Christianity was a religion of the sword. Loving one's enemy didn't seem to enjoin kicking his ass in the days when European man took his faith seriously. When it was a living faith nobody in Christendom was examining his conscience for the sins of xenophobia and racism. Hell, even in the 19th-century, those Last Days of Christian Europe, the most brotherly-lovin' and Wilberforcian of whites were serene in their souls about the ascendancy of their race in the God-appointed hierarchy of Man. Those were the liberals, mind you. There were still plenty of believing, devout white Christians running around who weren't fussed at all about the Unitarian preoccupations of the modern virtually atheist model.

Either European man was just remarkably slow-witted and it took a millenium-and-a-half for that alleged "inherent" pacifism to sink in, or Christianity is about as inherently turn-the-other-cheek as Islam is a religion of peace.

Religions don't feminize societies. Societies feminize religions. A "eurocentric religion...infused with cultural elements"? That's pretty much what the long centuries made of Christianity in Europe. Something more indigenous infused with the current "cultural elements"? So long Hippie Jesus. Helloooo Metrosexual Odin.

Anonymous said...

No cave-in. The RINOs always wanted the same thing but they have to lie to their voters.

24AheadDotCom said...

1. This is a very slow speed "cave-in" that's been happening since the election or before. Before the election, the MSM and others tried to weaken Mitt2012 on the issue and succeeded. Almost the very day he lost, they used the loss as a pretext to logroll amnesty.

2. Those pushing this aren't just RINOs, they're full-on SuperDuper SuperPatriot TrueConservatives like TP leaders, Norquist, etc. etc. Starting four years ago I warned that the TP movement would be bad for amnesty. We're on our fourth or so amnesty attempt since then (two failed Dream Act pushes, the successful DACA push, and the current attempt). The TP "patriots" have ignored those and their leaders have done the same or been on the wrong side. For instance, the TP "Patriots" still call Rand Paul a "hero".

3. Does anyone else have an actual battle plan to block this? I have a plan - discredit and impact the careers of those who support Rubio etc. - and that plan would be devastatingly effective with a relatively small amount of help. However, I can't get any help. So, does anyone else have an actual battle plan?

24AheadDotCom said...

Pink Arrow Gal writes: "look, we lost...So, the pro-immigration propaganda has won. What next?"

1. That sounds a bit too Tokyo Rose for my taste, even if not meant in that sense.

2. If "pro-immigration propaganda", don't blame me (or vDare). Both I and vDare have been exposing such propaganda for years. What have you done to help? For instance, many of my posts say, "tweet the supporters of this reporter to let them know the reporter can't be trusted". Have you done anything like that?

Anonymous said...

Pink Arrow Girl, those polls are manipulated. They are worthless.

Every article I've seen in the MSM about the amnesty has an overwhelming majority of negative comments underneath. This includes left-wing sites like HuffPo and WaPo.

Join NumbersUSA and start faxing and calling, and also write them a check. If everyone reading this thread did those things, it would be significant.

Note that only about 10,000 people showed up in Washington yesterday to screech for amnesty. Compare this with the several million who marched in 2006.

Are they so over-confident it's a done deal that they didn't even bother to show up? If so we can use that against them.

Also, keep in mind, we don't have to defeat the amnesty right off--all we have to do is drag it out, so that the 2014 midterms loom closer and closer. Then a lot of our traitors--er "representatives"--will start getting nervous.

David said...

>Is it worth it for big ag to lower meatpacking labor costs fractionally but risk a rise of Latin American-style leftism in a decade?<

Of course. Remember, the fiduciary duty of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders, period. That means per quarter; forget about 10 years. If a corporation is a person, then that person has the time preference of a mentally handicapped 12-year-old. Well, thank goodness the Invisible Hand is there to protect the nation.

x said...

any actual proof the polls are manipulated? i would like to see it. not here trying to knock immigration restriction or anything - if it were up to me all of them would be loaded into trucks and shipped out in a fortnight, but are there counter polls with more suitable wording demonstrating opposite sentiment? or are we merely believing what we want to believe?

it wouldn't surprise me that the relentless media brainwashing and immigration pushing has resulted in a population who has finally given up resisting on this issue.

eah said...

Would anyone be surprised? See "NO".

Michael Ard said...

Maybe there's nothing to worry about. How can the INS or Border Patrol assure they are intercepting 90 percent of illegals crossing the border? They have no idea what percentage they apprehend now. Based on that standard, the present illegals will never be naturalized.

Anonymous said...

Learn to write software in 9 weeks? New coding boot camps promise to launch tech careers

From the Jobs Americans Won't (or Can't) Do file...

http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-spent-11000-on-a-coding-bootcamp-and-doubled-his-salary-2013-4

ben tillman said...

>Is it worth it for big ag to lower meatpacking labor costs fractionally but risk a rise of Latin American-style leftism in a decade?<

Of course. Remember, the fiduciary duty of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders, period. That means per quarter; forget about 10 years. If a corporation is a person, then that person has the time preference of a mentally handicapped 12-year-old.


