In the Daily Caller, Neil Munro explains:
Administration officials tried to head off public protest over their June 15 decision to not deport under-30 illegal immigrants by claiming that the de-facto amnesty is not a legal amnesty.
“This is not amnesty — it is an exercise of [prosecutorial] discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system,” said President Barack Obama’s immigration deputy, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. ...
“Effective immediately, young [foreign] people who were brought to the United States… will no longer be removed from the country,” Napolitano said in the press conference.
... The administration’s election-year amnesty move may grow far larger than advertised, because it can be used by foreign children who are now in the country when they reach the age of 15. Younger illegal immigrants “will be able to age into the process,” said an administration official June 15.
It may also be exploited by other immigrants who will use the existing black-market in false documents to fake suitable work histories and ages.
The new policy may also spur additional illegal immigration by people wishing to see their children immigrate into United States’ relatively high-wage economy. ...
The potential for campaign-trail damage was highlighted by Napolitano’s June 15 press conference.
She portrayed the amnesty as a cost-saving program, not an amnesty or a bid for Hispanic votes in 2012.
But she did not take questions from reporters.
Instead, two administration officials answered questions from selected reporters, including from the Spanish-language TV network, Univision and from The New York Times.
The selected reporters did not offer skeptical questions about the scale and impact of the amnesty. The reporters also did not ask about its impact on American workers, especially low-skill workers whose wages and opportunities have declined for more than a decade amid the inflow of roughly 10 million illegal immigrants.
Neil then made himself the worst person in the history of the world by jumping in toward the end of Obama's speech announcing his amnesty-by-fiat to ask how this will help American workers. A visibly miffed Obama "explained" that "These young people are going to make extraordinary contributions ..." And who could possibly argue with that?
If you are a bad, bad person, you might object that illegal immigrants and their descendants aren't blank slates, that we have many decades of experience with them, and that the evidence from a couple of generations in Southern California is they mostly make wages lower, real estate costs higher, and public schools lousier for working and middle class Americans.
In contrast, they provide almost no competition whatsoever for elite Americans. For example, no Spanish-surnamed person who spent at least some of his or her youth in the United States has earned an Academy Award nomination in any category, no matter how minor, since the 1980s. That is extraordinary. That's something like an 0 for 3000 cold streak for the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles County. The closest thing to a Mexican-American getting an Oscar nomination in this century are the Weitz Brothers, whose maternal grandmother was a silent movie star from Mexico. But their dad was a fashion designer and race car driver from Berlin.
Look, if you find that, on the whole, illegal immigrants make life worse for you and yours, that just shows you are a loser who has failed to "insulate, insulate, insulate" yourself. So, why should anybody listen to a loser like you, or to anybody who speaks up for losers and no doubt has had Loser Cooties rub off on him? If you object to this unimpeachable logic about why you have cooties, that just shows you are incapable of nuanced thought.
If you are a bad, bad person, you might object that illegal immigrants and their descendants aren't blank slates, that we have many decades of experience with them, and that the evidence from a couple of generations in Southern California is they mostly make wages lower, real estate costs higher, and public schools lousier for working and middle class Americans.
In contrast, they provide almost no competition whatsoever for elite Americans. For example, no Spanish-surnamed person who spent at least some of his or her youth in the United States has earned an Academy Award nomination in any category, no matter how minor, since the 1980s. That is extraordinary. That's something like an 0 for 3000 cold streak for the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles County. The closest thing to a Mexican-American getting an Oscar nomination in this century are the Weitz Brothers, whose maternal grandmother was a silent movie star from Mexico. But their dad was a fashion designer and race car driver from Berlin.
Look, if you find that, on the whole, illegal immigrants make life worse for you and yours, that just shows you are a loser who has failed to "insulate, insulate, insulate" yourself. So, why should anybody listen to a loser like you, or to anybody who speaks up for losers and no doubt has had Loser Cooties rub off on him? If you object to this unimpeachable logic about why you have cooties, that just shows you are incapable of nuanced thought.
Posts
130 comments:
Obama's advisers think some knocked-together coalition of blacks, gays, and Hispanics will save him.
- A Solid Citizen
What is that feature where you can search key words for how often they appear in print? It seems it could be documented that despite immigration of tons of hispanics, their share among high achieving folks has dwindled to a disproportionate low.
The American people are reminded occasionally that they elected a radical to office.
Immigration and Sabermetrics
Very timely article, and topics in your wheelhouse Mr. Sailer.
Too bad he didn't ask the obvious followup question: "Doing what?" Then if Obama mumbled out some example, the next question should have been, "So with unemployment at 10%, what do you say to the unemployed American citizen who would like to be making that extraordinary contribution?"
This stuff really doesn't seem that hard.
Went to VDARE after seeing the Julian Epstein TV spot and they don't even have your post linked (there is however something from earlier this week bitching about Rubio)
The item at 24Ahead was good for a stopgap post.
Let's have some whimnesty here.
"Went to VDARE after seeing the Julian Epstein TV ...."
There are many, many political spinners who make me sick, but none causes my gag response to give the dry heaves as long as Epstein.
Yes, granted it's bad for America, but is it not a politically advantageous move? That's the only question that matters. Does it boost the fortunes of Obama and his party? Have they not won themselves hordes of new clients?
Perhaps Mr. Obama could have given a guess as to the average GPA of said students...after all, he said they are making this land a better place.
This will never happen but I'd love his opponent to suggest that Americans chip in and buy bus tickets for these kids and their parents to travel home, which is Mexico for most of them, and we'll have eager college students and Occupiers, as well as community organizers help them organize a march on Mexico City for representation and jobs.
THE MILLION MESTIZOS MARCH (could be the 15 Million Mestizos March) sponsored by loving and concerned Americans. I like it.
The American people are reminded occasionally that they elected a radical to office.-IHTG
Doesn't this election sometimes seem like a contest between the Hollywood Jews and the Tel Aviv Jews?
Well at least the fruit in California's orchards will get picked!
Just annex Mexico and get them pumping more babies. At this rate you're gonna run out of mestizo serfs too.
I was almost not going to vote, Romney being no hero. However, after hearing this, there is no way I won´t be voting against Obama. I really hope he loses.
"Doesn't this election sometimes seem like a contest between the Hollywood Jews and the Tel Aviv Jews?"
LoL!!!
Meanwhile, the NY Times publishes an article about how Israel needs to fight immigration for demographic reasons:
"Can a Small Country Have a Big Heart?"
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/israel-copes-with-illegal-immigrants/
No comment:
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/israel-copes-with-illegal-immigrants/
"Can a very small country have a very big heart?
The answer, sadly, is no. Not always, anyway. Given our history, demography, current political circumstances and values, a serious effort to block illegal immigration from Africa – or any other region — is essential. It is essential if we want Israel to remain Jewish. It is essential if we want Israel to remain prosperous.
Israel can and should absorb a reasonable number of refugees, but it should not be expected to be the ultimate destination for Africans escaping poverty and war. Deportation is necessary to convince the next potential waves of migrants that coming to Israel would not be wise.
Searches and arrests, erecting of border fences, bolstering of guard units, kicking out poor migrants – all these scenes will now become a chapter in Jewish history. Israel has no other choice."
Obama signed his resignation letter today. This will backfire in a major way. It will re-energize the Tea Party crowd, most of the (still) illegals will contribute no votes for him, and it will do nothing but detract from him by many others who are being harmed by this. Obama has been making desperate screw-ups for some time now, and this is one of his largest yet.
"[Napolitano] portrayed the amnesty as a cost-saving program, not an amnesty or a bid for Hispanic votes in 2012."
- In what way is this the least bit cost saving? Reduced cost of police to bring them in and deport them? They weren't doing that any way. Reduced cost of green cards? Immigrants who did get them have to pay quite a bit- somewhere on the order of $4K to get one, all in all. That's a loss of cash to the US- It would have made more sense to require that then to just hand them out for free. Not to mention the list of burdens that are imposed in Steve's list.
Like many other things by the Obama administration, it was not only unwise, it was clearly thwarting the process of government by the people and democracy. They can't pass crap like this through congress, so they just decree it, like a tyrant. Obama is certainly good for screwing up and hastening the demise of this country. But I think that has been the plan all along.
"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ."
You'd think a constitutional scholar would . . . oh hell, never mind.
spandrell said...
Well at least the fruit in California's orchards will get picked!
Just annex Mexico and get them pumping more babies. At this rate you're gonna run out of mestizo serfs too.
