Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Grantland: Curtis: Being a Latino ballplayer in Arizona

I put those concerns to Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix. Sheriff Joe is a noisy supporter of SB 1070 and stricter deportation policies. It is a strange fate of the times that Sheriff Joe has jurisdiction over the Cactus League territory.

“Nobody’s going to go around stopping them at a restaurant, asking for their ID,” Arpaio says.

He pauses and adds, “Unless there’s some other reason to do that.”

Sheriff Joe is a Red Sox fan. Since he was raised outside Boston, he sees his continuous fandom as one more sign of his political consistency. When I reach Sheriff Joe one afternoon, he has just gotten off the DL — he fell on a sidewalk and broke his shoulder in two places. “I know how the ballplayers feel now,” he says.

“Bring those ballplayers to me,” he barks. “I’ll give ‘em a pair of pink underwear.” This is more welcoming than it sounds. For though Arpaio puts pink underwear on county inmates, he also uses it as a gift for visiting celebrities. Sarah Palin got a pair when she toured Arizona last year.

Really, Sheriff Joe wants any Latino ballplayer who fears he might be racially profiled to stop by. “I wish they’d come to my office and come out and meet the sheriff,” he says. “I’ll tell ‘em all the facts about this … We don’t stop people because they look like they’re from somewhere else. I’m an equal-opportunity guy. My guys arrest everybody.”

...To a police officer, Barajas could arouse the same “reasonable suspicion” as Elian Herrera. Barajas’s parents are Mexican immigrants; his skin is olive-colored. But he was born in Ontario, California. He’s as American as Mike Trout. I ask Barajas if he is ever worried about being asked for his papers.

“I don’t know if I should carry my birth certificate or passport. I never thought about it,” he says. “I’m sure it could happen.”

Then Barajas’s eyes narrow. “I think of myself as an American citizen. There’s no reason whatsoever for me to have to carry that around.”

Thanks to Vance.

Repoz Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:48 AM | 228 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, general, history, media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4397120)
What about the Soviet Ark?

Goldman and Berkman were convicted criminals, but they were allowed into the country in the first place, and only deported after their convictions.

I guess you could call Red Emma & her fellow leftists (who actually were leftists, of course, not the weak-tea liberals who make the SBBs & their ilk wet their pants in fear these days) "known criminals," at least in the eyes of A. Mitchell Palmer & all too many "real Americans," but I'd say that's a stretch.

Of course the irony is that both Goldman and Berkman then wrote some of the most damning indictments of Leninism ever published: Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia and My Further Disillusionment in Russia; and Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth. After the last of those three books came out in 1924, they were virtually people without a country.
   102. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4397121)
That'd be a much more telling rebuttal if we hadn't been spending the last few decades trying to arrest and deport so many of them. The only Europeans sent back before 1921 were known criminals, the feebleminded, and those with communicable diseases. Those "illegal immigrants" of today should be so lucky.

Interesting how you make no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, despite that distinction being the most important part of the discussion.

And BTW when did your people come over on the boat? From your name I'm assuming they were either pre-1924 immigrants or later political refugees, but obviously that's just a guess.

"My people" came over in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. I know trivial things like the rule of law mean little or nothing to lefties when it comes to immigration, but as far as I know, exactly zero of "my people" were illegal immigrants.
   103. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4397122)
It's not that hard JSLF; if Mexico is a country that sucks, then why would we want to make America more like Mexico?


It's not that hard GF, trying reading it word for word, left to right...

   104. The Good Face Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4397123)
I was thinking only one party is christian enough to realize that these people have it bad, and piling on more crap and punishment is not the neighborly thing to do. The other party on the other hand, sees a non-white skin who isn't in jail, and is trying to find ways to put them in jail.(Guarantee you, that we aren't that far off from Republicans pushing for debtor's prison soon) After all, Jesus believed in walking around with weapons and taking advantage of the weak.


Tell it to a christian you smelly hippy.

Although maybe I had more time to spend, perhaps I could find Big Chief Good Face referenced in some ancient genealogy book.


Chief Handsome Man was a wise and noble leader and I'll thank you to not denigrate his memory. I have his high cheekbones dontcha know.

   105. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4397124)
That'd be a much more telling rebuttal if we hadn't been spending the last few decades trying to arrest and deport so many of them. The only Europeans sent back before 1921 were known criminals, the feebleminded, and those with communicable diseases. Those "illegal immigrants" of today should be so lucky.

Interesting how you make no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, despite the fact that distinction is the most important part of the discussion.


Tell you what, Joe: You give the Mexicans the same immigration laws that governed your ancestors (see below), and very few of those illegal immigrants from Mexico would be illegal any more.

And BTW when did your people come over on the boat? From your name I'm assuming they were either pre-1924 immigrants or later political refugees, but obviously that's just a guess.

"My people" came over in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. I know trivial things like the rule of law mean little or nothing to lefties when it comes to immigration, but as far as I know, exactly zero of "my people" were illegal immigrants.


Well, duh, as there were no quotas governing Europeans during that entire period. But if they'd waited until 1925 you would have been born in Communist Poland.
   106. The Good Face Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4397125)
It's not that hard GF, trying reading it word for word, left to right...


The cognitive dissonance is really burning your noodle, huh? OMG, Mexico sucks, and the Dems are doing their level best to turn the US into Mexico, but the Dems are good, so it must be the GOP doing it, because they suck. Like Mexico!
   107. Morty Causa Posted: March 26, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4397126)
Tell you what, Joe: You give the Mexicans the same immigration laws that governed your ancestors (see below), and very few of those illegal immigrants from Mexico would be illegal any more.


How about rapists and rape laws?