That doesn't work. The future value of the company is factored into the present value. Thus, the board must be concernd about future value.

Anonymous said...

Here is the latest on the amnesty bill from Numbers USA:

"There can always be more delays, but unless there are, it's becoming more apparent that the Senate Gang of Eight will introduce its massive, 1,500-page "comprehensive immigration reform" bill next week. The bill will grant instant legalization and the right to work to most of the 11-18 million illegal aliens.

The Gang has been working for months in secrecy and behind closed doors, only allowing a few pro-amnesty groups into the discussions. Despite promises to brief their own party caucuses, they've even failed to loop them into the process. It's likely that's not their only promise that will be broken should the plan become law.

Through leaks to the press, we've learned a some of the details.

First, as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said, the legalization will come before the enforcement. Millions of illegal aliens will receive amnesty once DHS submits a plan to Congress detailing how they'll secure the border. Just to clarify, they only have to show a plan; they don't have to actually do it. Just like the border promises of 1986, these promises will likely be long forgotten after the amnesty is granted.

Second, even though the Gang's plan calls for increased border security, it only calls for increases in areas where there are high numbers of illegal border crossings. I'm sure it won't be too difficult for the sophisticated smugglers that have been evading detection for years to relocate their operations to another spot along the 3,000-mile border.

Third, the plan calls for a 5-year implementation of E-Verify. We're happy to see E-Verify included in the plan, but Rep. Lamar Smith's bill in the last Congress rolled out the program in three years with most employers required to use it in the first 6 months. This slow of a phase-in will give ample time for more illegal workers to flood across the borders and secure jobs that could otherwise go to unemployed Americans.

Fourth, the plan calls for completion of the entry/exit system (again, a positive step), however, it only covers completion at sea and air ports. Each day, thousands of foreign visitors enter the country using land ports at places like El Paso, Texas, San Diego, Calif., Buffalo, N.Y., and Detroit, Mich. None of these ports will be required to install the entry/exit system.

Fifth, the plan's guest-worker program, which will eventually provide up to an additional 200,000 "temporary" work permits a year, isn't so temporary. The plan hammered out by the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will permit worker! s to change jobs and eventually allow them to apply for a green card.

Just think of what we'll learn when the bill is actually introduced!"

Evil Sandmich said...

Thus, the board must be concernd about future value.

Hahaha..ha, oh you're serious.

Anyway, we just have to run interfence until the economy takes a (bigger) hit to the groin (in a few months) and the CongressCritters will look like the fools they are playing with immigration and gun control while the country burns.

David said...

>That doesn't work.<

Let's say responsible corporations factor future value into present value.

There are (as always everywhere) disincentives to responsible management. I think these disincentives are rather stronger and more numerous in recent years than they should be.

The most disabling, IMO, is the tendency to think short-range. After all, when you get down to it, who is going to be around in any corporation 10 years down the road, really? The tacit answer to that question usually is "the drones" or "no one" or this favorite from John Maynard Keynes (wrt government): "In the long run, we'll all be dead."

In some cases short-range thinking is not a bug, but a feature. A certain clothing retailer, an important employer in my region, went bust in recent years. My father played golf with the fellow who took it to over one billion in sales with a new strategic business model. Dad asked him about the corporation's closing its doors. "Well," came the reply (sour grapes?), "we never planned to go on forever. That business model can't last more than [x] years. We squeezed everything we planned to out of the thing." This was information unknown to hundreds of employees and shareholders. Many had reasonably assumed that the company was intended to be a going concern, right up until the moment they discovered a pink slip in their inbox and learned the new - accurate - share price.

I don't think that this anecdote is about one business owner's sour grapes or about an exceptional situation. For all the talk about corporations' being immortal creatures, they fundamentally are paper instruments formed to cadge money for the founders. After that purpose is accomplished (which could be in 30 years or 2), the old future ends and a new one begins.

Anonymous said...

They're not RINOs. Going according to the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce has always been a Republican virtue. If anything, all of you who object to it are the real RINOs.

ben tillman said...

Let's say responsible corporations factor future value into present value.

There are (as always everywhere) disincentives to responsible management.


But it's not a matter of management; it's a matter of the market.

The current market value of the company's shares equals the market's calculation of the discounted present value of the future value that will flow to shareholders from their ownership of those shares. A de-facto liquidation will (usually) hurt the value of the company.

However, you are right, the market may not be privy to the information it needs to make this calculation, and management may be effectively looting the company as in the example you described.

Jim Bowery said...

The geographically fine structure of Y-Chromosome markers in all sexual species, including humans, compared to the geographically gross structures of mtDNA of those same species shows that females are relatively free to migrate while male migration is inhibited.  Observation of male behavior makes it clear that a central feature of this inhibition of male migration is individual male combat.  Group selection supplants individual male combat with group combat, ie: war.  As civilization imposes its ever larger scales of “Pax”, male migration is freed to a point that simply would not occur in nature.