Well, Spandrell, for someone whose name is a homage to Stephen J Gould, that was pretty snarky ...
Surely those Mestizos will all turn into rocket scientists under the influence of California's enlightened policies.
I agree w/ the comment that this became an ultimatum moment for O, his public "I Quit" letter. Fast & Furious contempt is coming soon, as with SCOTUS ruling. Despite the latest effort today at screwing over blacks who don't work in Fairfax or Montgomery County the instant rapid response from the PR cadres consisted of heckling horror. This sideshow with the Irish reporter, the new Emmanuel Goldstein of the week, has displaced the entire disgraceful presser itself and its insidious butt-covering timing (probably as requested by Holder)
""Can a very small country have a very big heart?"
Ah I see that's it.. its just that israel is small that's why they get to do it.. but wait.. so is Ireland but they don't get to do it.. hmm can't figure out the difference..
And like clockwork Wash. Post issues warning to Steve King
A visibly miffed Obama "explained" that "These young people are going to make extraordinary contributions ..." And who could possibly argue with that?
Extraordinary contributions? Like intimidating citizens even more?
Oh, and voting to allow those in power to remain in power?
"Anonymous said...
"Doesn't this election sometimes seem like a contest between the Hollywood Jews and the Tel Aviv Jews?"
LoL!!!"
That's a real good one. I'm gonna remember that one. Yes indeed. LOL!
"So, why should anybody listen to a loser like you, or to anybody who speaks up for losers and no doubt has had Loser Cooties rub off on him?"
No one wants to catch loser. alas rots tend to spread.
"
Anonymous Simmons said...
Obama signed his resignation letter today. This will backfire in a major way. It will re-energize the Tea Party crowd, most of the (still) illegals will contribute no votes for him, and it will do nothing but detract from him by many others who are being harmed by this. Obama has been making desperate screw-ups for some time now, and this is one of his largest yet."
- I'm disappointed. You guys clearly aren't thinking deviously enough. Think from the standpoint of someone who only cares about themselves, regardless of how much damage it causes everyone else, and their country. Think like a wealthy liberal democrat who benefits from more democratic votes, more cheap laborers, etc.
Obama cannot win. His team knows this. They aren't just screwing up again and again, they are getting Obama to do the unpopular things that are good for themselves (their party) regardless of how unpopular it sits with the voters, because he very much already is a last-term president. Just like Clinton doing all manner of shady things his last leg in office (Using his office to pardon clients for his brother's law firm, etc.), they are getting Obama to do these things which benefit the Dems, like increase the number of Dem supporting voters (and the number of people who rely on the gov't teat).
They aren't being stupid. Its quite clever, actually. Devious, but clever. This will go through, and the Republican going into office (presumably Mitt) will not dare to overturn it for fear of the media presenting him as a racist anti-Hispanic. I'm sure Obama will be handsomely rewarded for it.
The constitution is no threat to our form of government - Joe Sobran
This amnesty is an outrage, but it was not a mistake. White outrage will provoke a little more Hispanic voter participation and Obama will keep his top and bottom alliance perfectly intact.
"I'm very busy with half a dozen more fundraisers to attend this week; but as a personal favor to America I'm issuing an executive order that helps DHS get a jump on their summer vaykay. If you don't mind a little dry heat everyone please do consider a stop in Clark County, Nev. where their public sector folks are hurting real bad as of late"
For example, no Spanish-surnamed person who spent at least some of his or her youth in the United States has earned an Academy Award nomination in any category, no matter how minor, since the 1980s. That is extraordinary. That's something like an 0 for 3000 cold streak for the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles County.
Well, I can't say that I've been following the current immigration debate much one way or the other. But by purest coincidence, I just now happened to be rereading portions of Beyond the Melting Pot by Glazer and Moynihan. In Moynihan's long chapter on the Irish, he mentioned how remarkable it was that such a large and influential urban population controlling NYC, Boston, and several other leading urban centers of American life had in over 100 years produced scarcely a single notable thinker, scholar, academic, scientist, poet, artist, philosopher, or diplomat. Presumably, in our celebrity-besotted age, he might have added movie director, pop star, and Hollywood celeb to his 1950s list.
Interestingly enough, Moynihan is describing Catholics in general, rather than the Irish in particular, so you can probably throw in all the Italians and Slavs as well in most of those categories...
And don't flame me about this harsh claim---save your barbs for candid Ol' Pat...
Whim's border policies are too tough against undocumented comments.
Average wages in LA are 5-20% higher than the national average. So if they are hurting the wages of unskilled native-born laborers it's obviously not too much. http://www.bls.gov/ro9/oeslosa.htm
So to me there's no compelling case to be anti-immigration. I'm an upper class skilled-worker who's not in any way competing with Latino immigrants for jobs. I look at LA and despite massive immigration it's still one of the nicest places in the US (all this on top of an awful state government). LA has the same crime rate now that it did in 1960.
It had a housing bubble, but so did low immigration West Florida. Meanwhile high immigration Texas had no bubble. Maybe the schools are worse, but to my knowledge there's no evidence that white test scores in LA county are declining. If anything they're on the rise compared to the rest of the country. So it's pretty hard to say that heavy Latino immigration is some curse on cities subjected to it.
In addition I highly benefit from cheap immigrant labor. I employ a Central American house cleaner that saves me tremendous amounts of time. I enjoy eating out at restaurants that are made affordable and competitive through cheap Latino labor.
To the extent that lower-middle class Americans are being hurt by immigrant competition, well maybe a little, but it's obviously not too much a disaster for them. And even if it does make low-class native born Americans slightly worse off, there's no arguing that immigrating the US drastically improves the immigrants' living quality. So from a utilitarian perspective it's an easy sell.
At this point those in the Sailer-sphere respond that I should care more about the low-skilled American born laborers than than low-skilled Mexican laborers. And. Yet. I. Don't.
I definitely live in Charles Murray upper class bubble. To tell you the truth low-class prole whites are almost as alien to me as Central American peasants. I went to school and work with tons of the educated upper-class from other nations, and I have far more in common with them than I do with the native under-class of my own country.
At the end of the day the biggest thing that scares me about immigrants is that tend to vote for politicians of an anti-free market bent. Whites tend to be more reliably libertarian than Latinos.
But on the other hand I'm not going to waste my vote on Republican politicians who make immigration a big issue. 1) Because I recognize that one way or another Latinos are the demographic future. I don't think they're hard-core anti free market like other ethnic groups, and I think if free market pro-immigration Republicans play their cards right they'll get the Latino vote.
2) I don't want my Republican politicians wasting their political capital fighting on the immigration issue. Frankly I want Republicans to push de-regulation, tax reform, fiscal austerity and free trade. Any effort they put towards fighting Democrats on immigration is effort not spent on these actually important issues.
And like clockwork Wash. Post issues warning to Steve King
I think it is good for the administration to court the Hispanic vote. It will likely add, what, half a percent?
Keep courting that uninterested voting group. I'll send you some money if you do.
"Prosecutorial discretion" has its place. It does not give the administration the right to hand out green cards to illegal aliens. That is a positive administrative action, not simply inaction, that is blatantly in violation of its authoirty.
If Mitt had any balls he would simply say that the permits handed out to these illegals will not be recognized in his administration, and that the applications will be used to gain information to help deport illegal aliens.
Problem is that Mitt doesn't have any balls.
The Zero Administration dropped this ball on a summer Friday, when few people are paying attention. A small part of me is praying that Romney is waiting until Monday to unveil a more forceful response.
"Yes, granted it's bad for America, but is it not a politically advantageous move? That's the only question that matters. Does it boost the fortunes of Obama and his party?"
No, it doesn't. Hispanics "know" that Democrats are more opposed to enforcement than Republicans. It doesn't take much to signal that. This raises the profile of the issue for voters who normally consider it a secondary issue, and those voters are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty. This is bad for Obama, not matter what his pollsters tell him. It's even worse for Democratic senators and representatives. Obama's assured that, even if he gets re-elected, he will be dealing with a Republican House and Senate.
"Ah I see that's it.. its just that israel is small that's why they get to do it.. but wait.. so is Ireland but they don't get to do it.. hmm can't figure out the difference.."
England is a small country - just 50,000 square miles. It is more densely populated than Israel. Denmark and Holland are each oly about twice the size of Israel, but of course the nationalist parties in those countries are all just about bigotry.