A humane civilization would recognize the violence this does to human sexuality—particularly in the unnatural “female choice” presented by the artificial ecology, as would a good zoologist taking the role of zoo keeper be humane to the animals under his care; but has there ever been a humane civilization?

Glaivester said...

For all of you quoting MSM polls to prove that U.S. citizens want amnesty, here are a few rebuttals:

Some things you didn't hear about the Brookings poll purporting public support for amnesty

Polling shows Romney's pro-enforcement more popular than Obama's pro-amnesty

A Reader Exposes Two Phony Pro-Amnesty Polls

We cannot be discouraged, and we cannot give up. We need to fight in the House and the Senate, and in addition we need to fund people like Judicial Watch and NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation who are fighting against the administration's administrative amnesty.

Anonymous said...

"Is this just a good cop - bad cop charade with Rubio claiming to be the good cop who just couldn't stand up anymore to Chuck Schumer's Wall Street zillions?"

Politics is funny sometimes. Take the Iraq War. The narrative has been 'neocons had this idealistic vision of turning Iraq into a stable modern democracy, but they naively overlooked all the sectarian divisions in Iraq and all hell broke loose'.

But maybe, just maybe, from a neocon point of view, Iraq was a great success precisely because it was a total failure. Maybe that's what neocons really wanted: to stoke the fires of sectarian hatreds. I mean why would Zionists want a new Iraq that is free, democratic, rich, and powerful? Democratic or not, it would be a rival to Israel. Also, as a democracy, it might obtain the right to build up its military and even attain nukes. After all, democratic nations are supposed to be trustworthy. So, maybe neocons never wanted Iraq to succeed. Maybe all the 'naive' and 'foolish' things that neocons advised for Iraq weren't really naive at all. Maybe, neocons dismantled the entire Iraq army and banned the Baath party precisely to set off a war amongst the Arabs/Muslims/Kurds, etc. If Muslims are fighting Muslims, Arabs fighting Arabs, Arabs fighting Kurds, how can they ever come together to challenge Israel?

And there's been an extension of that policy in Libya and Syria. US didn't invade those nations but used the cover of 'Arab Spring' to funnel tuns of arms to all sorts of groups so that civil war would explode all over the place. They are really 'more Iraq wars minus the invasion'. The policy is the same: stoke sectarian hatred and instigate a civil war.
Once a strongman like Hussein or Assad is gone, humpty dumpty cannot be put together again since there are so many clans and sects and ethnics in that part of the world.

Just as neocons used Shias against Sunnis and Sunnis against Shias and Kurds against Arabs and Arabs against Kurds in Iraq, US is now funneling arms to all sorts of groups in Syria. These groups are now fighting Assad but if Assad goes, they'll be fighting one another. Great for Israel.

So, while Iraq War was a disaster for America, it was a great success for Israel and Zionist neocons. Zionists do NOT want any successful and stable Arab nation in the Middle East. Indeed, a democratic Muslim nation, if successful and stable, could be more dangerous to Israel. After all, democratic/modern Turkey is a bigger challenge to Israel than other Muslim nations.

ben tillman said...

For all of you quoting MSM polls to prove that U.S. citizens want amnesty, here are a few rebuttals....

Nobody supports amnesty, and we all know that.

Anonymous said...

Schumer - The Evil Party incarnate.

Rubio - The Stupid Party incarnate.

Glaivester said...

I don't trust that Pink Arrow Gal is actually on our side. For the first thing, "read em and weep" is not the type of thing that an ally says when citing discouraging news. It's what you say when you are taunting people.

Secondly, statements like "Of course I think most of the major writers on the anti-immigration side already knew it was a lost cause and were just in it for the money" seem designed not just to lament the supposed ineffectiveness of the anti-immigration side, but to create mistrust of anyone who is vocally fighting the battle.

She seems a little like Eric Falkenstein, who a few weeks ago when he posted that we simply have to accept amnesty because if we don't move left, we're doomed. I don't trust her and I would not take her advice. Giving up is not helpful.

Glaivester said...

Does anyone else have an actual battle plan to block this? I have a plan - discredit and impact the careers of those who support Rubio etc. - and that plan would be devastatingly effective with a relatively small amount of help. However, I can't get any help. So, does anyone else have an actual battle plan?

Okay, how can I help?

Anonymous said...

I've been arguing for a while that maybe instead of posting about dead German intellectuals and what to call the network of blogs and thinkers (alt Right? Dark Enlightenment?), maybe Steve, Derb, Taki, and the rest could have made their presence known and formed an intellectual counter battery/activist group by rallying their audience.

Cail Corishev said...

1. Rally the audience.
2. ?
3. Profit.

I seem to be getting to use that a lot lately.

Discard said...

Polls reporting that Americans favor immigration and amnesty are no more likely to be truthful than any other reporting on racial issues. Just like the rest of the MSM, they understand everything through the leftist narrative and lie about the rest.

Anonymous said...

Okay Cali just let the pro-amnesty group dominate the narrative instead of attempting to make any difference while the alt right sphere circlejerks over Heidegger.

But hey you got to make a mid 90s pop culture reference so obviously my argument has no legs.