They will contribute to crime, welfare dependence, drug use, but most important of all they will be wards of the leftist state and when they are actually out of prison might vote for Democrats. But really Obama is just playing to the cowardly, traitorous White demographic.
Lots of Catholic pop culture giants by the late 1950s: Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, John Ford, Frank Capra, Babe Ruth, etc. Not many scientists, though.
@DR
'Average wages in LA are 5-20% higher than the national average'
That doesn't matter AT ALL.
As costs of living are SIGNIFICANTLY higher, and I mean significantly.
I know I heard yesterday that 'it is not an amnesty', and 'it is not a path to citizenship', the latter, perhaps both (?), from Obama himself (I'm too lazy to look up the text of his remarks, or to watch the video).
Two ways to see that: 'amnesty' and 'path to citizenship' are now sort of 'depends on what is means' things, and so these people are so deluded they actually believe all that, or they are now so confident of how embedded 'opposition to amnesty is racist' has become that they can spout such brazen nonsense and falsehoods more or less without fear.
Aside from the fact that what appears to be the main provision -- that the 'non-amnestied' were brought to the US by their parents -- is, for all practical purposes, not enforcable or verifiable.
This is one case where dumb illegals who don't see that it's non-enforcable may wish there had been a 'virtual fence' or something -- so maybe they could've had their foto snapped as they were dragging their kid across the border.
OT
Speaking of dumb...
Apparently these people had never heard of 'disparate impact'.
First Obama unties his knots and comes out (again) for gay marriage--gays applaud Latinos fume Next Obama undoes the previous record of deportations by allowing Latinos to remain in the country--Latinos applaud. Now previously happy gays go silent because they know who their gay bashers are. The community organizer seems to be pitting one community against another
So they decided to keep the fertile folks whose main talent is procreation. Obviously, the powers that be are in a process of building some sort of an army with lots of canon fodder, possibly for space wars. Or maybe they are preparing an organ plantation or something...
In addition I highly benefit from cheap immigrant labor. I employ a Central American house cleaner that saves me tremendous amounts of time. I enjoy eating out at restaurants that are made affordable and competitive through cheap Latino labor.
And you get to pass the true cost of this labor on to the taxpayer. Ain't socialism GREAT? It's great, for parasites like you. It's a net loss for the country.
At this point those in the Sailer-sphere respond that I should care more about the low-skilled American born laborers than than low-skilled Mexican laborers. And. Yet. I. Don't.
Then I'm at a loss as to why we should care about you. If are are killed tomorrow by an illegal immigrant drunk driver, why should I care? I. Don't.
That's the problem with your outlook: You assume that other people will continue to go along with the social conventions which you feel free to break for your own profit. So far at least you're right, but you're creating a tragedy of the commons.
there's no arguing that immigrating the US drastically improves the immigrants' living quality. So from a utilitarian perspective it's an easy sell.
From the utilitarian perspective of the "immigrants", yes, it's an easy sell. From the utilitarian perspective of Americans, it's a crappy deal.
Note the pattern on elite collaboration on this:
Earlier this year, Obama had a semi-public meeting with Jeb and George H.W. Bush at the White House. He also called members of the Bush family on several occasions to discuss current events.
Shortly thereafter, George W. Bush starts complaining how Americans are becoming “isolationist” and unwelcoming to immigrants.
George W. and Laura Bush then go to the White House to meet with Obama and unveil portraits of themselves.
Next, articles rehabilitating Bush (or scolding his critics for lese-majesty) appear on the websites of CNN International, Washington Post, The Atlantic, National Journal, Foreign Policy, etc. There appeared to be a concerted effort by writers of both parties to restore Bush's image and gravitas.
Next, Jeb Bush and various Bush-era apparatchiks start calling for an amnesty and more immigration, worrying that America is becoming "isolationist," and complaining how the Republicans have become the "White" party. ( Apparently, Whites -- as opposed to Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews -- are not allowed to disproportionately favor one party over the other.)
Next, Nancy Pelosi starts describing George W. Bush as "really a lovely man," reminiscing about how they worked together on numerous issues, and defending him to a disbelieving audience. http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/pelosi-nostalgic-for-george-w-bush-video/
Next, more support for immigration and amnesty by the Bush family and Republican apparatchiks.
Finally, Obama's amnesty. An amnesty which – thanks to the recent love-fest between Obama, Pelosi, the Bush family, and various Bush administration officials – is insulated against meaningful criticism by the “respectable” political right.
It should be obvious that the American ruling class have decided to present a common front to the peasants. No matter which party (or party faction) they belong to, and no matter how much they may privately disagree with or even loathe each other, American elites will now defend each others policies publicly. Lenin had a name for this: “democratic centralism.”
I recognize that one way or another Latinos are the demographic future. I don't think they're hard-core anti free market like other ethnic groups, and I think if free market pro-immigration Republicans play their cards right they'll get the Latino vote.
Thus illustrating once again that libertarians are the quintessential "dumb people who think they're really smart".
No wonder they overlap with Jews so much.
I definitely live in Charles Murray upper class bubble. To tell you the truth low-class prole whites are almost as alien to me as Central American peasants. I went to school and work with tons of the educated upper-class from other nations, and I have far more in common with them than I do with the native under-class of my own country.
Then it's reasonable to divide territory and let people vote with their feet.
You can have your multicultural land filled with the educated upper-class from all over the world and Central American slave labor. Let the proles have their own piece of territory with their own preferred border controls that restrict outsiders from coming in.
Actually, Santa Ana rent would not be that high if several apartments were not destory about 10 years ago. Anaheim is below the region average and OC biggest rent took place during the housing boom and not during the 1990's when both asians and hispanics were growing at twice the rate. Hispanics and Asians do rise rent somewhat because of overcrowding but San Diego has less hispanics and higher rents than the Inland Empire.
I was heretofore in doubt about which cretin I would vote for in the fall, Obama or Romney. This little policy has settled my doubt; I'm voting for Romney. Well done, Mr. Obama.
Catholics are cannon fodder in the war against neocons. Maybe their religion has conditioned them to suffering.
Mel Gibson has done pretty well in the entertainment field.
Historically there are plenty of great European Catholic scientists, maybe their parents were very selective in choosing mates. When the world was much smaller and the population stayed put, people were very aware of attributes and defects which ran in blood lines. "Insanity in the family" was a stigma from which you could not hide - unless you emigrated to the New World.
"I definitely live in Charles Murray upper class bubble. To tell you the truth low-class prole whites are almost as alien to me as Central American peasants."
Silly. Why provoke animosity from people who might feel a natural kinship, a need for confession? What little kernel of feeling made you insert the modifier "almost"?
@DR
"To tell you the truth low-class prole whites are almost as alien to me as Central American peasants. I went to school and work with tons of the educated upper-class from other nations, and I have far more in common with them than I do with the native under-class of my own country."
Wow, DR, can we all have your autograph?
You might want to think about why you so desperately need to tell us this, to flaunt your status, to preen your feathers.
Maybe this doesn't apply to your ancestors, we don't know who they were, but plenty of our ancestors made enormous sacrifices to create a nation for their "posterity", not for it to descend into a quasi-third world banana republic, or to be constantly riven by ethnic division and tension.
You care less about that than you do about getting $1 off the price of your meal and hobnobbing with your bourgeois buddies. That reflects very poorly on you. So while you think your faux cosmopolitanism makes people admire you, I can assure you that many of us regard your ilk as despicable.
Some of us - even the wealthier of us - feel a greater debt to our forebears and solidarity with our kin, and regard that as more important than cheap busboys and fruit pickers.
You've gotta hand it to Obama (your old whipping boy), though.
He played a master-stroke.
Relased at just the right time, to the right people. That's the 2012 election in the bag and Romney left dumb-founded and wrong-footed, struggling to come up with an immigrant-friendly response himself, but hobbled by the anti-immigration lobby that watch him like a hawk.
It's not that I agree with Obama, though, I'm all for immigration control, but alas, that Bama boy knows which way the wind is blowing and whose ass to kiss.
- And coming days after that saccarine, sob-story boo-hoo-hoo 'hard-working young ambitious immigrants' Time magazine cover too.
I'm sure 'DR's' contribution is a carefully crated little satire written to show up the immigrationists.
Or perhaps not.
Lots of Catholic pop culture giants by the late 1950s: Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, John Ford, Frank Capra, Babe Ruth, etc. Not many scientists, though.
Babe Ruth was black American.
That's the 2012 election in the bag and Romney left dumb-founded and wrong-footed, struggling to come up with an immigrant-friendly response himself, but hobbled by the anti-immigration lobby that watch him like a hawk.
It's not that I agree with Obama, though, I'm all for immigration control, but alas, that Bama boy knows which way the wind is blowing and whose ass to kiss.
Romney would sweep to the presidency if he made the same arguments and supported the same policies against immigration that are being advocated in Israel.
"Well, Spandrell, for someone whose name is a homage to Stephen J Gould, that was pretty snarky ..."
I just googled and yeah Gould said something about Spandrels, with one "l'.
That ain't me. My name's from an Aldous Huxley novel.
Anyway if Mexicans become engineers who will pick your fruit? Can't let that happen.
Has any one else noticed that the ever so PC Obama is guilty of 'ageism' or age discrimination as it used to be called?
Basically he has set up one group of human beings to be less worthy than another due to a physical characteristic beyond their control.
If anyone on the right did something similar, you can bet your boots that lefties would be screaming about 'branding human beings like cattle' or making comparisions to Dr. Mengele sorting out the damned and the saved on the basis of physical characteristics.
@Steve Sailer
"In contrast, they provide almost no competition whatsoever for elite Americans. For example, no Spanish-surnamed person who spent at least some of his or her youth in the United States has earned an Academy Award nomination in any category, no matter how minor, since the 1980s. That is extraordinary. That's something like an 0 for 3000 cold streak for the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles County. The closest thing to a Mexican-American getting an Oscar nomination in this century are the Weitz Brothers, whose maternal grandmother was a silent movie star from Mexico. But their dad was a fashion designer and race car driver from Berlin."
What a ridiculous post. Hollywood derives most of it's stars from white America because most people who go to the movies, buy DVDs and so are white Americans. A lot of Hollywood stars are also derived from abroad.
Your argument is ridiculous because most Hollywood actors and actresses have NEVER been derived from Los Angeles city. Was Humphrey Bogard an Angelino? What Marilyn Monroe? What about Ava Gardner? What about Robert DeNiro? Seriously, Sailer, your arguments are so retarded that it's like arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. You really jumping the shark here.
"@DR
'Average wages in LA are 5-20% higher than the national average'
That doesn't matter AT ALL.
As costs of living are SIGNIFICANTLY higher, and I mean significantly."
- Gotta agree with you there. I turned down an offer last year to work in LA that was ~25% higher salary because the cost of living estimate was ~40% higher compared to where I was living. When I checked into cost of renting an apartment, I had no doubt that the overall cost difference was true- a comparable apartment cost more than twice as much, at least in any of the areas that were either 1. within a reasonable commute of work, or 2. not in a vibrant community.
I figured if I was going to make it work out moneywise I would need to violate choice 1, and as the job already requires OT, a long commute every day would mean my days would consist of work, travel to work, eat and sleep. Or turn it down, and keep a "lower" salary in a much lower COL area with at least some free time.
Also a "higher" salary in the US and a higher COL is actually a negative anyway due to the fact that the federal tax code makes no distinctions about COL. Not to mention that liberal urban LA, CA would probably charge me more local and state taxes anyway.
So it seemed like a clear cut choice to me.
>Note the pattern on elite collaboration on this<
You missed one. During or just before the Bush visit to the White House, Obama was asked if there were any positive aspects to the Bush Administration, anything he could praise.
Guess what Obama mentioned?
Yup.
"Can a very small country have a very big heart?"
Ah I see that's it.. its just that israel is small that's why they get to do it.. but wait.. so is Ireland but they don't get to do it.. hmm can't figure out the difference.."
Norway is small, too.
Yes, granted it's bad for America, but is it not a politically advantageous move?
I don't think so. There are people who support this policy, butthey were all going to vote for Obama anyway. This move will just motivate conservatives to hold their nose and vote for Romney, and it will push more Whites out of the D. Party.
Obama cannot win. His team knows this.
Obama's still favored at -145 at Bookmaker.eu (though that's down from -155 a week or two ago). That means you have to risk $145 to win $100. If you like Romney, $100 will win you $115.
At Heritagesports.eu, it's -150/+125, so there's money to be made is you really think Romney's a lock.
Average wages in LA are 5-20% higher than the national average. So if they are hurting the wages of unskilled native-born laborers it's obviously not too much. http://www.bls.gov/ro9/oeslosa.htm
And adjusted for the cost of living, those wages are much lower than the national average.
To DR
A very good and brief well sourced discussion of some of the problems with diversity can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/heyruka tweet: http://www.twitter. com/heyruka
I understand how you, the poster who feels he has more in common with other elites than his own fellow Whites, feel but don’t share your views.
Yes, when you look around, you may feel that you have more in common with other elites from different backgrounds than you do your fellow White people (many of them are not that smart or have tastes which you don’t share).
It is not difficult to feel this way.
However, there are several reasons why I still, despite these feelings, do not share your views.
First, there is a ton of evidence that people in homogenous “high trust” societies are on average happier. Just look at the rankings of satisfaction as conducting by various researchers. Levels of happiness are highest in usually relatively homogenous countries (usually White ones).
Okay, so you say you are not "average" and you have insulated yourself from the negative effects of diversity (will that always be the case and what about your children?)
Certain facts jump out at you when you look at what countries have the highest level of happiness on average. These societies have lower levels of crime and corruption.
While Japan and South Korea and a few other North Asian populated counties may be an exception Whites tend to have more cooperative societies with less corruption.
Of course, you might claim that it is just the “institutions” that cause this and if you change that diverse people can live together. Good luck with that.
Well I have nothing against some diversity the track record of highly diverse societies is very poor overall (think Lebanon, Kosovo, South Africa, etc...) with plenty of evidence that extreme violence periodically breaks out over time.
Moreover, just because you don’t feel any ethnic allegiance to your fellow Whites, you are fairly naïve to assume that the other elites from other groups don’t.
My experience is that well some of them doesn’t and would just as soon blend in with Whites, many of them have a very high level of ethnic consciousness (much higher than Whites).
Additionally, in addition to well documented evidence of increased crime (Black and Hispanic crime rates are much higher than Whites) I would argue that Asians, having known many of them, are less civic minded and more inclined to tribalism and ethnic nepotism than Whites are on average. If you have lived in an Asian country you will find out that who you know and not how much you know is even more important in those counties than it is in the U.S. and other countries dominated by Whites.
Also there are high hidden cost of diversity in loss of productivity and a huge state and federal bureaucracy set up to monitor the racial and ethnic spoils system that has been set up in ever corner of our society (the cost must be in the billions if not trillions).
So what type of place are you going to leave for your chidlren? Even if your children are biracial, you are probably better off living in an only a slightly diverse White homogenous society than one that is extremely diverse.
I know a lot of Libertarians don’t feel this way (how they ignore the huge bureaucracy that inevitably ends up managing diversity mystifies me), but then overall my impression of the intellectual abilities of most Libertarians is not sky high.
And certainly Jews who form their own ethnic groups distinct from White Europeans largely don’t for their own reasons .. mostly because they believe they are safer in diverse counties with the exception of Israel of course.
- I'm disappointed. You guys clearly aren't thinking deviously enough. Think from the standpoint of someone who only cares about themselves, regardless of how much damage it causes everyone else, and their country.
See, that's not quite to the point yet either, imo. I think Obama's motives are SO racially motivated that he would do anything to hasten the white demographic demise in this country, the white power structure being what I believe he regards as America's greatest evil. This guy didn't sit comfortably at the feet of Wright, et al without being a true believer. The path of least resistance to breaking the White power structure is demographically (always in the guise of compassion). Quite insidious. So, even if he loses the election, he furthers and hastens his ultimate goal. Obamacare was a massive transferal of wealth from Whites to non-Whites, and amnesty by fiat is a massive demographic replacement strategy. This guy is not as complicated as people seem to give him credit for. He's merely a silver tongued Jesse Jackson, who, having grown up in the yoke of his white grandparents, has a (White) presentation that is non-threatening to comatose whites, whereas his substance is not much different than Jesse Jackson. He really is the perfect stealth Black advocacy president.
"I definitely live in Charles Murray upper class bubble. To tell you the truth low-class prole whites are almost as alien to me as Central American peasants. I went to school and work with tons of the educated upper-class from other nations, and I have far more in common with them than I do with the native under-class of my own country.
...
Because I recognize that one way or another Latinos are the demographic future."
Are Latinos the demographic future and if so why?
I'm not sure there is a low-class of prole whites in the US, at least in the US as a whole. Do you mean druggies and winos living on the street? "Prole whites" sounds like one of those common Marxist phrases that comes out of eastern europe. Do you personally know any of these prole whites about which you speak? What is so alien to you about them?
Why I was young and used to read about horrible revolutions and troubles, it always seemed so puzzling that those running the place, the elite at the time, didn't see it coming and do the basics to head off the problem. Often all they had to do was a few basics of good government. But no...
It no longer seems nearly as puzzling.
DR,
You mention that crime is down in L.A.to 1960s levels.
Yes, this is true of murders (around 250 or so last year down from many mutiples of that in the 1980s and 1990s).
But you ignore the explanantions given by socioligists for these reductions: (1) many more police officers than in the 1960s; (2) many more long term incarcerations than in the 1960s; and (3) advanced medical technolgy that now saves many gunshot victims.
All these costs (which are huge)have to be born by the taxpayer (exept in your utopian Libertardian fantasy world where the costs are always born by just the victims).
At some point California will no longer be able to borrow (the time is soon) to finance all this (they have already been releasing prisoners early I read to save money).
Also the WSJ and other papers have had several articles about businesses and taxpayers leaving California for better environments.
When it finally falls off the financial cliff we will see how California does with all its diversity.
Sorry, but you are out to lunch.
"Then it's reasonable to divide territory and let people vote with their feet.
You can have your multicultural land filled with the educated upper-class from all over the world and Central American slave labor. Let the proles have their own piece of territory with their own preferred border controls that restrict outsiders from coming in."
Such a lovely notion.
Won't work, though.
Citizens of the World don't want to *live* with their Central American slave labor.
That's what White proles are *for.*
Consider Jackson Hole. The billionaires pushed out the millionaires. Now these Citizens of the World who care so much about the plight of Central American peasants, provide them with convenient busrides over the mountain to Driggs, ID, at workday's end.
Because, we can't have little brown people scurrying about of an evening. Why, that would befoul the spectacular view of the sun setting behind the Tetons!
Perish the thought. Goodness, the very idea. Pshaw.
After all, one can't be an authentic liberal unless one cares about the environment, you know.
Jacksole Hole, Sundown Town.
Is it between the Hollywood Jews and the Tel Aviv Jews or is it between the Hollywood Jews and the Wall Street Jews?
Based on previous comments, "DR" appears to work on Wall Street. You know, the industry which gets by without any government backing or assistance, and every dollar is earned by toil and brains. The place 26 year-olds make more than CEOs in other industries. 'Cus they're that talented, of course.
I love Big Finance libertarians.
I think there is a different dynamic at play here.
First, this kind of emotional plea for those poor, downtrodden young Mexicans of genius who "did nothing wrong" is pure SWPL bait. It's designed to increase the cash flow from the urban Liberal vibrancy lovers.
But far more importantly, this is a strategy to counter Obama's problems with the Catholic Church. He pissed off the bishops and "Organized Catholicism" (OC) by force feeding them contraception and abortifacients. Thing is, though, on nearly everything other than sexual matters, the Bishops and OC are far Left. And nothing warms the cockles of their twisted hearts more than an endless stream of new Mexicans. Seriously, open borders is just about the biggest political cause in OC.
Multiple church groups are suing the Obama Admin over their medical requirements. I wonder if this handing over a giant box of Mexicans is a quid pro quo. If the Catholics suddenly decide to drop those lawsuits, we'll know Obama cut a deal. And even if they don't drop the suits, this will go a long way toward keeping them in the Obama fold.
Will all these <30 year old "children" be able to apply for family reunification visas? Has anyone even asked?
I think just about everyone in the hbd blog o sphere agrees that white proles should have their own nation where white proles wont have to compete with low skill immigrants.
That being said, i think we should understand that some of the high iq children born to white proles will want to move to other nations
I may be showing ignorance here but isnt alaska already something of a homeland for white proles? I seem to recall there being very high wages for rough tough uneducated white men in things like pipeline construction there. Dont some men in the palin family earn really high wages doing physical labor?
"So to me there's no compelling case to be anti-immigration. I'm an upper class skilled-worker who's not in any way competing with Latino immigrants for jobs."
I'm not about to argue on a statistical basis but rather offer what my eyes have seen. For years the kids in our two high schools and even many of those attending the local community college got jobs at the local car washes. The one located in the part of town that is nearest the high school with the most economically disadvantaged kids (Hispanics, blacks, poor whites) is the largest of those car washes, its location off a major freeway helping the business it does.
A few years ago, those jobs were filled with non-English speaking Mexicans. I have seen one or two black faces in the last few years, no white faces at all. I finally spoke to the owner of the car wash, asked it his workers were documented--he said "yes"--told him I was going to find out if that were so. An Hispanic guy himself, he just laughed. I spent a week on the phone with different agencies, each referring me to a different dept. or a different agency. At every turn, my queries were met with seeming indifference or downright impatience. Either a tired voice would say, "We are backlogged," or "That would be handled by _____, not this department," or any number of other unethusiastic responses. I did give up.
I can't stand it when someone says that such workers haven't taken jobs from Americans. The teen unemployment rate is huge around here (East Bay, CA.) and the very kids who need the jobs the most, the very ones we are always lecturing that they CAN do something productive with their time if only they'd try, are seeing otherwise.
How in the hell can anyone with a lick of sense talk about the higher prices of wages in CA/LA as if that told us anything about the impact of illegal immigrant labor on anything.
A small house in even the depressed areas of CA costs more than nice homes elsewhere. Taxes here eat up income like cockroaches produce waste.
If only Neil had done something more nuanced, like throw a shoe at Obama, then I would have been more sympathetic. Instead, he INTERRUPTED!
"What a ridiculous post. Hollywood derives most of it's stars from white America because most people who go to the movies, buy DVDs and so are white Americans."
Hollywood is the most nepotistic place on earth.
DR
You must think Israel cleansing itself of Africans is a bad idea then?
Yes, let's deport all the old ones, and keep all the ones of breeding age. This will ward off accusations about "population replacement" from the conspiracy theorists.
Well, hispanic counties in so calif have the highest unemployment. Imperial leads the pack with probably over 20 percent unemployment, its farmwork mainly in that region. La, San Bern, and Riverside are all at 11 percent. Ventura and San Diego I think around 8.8 and 8.2 percent. And Orange around 7.5 percent. The latter three counties the hispanic population is still under 40 precent. Hispanics were heavily in construcation and construcation is the slowest coming back while asians and whites are less dependent on construcation work.
In what way is this the least bit cost saving? Reduced cost of police to bring them in and deport them?
Enforcing immigration law on businesses could bring in a lot of revenue via fines. To say nothing of the potential revenue from really ratcheting up the fines via new legislation.
I enjoy eating out at restaurants that are made affordable and competitive through cheap Latino labor.
HAHAHA! Ethnic restaurants!
Dumbass, the more Mexicans we bring here, the more the country will look like Mexico. Same goes for Africans, Asians, etc.
"there's no arguing that immigrating the US drastically improves the immigrants' living quality. So from a utilitarian perspective it's an easy sell."
From the utilitarian perspective of the "immigrants", yes, it's an easy sell. From the utilitarian perspective of Americans, it's a crappy deal.
Nationalism isn't for everyone. People who care about nothing but themselves (narrowly defined, of course) are not the audience. The audience is people who care about their own, their country, etc. Fortunately, it's a double-edged blade: Nationalism isn't for everyone.
I'm sure 'DR's' contribution is a carefully crated little satire written to show up the immigrationists.
I was thinking the same thing (the ethnic restaurants thing was too pat), but it's well-crafted enough that it doesn't matter; it works perfectly in a straightforward reading.
Obama's still favored at -145 at Bookmaker.eu (though that's down from -155 a week or two ago). That means you have to risk $145 to win $100. If you like Romney, $100 will win you $115.
At Heritagesports.eu, it's -150/+125, so there's money to be made is you really think Romney's a lock.
Hmm, it would be interesting to watch those numbers over time and see if they steadily shift toward Romney (over time, the media's ability to damage Romney diminishes).
Yes, when you look around, you may feel that you have more in common with other elites from different backgrounds than you do your fellow White people
This does not comport with reality. The "cognitive elite" do not share his sentiments. The Indian elite is not importing diversity. The Chinese elite and the Israeli elite, aren't, either. Only White suckers like him share his sentiments.
Well, the Tea Party is not all anti-illegal immirgant, it endorsed Marco Rubio who is just as bad as Obama on the issue. Some Tea Party pick Gringrich in the primarly since Romeycare usset them more than anti-immirgation. Some tea partyers hate illegal immirgation while others are like Ron Paul in favor of business hirng what they like or even Grover Norquist whose only conservative when it comes to tax cutting.
"spandrell said...
""Well, Spandrell, for someone whose name is a homage to Stephen J Gould, that was pretty snarky ...""
I just googled and yeah Gould said something about Spandrels, with one "l'."
"The Spandrells" sounds like a girl-group managed by Phil Spector.
"Anonymous said...
"'At this point those in the Sailer-sphere respond that I should care more about the low-skilled American born laborers than than low-skilled Mexican laborers. And. Yet. I. Don't.""
Then I'm at a loss as to why we should care about you. If are are killed tomorrow by an illegal immigrant drunk driver, why should I care? I. Don't."
You are more generous than I am. Far from not caring, it would gratify me no end if some such fate as you describe were to befall a bowel-parasite like DR. As far as I am concerned, he is toilet-crust.
"'he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .'
You'd think a constitutional scholar would . . . oh hell, never mind."
Why, yes, I do think a constitutional scholar would understand and hew to that part of the presidential oath were he elected POTUS.
But I was never under any delusions as to how Obama, who is intent on subverting the constitution and whose ignorance reveals him to be not only not a scholar but not even particularly well-educated, would regard that part of the oath. It's just another obstacle white people put in his way.
Once again we hear from all those loyal respectable conservatives, "That's it! I'm voting for Mittens!" Of course, Mittens has been quite careful not to attack Obama's amnesty, because he, too, wants the Mexican vote. And other "conservative" bloggers, like Ace of Spades, inform us that patriotic, true-blue American Marco Rubio (who proposed his own Dream Act, dammit!) doesn't like Obama's Act (I thought of it first! Dibs!).
Remind me again why this is the most important election, eevveer? Explain to me again how different the parties are and that my vote really counts!
Babe Ruth was black American.
Just like George Washington, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates.
You've gotta hand it to Obama (your old whipping boy), though.
He played a master-stroke.
Relased at just the right time, to the right people. That's the 2012 election in the bag and Romney left dumb-founded and wrong-footed, struggling to come up with an immigrant-friendly response himself, but hobbled by the anti-immigration lobby that watch him like a hawk.
It's not that I agree with Obama, though, I'm all for immigration control, but alas, that Bama boy knows which way the wind is blowing and whose ass to kiss.
- And coming days after that saccarine, sob-story boo-hoo-hoo 'hard-working young ambitious immigrants' Time magazine cover too.
Yes, I'm sure that all three of the Time magazine readers who were on the fence for the election in November are now solidly in Obama's camp.
I just don't see those three people as putting the election in the bag.
Americans thought they were electing a President and got an east african dictator.
DR has got it absolutely and completely wrong or 'arse over tit' as they say in England.
He doesn't seem to realise that the low wage, low productivity immigrants he waxes so lyrical about represent a large fiscal drain from people like him, a drain that's not going away and will only get bigger. Basically, the grunt labor that DR creams himself about doesn't earn enough wonga in America' s hard scrabble, race to the bottom, no holds barred free market to actually look after or feed itself. Only huge fiscal transfers from the likes of the arrogantly privileged, like DR, allows a semblance of civilty to mask this farce, occasionally like in the MMM fiasco, the veil is raised to an unseemly height exposing the fact that the (imported) paupers are literally stark, balls-out, Calcutta style mude, whilst DR struts in his Brooks Bros finery.
If DR likes it or not free education and medicare are not going away, nor are the prisons or 'tax credits'. But one thing that is here to stay is a wretched multitude of have-nots, marked by race and ancestry as 'not quite' belonging to gilded white folks (like DR), who are growing up resentful, full of jealousy and rage aimed at people like DR who have everything whilst they have nothing - and these are people who regularly chainsaw each others' heads off for no more than DR spends on a 'good night out'.
In the bset case, they will votein socialists and redistributionists. In the worst, why it's Sao Paulo and commuter helicopters.
"The Death-Loving Nihilist Guy".
Is it between the Hollywood Jews and the Tel Aviv Jews or is it between the Hollywood Jews and the Wall Street Jews?
There's no real substantive controversy between them. Just a good cop/bad cop play.
"You will have stories to cover — Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out west, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."
- I. Lewis Libby to Judith Miller
Well, like I said I haven't been paying much attention to the current immigration debate, but I'd tend to agree with James Fulford at VDare that---contrary to lots of the angry commenters here---Obama may get a major political boost from his quasi-amnesty due to a clever carom-shot that his advisors may or may not have considered.
Obviously, all the anti-Immigrationists will be outraged. But then they'll look at Romney's reaction...and see what?
Right now, Romney's in top-fund-raising mode, trying to round up a billion dollars or so from all the richest Republicans. And I'd guess that those folks are about 95% pro-immigration and think Obama's amnesty is one of the best things he's done. Romney needs their money, so he can't really say anything too critical. Also, all the leading Republican strategists are desperate to win over Latino votes, and have the same position.
So I'd guess that Romney basically says nothing and ducks the issue. That makes all the grass-roots conservatives view him as a stba-in-the-back traitor, and maybe hate him more than Obama, the visible enemy. That could really hurt Romney's turnout in November.
Essentially, the Obama move might end up dividing the Republicans right down the middle, dollars vs. votes, and dividing your opposition is one of the best ways of winning an election.
DR is just trolling. if he's not, he's a moron.
in 2006 in lav vegas i was hit by illegal aliens who totalled my car and gave me a concussion. not only should they never have hit me because they never should have been in the US in the first place, the las vegas police are instructed to give the obvious US citizen the citation, the fine, the points on his license, and the court date, because they know illegal mexicans could disappear at anytime, and sure aren't paying any fines or showing up for court. but they know where to find US citizens, and know they sure will show up for court and pay the fine, or they'll come find me.
fortunately i had health insurance, so that paid for the majority of the $18,000 hospital bill i received. i did not receive $18,000 worth of care, but that's what hospitals in mexican invasion states have to charge, to make up for illegal aliens using the ER and never paying for anything.
of course i ate it on the car insurance situation. the mexicans were uninsured (naturally. it makes no sense for them TO be insured), so my insurance paid for the collision, then my rates went up when i got my new car.
i'd love to punch guys like DR in the face, knock them out, so when they fall, they hit their head, get a concussion, miss work, and pay for it all out of pocket. then i'd just say, who cares, it didn't affect me.
"Based on previous comments, "DR" appears to work on Wall Street"
"DR" also thinks American foreign policy in the Middle East isn't remotely pro-Israel, which should tell you something about how firmly tethered to reality he is.
"i'd love to punch guys like DR in the face, knock them out, so when they fall, they hit their head, get a concussion, miss work, and pay for it all out of pocket. then i'd just say, who cares, it didn't affect me."
Nah. Don't you do it. Be slicker to hire a Mexican illegal and pay him in pesos.
"There's no real substantive controversy between them. Just a good cop/bad cop play."
Do white gentiles have substantive ideological differences among themselves or are their political arguments just a good cop/bad cop play too?
RKU said...
"Well, like I said I haven't been paying much attention to the current immigration debate, but I'd tend to agree with James Fulford at VDare that---contrary to lots of the angry commenters here---Obama may get a major political boost from his quasi-amnesty due to a clever carom-shot that his advisors may or may not have considered.
"Obviously, all the anti-Immigrationists will be outraged. But then they'll look at Romney's reaction...and see what?"
Well, when you have POTUS elections these days in a country that falls squarely into red states, blue states and only a handful of those that could go either way, it's clear that either candidate stands to lose with a move that offends a subgroup.
Sure, Romney could make millions of Americans happy with a strong stance against Obama's power grab and, for that matter, Obama could have them happy too by telling the illegal yet wonderful young adults, "Drop your folks back in Mexico, kids, and now that you're adults too, stay there while you're at it," but neither could take the chance when polls show only a few swing states and a few voters within those swing states ("swing voters," I guess) will control the outcome of the election.
This is what happens when polling science is able to tell us where candidates should go, shouldn't go, to whom they should tailor their message, how that message should be tailored and so forth.
If more states were in play off the bat, Romney wouldn't have to be so careful, and if Obama were polling better and not need every brown vote out there, he'd not have to be Barry the Pander Bear.
"Americans thought they were electing a President and got an east african dictator."
Those who thought that are Americans in name only.
I still shudder when I recall the first time I became aware of Obama's existence. It was while I listening the 2004 Dem convention on TV. I wasn't watching it b/c I was doing my nails. Thus, my first awareness of Obama was aural only: hearing that hectoring black preacher singsong as he gave that infamous speech. My heart sank. I know how DWLs just love being lectured by a presumptuous black. I prayed then and there that some scandal would derail his political ascent.
From the first, I was under no delusions about him. This is the one time in my life when I wish to God I had been wrong.
That being said, i think we should understand that some of the high iq children born to white proles will want to move to other nations
Not if their moral indoctrination is in the hands of their parents rather than the media, academia, Hollywood, pop culture, etc.
Will Romney's handlers ever get the guts to start prominently displaying Newsweek's "Obama-the-Gay-Messiah" cover?
That alone would give a major boost to Romney's chances...
DR's affinity for his class over his race seems so unnatural, but isn't that what "assimilation" means? Don't the immigrants we label, model minorities, shake off their linguistic, cultural and racial affiliations and start acting like the rest of us? U.S. Colleges and "upper-class" schools expect the native citizens to do the same, expecting assimilation to their class and classmates and abandoning their clan. Why should his perspective surprise us? Deep down, on a micro level, in our everyday lives, don't we prefer the company of people of similar educational level and intelligence regardless of race - at least at times?
I do think DR underestimates our white proles, if you get rid of the dark proles, we'd have a civil country like Japan, at least that was what Jared Taylor was saying twenty years ago, I don't know if that's still true.
Like Svigor, I assumed DR's comment was an Onion-esque parody, but it does truly represent a viewpoint shared by many, so it's worth addressing.
"I went to school and work with tons of the educated upper-class from other nations,"
And just where was this? Where do the upper-classes from around the world send most of their children to school? Where do they make most of their money? Ever thought maybe there's a reason for that? Where will you and your upper-class globalist friends build your ivory towers if you let this country you think doesn't matter be torn down?
"Your argument is ridiculous because most Hollywood actors and actresses have NEVER been derived from Los Angeles city"
I thought it could be leading to a real point (about movie biz circa 2012) till you cited your stunning evidence: "Humphrey Bogard" etc., though you failed to throw in Roman Polanski and Jackie Chan while you were at it.
Since you don't know what you're talking about, and aggressively so, it would only be futile to explain how film talent is overwhelmingly drawn from So. California, whether actors, writers, or AWOL executives in their black Mercedes sedans somewhere up the Cabrillo Highway. Locals also dominated jobs in front of the camera during the industry's formative era.
" I look at LA and despite massive immigration it's still one of the nicest places in the US (all this on top of an awful state government)."
When did the government become awful? Why can it no longer serve the needs of its citizens? What is the stressor? Sounds like a large percentage of the population has needs that exceed their ability to pay taxes.
I find my Burundian house cleaner to be more conscientious and economical than any of those demanding Central Americans. But she's starting to cough a lot and her AZT supply is running out. Does anyone know when Obamacare kicks in?
This does not even show up in the U.S. subsection of Google News any more.
Just, wow. This is the worst case of elite collusion against the US middle class I've ever seen.
Meanwhile, in Japan...
From David Piling's Lunch with the FT interview with Japanese Internet billionaire Hiroshi Mikitani:
“Japan is so pleasant. There’s no crime. The food is great. Everything is getting so cheap. You don’t need to learn another language,” he says, spreading his arms in metaphorical acknowledgement of the comfortable lifestyle the Japanese have created. “My point is: this is very pleasant long-term decline.”
[...]
“We need to be more fluid. Keeping extremely expensive older people when there are lots of very competent, capable young people, this as a system is wrong.” He drains his coffee.
He’s not pessimistic, he assures me. With better English, more flexible labour laws, relaxed immigration policies and more investment in science, Japan can bounce back. “We need to fix just a couple of simple things and we’ll have a bright future.”
Actually the whole problem is this nouveau obsession with 'meritocracy' which is incidentally racist--yeah, that's the ticket
one thing they can never explain is why this is ok for mexicans, but never for anybody else.
why can't chinese people just come here at will? they are smarter than mexicans, work harder than mexicans, and will work for less money than mexicans. if i'm an employer, why can't i just bring in chinese peasants to undercut my competitors and their mexicans? my chinese guys will beat their mexicans in a capitalist competition.
every year, i will bring in 100,000 han chinese peasants with an IQ of 100, have them work 12 hour days, pay them 5 dollars an hour, and run my mexican-employing competitors out of business in 5 years time.
then, at least, you end up with 500,000 chinese people in the US who committ less crime than mexicans, take less government handouts than mexicans, get no affirmative action like mexicans, and most of their kids will actually graduate from high school and go on to get some kind of college degree.
yet it i tried to do any of that, the obama administration would stop me. not very consistent application of the law, and of course it's not. what obama is doing is flagrantly illegal.
The American people are reminded occasionally that they elected a radical to office.
Obama is far from radical. This 'amnesty' plan is essentially the same one as was proposed by Republican darling Marco Rubio, a leading candidate for VP under Romney. Obamacare is structurally pretty similar to what Romney did in Massachusetts. Most of Obama's major policies, from the auto bailout to the stimulus to an Afghan 'surge', echo stuff Bush did. Obama is in many ways just the liberal end of bipartisan 'centrist' conventional wisdom. (Although that 'centrist' conventional wisdom is breaking down under pressure and more radical forces are emerging, they still are not very powerful -- witness Romney's distinct lack of any full-throated criticism of this immigration plan).
"every year, i will bring in 100,000 han chinese peasants with an IQ of 100, have them work 12 hour days, pay them 5 dollars an hour, and run my mexican-employing competitors out of business in 5 years time."
Import the excess chinese men, they would not cause any trouble, and won't be competition for local women.
Whiskey approved.
"MQ said...
witness Romney's distinct lack of any full-throated criticism of this immigration plan)."
I predict that should Romney win - a win which would in part be due to Obama's amnesty by executive diktat - he will do nothing to undo it.
@Norville Rogers
"I thought it could be leading to a real point (about movie biz circa 2012) till you cited your stunning evidence: "Humphrey Bogard" etc., though you failed to throw in Roman Polanski and Jackie Chan while you were at it.
Since you don't know what you're talking about, and aggressively so, it would only be futile to explain how film talent is overwhelmingly drawn from So. California, whether actors, writers, or AWOL executives in their black Mercedes sedans somewhere up the Cabrillo Highway. Locals also dominated jobs in front of the camera during the industry's formative era."
Ok, so how many A-list Hollywood stars are native Angelinos? Name names please.
Also, the fact that there were more Angelinos working in Hollywood in the past doesen't mean much since they were white people, and it is easier to because a film star in a country where whites own most of the wealth if you are also white. Duh.
"Obama is far from radical. This 'amnesty' plan is essentially the same one as was proposed by Republican darling Marco Rubio, a leading candidate for VP under Romney. "
-Be that as it may, Obama is still a radical for a wide number of executive actions. Even in regards to this amnesty, what he has done has stepped beyond the limits of what an executive can do and acted as a radical. An executive simply cannot choose to honestly not enforce an entire law. Basically he's claiming to do so pretending prescutorial discretion. John Yoo has an excellent column on this at NRO. This sets executive fiat into motion in a way not seen in the US since the time of monarchs. It gives him the power to do vastly more of whatever he wants simply because he disagrees with a law. In essence, I don't like it, so it won't be enforced.
"'In what way is this the least bit cost saving? Reduced cost of police to bring them in and deport them?'
Enforcing immigration law on businesses could bring in a lot of revenue via fines. To say nothing of the potential revenue from really ratcheting up the fines via new legislation."
- If you feel this way, then why would you be in disagreement with the first statement? If enforcing immigration law brings in $ then reducing enforcement would reduce $ brought in.
"...then, at least, you end up with 500,000 chinese people in the US who committ less crime than mexicans, take less government handouts than mexicans, get no affirmative action like mexicans, and most of their kids will actually graduate from high school and go on to get some kind of college degree."
- If you don't think the Chinese will game the system, then you don't know the Chinese very well. You think Hispanics figure out about food stamps and free hospital care, Chinese proles would come up with ways to extract every penny from under every government sofa seat in the entire US. Not to mention the fact that like other minorities, they feel no shame in operating under the principle of what's best for them, regardless of fairness, equal opportunity etc.
That being said, they are still more intelligent and hard working than the average Hispanic, so in the US perhaps only the first generation would be common laborers. After that, it would be competition with the elites.
why do we need ANYONE to come here... and you oriental-fetishests - do you really think they are coming here to hold hands and sing songs about diversity.. do you think if they gain the upper hand they are going to be your bestest buddies for life??
"why can't chinese people just come here at will? they are smarter than mexicans, work harder than mexicans, and will work for less money than mexicans."
I've had extensive experience interacting with Chinese, both the more sophisticated ones from Taiwan and large Chinese cities and the unworldly ones from small villages. I actually often prefer their company to that of any other race, including whites. My personal preference aside, however, I would not want them to enter the States in any large numbers. In fact, I think the number of them here now is way too large.
"if i'm an employer, why can't i just bring in chinese peasants to undercut my competitors and their mexicans?"
It's called "the thin end of the wedge", that's why. In other words, today the peasants; tomorrow the elites.
Any clearer now?
"my chinese guys will beat their mexicans in a capitalist competition."
Yes, and they'll move on to beat white Americans, by hook or by crook.
"I definitely live in Charles Murray upper class bubble. To tell you the truth low-class prole whites are almost as alien to me as Central American peasants. I went to school and work with tons of the educated upper-class from other nations, and I have far more in common with them than I do with the native under-class of my own country."
I've spent half a century living all over the US. When I hear something like this my reaction is "this guy must be a newcomer to this country, really young, or has somehow led a very isolated life." It's as if what they know about the US is from repeated stories from parents, family, and relatives, or perhaps literature, and these stories really are about how it was "back in the old country", not the US. They presume the US is the same as wherever. It's all just words and the words don't match the historical American reality. There is a problem here; it's to get people to know the reality they live in and not just blindly repeat old stories about "how bad it was/is". You tell the truth. The White US population is alien to you.
One of the main points of "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" (given much space and attention, as per the title) is that the US--the old America--did not have a pronounced class structure because IQ was more-or-less evenly distributed throughout the population. There wasn't a concentrated cognitive elite, mating and concentrating wealth and power among themselves, who could be identified apart from "Americans". At the core this was a simple mathematical argument. The number of high IQ folks that attended the places that granted the "trappings" of the cognitive elite (the Ivy Leagues, government, etc.) were vastly outnumbered by a population with a mean IQ of 100. Given the numbers and the bell curve statistics, there were more high IQ people, as a whole, in the general population than in the elite institutions. This meant things like distributed democratic institutions worked well.
The Bell Curve makes the point that many of these high IQ people were housewives scattered throughout the land. This likely had a significant effect on the culture of the country. Civil institutions were solid.
One of the issues many people have with the current direction of the country is that it may be going the direction of those old world places where it was bad. A random flip though The Bell Curve finds "The Emerging White Underclass" on p.520. A random quote:
"In the past, whites have not had an "underclass" as such, because the whites who might qualify have been too scattered among the working class. ... An underclass needs a critical mass, and white America has not had one."
The authors make the case that white illegitimacy is highest amoung low IQ women and that government policy supporting concentrations of such single mothers is a factor likely to lead to a white underclass in the US.
"Right now, Romney's in top-fund-raising mode, trying to round up a billion dollars or so from all the richest Republicans. And I'd guess that those folks are about 95% pro-immigration and think Obama's amnesty is one of the best things he's done."
Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal has an online readers poll of whether you approved or disapproved of the quasi amnesty. 80% disapproved according to approximately 5,000 who have voted so far. It surprised me. Aren't the peope who regularly read the WSJ the eletists of whom you speak? I am not sure what to make of it. Are they a out of work low level Wall Street minions who fear the competition? I dunno. Perhaps one of the posters has an idea.
Also I went to the Mother Jones site where a discussion was taking place on the issue and noted, by rough estimate, that at least 50% of this liberal magazine's readers seemed to be against it. Maybe Mother Jones has a populist bent, but I still thought the comments would be more approving.
I wonder if there is a sympathy fatigue, given the high levels of continuing unemployment, that has set in.
I agree that it's possible that Romeny won't rescind it if he is elected thereby making it a stealth amensty of sorts. But I am sure he will be asked if he will rescind it before the election, so it will be interesting to see how he handles the question.
Also, I wonder about the legality. Can a president just decide not to enforce some law he does not agree with. What about insider trading, or anti-trust law, murder, etc ... the possibilities are endless,no? Not sure how this is descretionary while other instances would not be. Perhhaps someone can explain if it has any legal footing and why.
First gay marriage and now this. I wonder what else O has in store before the election. It will be interesting.
"Lots of Catholic pop culture giants by the late 1950s: Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, John Ford, Frank Capra, Babe Ruth, etc. Not many scientists, though."
I wondered if all the clever-clogs had migrated to England, but again the list of top-level Catholic achievement in the UK is heavily biased towards entertainment, with a minor in literature.
And the only Irishman to win a science Nobel, Ernest Walton, was the son of a Methodist minister.
I keep hearing that the children are innocent so they should not be punished. Let me see if I truly understand this moral principle.
Let's say I steal a car. Later my son inherits this car from me. But since he wasn't involved in the original theft, it's now unfair to take it from him and rerturn it to the real owner?
Albertosaurus
I think it's official now: by passing amnesty for illegal immigrants, Obama has become the consummate Reagan Republican.
"Lots of Catholic pop culture giants by the late 1950s: Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, John Ford, Frank Capra, Babe Ruth, etc. Not many scientists, though."
My (somewhat informed) impression is that up until about 30 years ago the smart sons of staunch Catholic families went into the priesthood, of course, and secondly into law. Careers in research science were way down the list. Another consideration is that military and engineering careers, which were looked on with definite favour by almost all Catholics, absorbed many smart young men who could have easily become research scientists. Michael Collins, the Apollo 11 command module pilot ("the loneliest man in history") comes to mind.
Many of the oldest law schools are Catholic, often Jesuit. Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Santa Clara in silicon valley, Boston College, various Loyola's, for example. Catholic universities a hundred years ago clearly considered graduate law schools important, of first stature, and hard-science grad schools of lesser importance. So lots of bright young men went into law. Patrick Moynihan himself is an example, of course.
It is probably hard for people today to understand how much bright young Catholics 50 years ago were encouraged to go to Catholic schools and "stick with the program". I think when educrats studied aptitude for science and ability (a big deal back in Sputnik days), no real difference was found between Catholic and Protestant undergraduates).
Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal has an online readers poll of whether you approved or disapproved of the quasi amnesty. 80% disapproved according to approximately 5,000 who have voted so far. It surprised me. Aren't the peope who regularly read the WSJ the eletists of whom you speak?
Okay, so 80% of the random rightwing commenters on the WSJ website don't support Obama's "amnesty"---I'm absolutely sure that Romney's fund-raisers must be frantically urging him to take the same position.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the morning newspapers mentioned that the Koch brothers and their friends are planning to put $300M into the national Republican campaign, while Adelson the Casino Guy is personally going to spend $100M on Romney's effort. And as everyone knows, the Koch circle and Adelson are both very pro-immigration. So we're talking at least $400M on one side and (maybe) $400.00 on the other. Really tough call for Romney. Don't forget that politics in America these days is one-dollar, one-vote.
Some of the commenters here say such silly things I sometimes think they must be faking it...
Why are you so obsessed with white people, Yan Shen?
Obama is far from radical. This 'amnesty' plan is essentially the same one as was proposed by Republican darling Marco Rubio, a leading candidate for VP under Romney.
Yeah, what's with Cuban Republicans being so RABIDLY pro-immigration (of any type)? I thought Cubans weren't Mexicans...
"That being said, they are still more intelligent and hard working than the average Hispanic, so in the US perhaps only the first generation would be common laborers. After that, it would be competition with the elites."
And that,Jody, is why you can't bring in unlimited Chinese nationals. The elite isn't interested in bringing in any competition for their livelihoods, just everyone else's.
Anonymous 3:07 said:
"so how many A-list Hollywood stars are native Angelinos? Name names please"
To reiterate, what's my incentive to explain this to you, bad-faith blog jerkoff? Not my business to furnish free Wikipedia research, sorry. btw around here it's spelled "Angeleno" heheh
Post a Comment