Does ignoring and violating immigration laws apply one-way or both ways? You okay with Texans/Arizonians/New Mexicans seeping into Mexico? How about Americans bordering Canada?
   108. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4397130)
The cognitive dissonance is really burning your noodle, huh?


umm no,

OMG, Mexico sucks, and the Dems are doing their level best to turn the US into Mexico,



no, but I have been wondering why the GOP wants to turn the US into something like Latin America...

oh wait, you and Joe K really believe this stuff????

   109. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4397132)
Tell you what, Joe: You give the Mexicans the same immigration laws that governed your ancestors (see below), and very few of those illegal immigrants from Mexico would be illegal any more.

LOL. You're heading into "If my aunt had a penis ..." territory.

Well, duh, as there were no quotas governing Europeans during that entire period. But if they'd waited until 1925 you would have been born in Communist Poland.

Yes, and if my ancestors were from Uganda or Vietnam or any number of other places that didn't send many (or any) immigrants to the U.S. a hundred years ago, I would either have been born in one of those places or not at all, regardless of the U.S.'s immigration laws in 1895 or 1921 or 1955. But unless you're advocating a complete open-borders policy for the U.S., that has nothing to do with the immigration debate. It's just a silly appeal to emotion.
   110. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4397133)
Just this afternoon over some crappy beer my grandfather told me this story about this our land:

The Black Cloud represented the Female Being or Substance. For as a child sleeps when being nursed, so life slept in the darkness of the Female Being. The White Cloud represented the Male Being or Substance. He was the Dawn, the Light Witch Awakens, of the First World.

In the East, at the place where the Black Cloud and the White Cloud met, First Man, was formed ; and with him was formed the white corn, perfect in shape, with kernels covering the whole ear. Dohonotini is the name of this first seed corn, and it is also the name of the place where the Black Cloud and the White Cloud met.

The First World was small in size, a floating island in mist or water.

On it there grew one tree, a pine tree, which was later brought to the present world for firewood.

Man was not, however, in his present form. The conception was of a male and a female being who were to become man and woman.

The creatures of the First World are thought of as the Mist People they had no definite form, but were to change to men, beasts, birds, and reptiles of this world.

Now on the western side of the First World, in a place that later was to become the Land of Sunset, there appeared the Blue Cloud, and opposite it there appeared the Yellow Cloud. Where they came together First Woman was formed, and with her the yellow corn.


So I think that means we were here first!
   111. cardsfanboy Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4397134)
The cognitive dissonance is really burning your noodle, huh? OMG, Mexico sucks, and the Dems are doing their level best to turn the US into Mexico, but the Dems are good, so it must be the GOP doing it, because they suck. Like Mexico!


I don't know how many people on here are on facebook, and constantly get their friends to post a post talking about North Korea's immigation policy, Afghanistan immigration policy,(how they imprison people for years for illegal immigration) and then talk about the U.S. policy(often times with made up ####) but the point is that they point to the U.S. treats their immigrants nicer. And they seem to think that this is somehow bad. That saying we aren't like North Korea and other countries, that we are somehow bad.....

I sometimes do not comprehend the conservative "mind", when it comes to arguing for things logically. They might have a point on some issues, but their presentation is oftentimes horrendous. (Example, their anti-gun control argument is strong based on the right merits, but instead they revert to brain dead logic and go "2nd Amendment" or even worse "guns don't kill people, people kill people"---no ####, that is why we want background checks you idiots)
   112. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4397138)
What are these mexican gun laws the liberals are trying to implement. I feel like i should have heard more about this.
   113. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4397143)
I don't know how many people on here are on facebook, and constantly get their friends to post a post talking about North Korea's immigation policy, Afghanistan immigration policy,(how they imprison people for years for illegal immigration) and then talk about the U.S. policy(often times with made up ####) but the point is that they point to the U.S. treats their immigrants nicer. And they seem to think that this is somehow bad. That saying we aren't like North Korea and other countries, that we are somehow bad.....


I remember when no less a conservative than William F Buckley himself lauded Cuba's handling of the AIDS crisis as superior to our own sissified half-measures. The Cuban government locked all the infected queers in a prison where they could infect no more. Meanwhile our milquetoasts couldn't even adopt Buckley's own mild suggestion of forcibly tattooing "HIV+" on the arms and buttocks of all carriers.
   114. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4397145)
I live in Scottsdale and I don't know anyone willing to admit they voted for Sheriff Joe, or who is outwardly racist in any way.

Mexico is an awful place, in part due to our drug laws, and anyone who would refuse entry to someone willing to work hard in order to escape its hell is a cretin.

Oh, and all my best friends at Talking Stick resort would be offended if smeared as "white". They are Asian, and every one will tell you that white people are too tight-ass to be real gamblers on the level of Asians (and me due to honorary Asian membership given due to my long proven degeneracy).
   115. CrosbyBird Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4397148)
NYC is a segregated ass city, but at least everyone has to pretend to get along on their commute to work or lunch break.

I suppose it depends where in the city you are. I live in Chelsea, where there are lots of different groups of people all jammed together. It was similar in Hell's Kitchen.

I teach and tutor students trying to get into graduate school, and at this point, I'd say that I see pretty much every kind of person as part of my day-to-day. There are some trends, though: the overwhelming majority of my black and Latino students are LSAT, and the majority of my Asian students are GMAT. GRE is almost exclusively white. Performance, on the other hand, is very poorly correlated with most of the stereotypes. Obviously, language issues for international students are an exception.

There is some wealth-based selection, of course. Outside of occasional classes where tuition is covered under college programs, everyone I teach can afford test prep. Strangely enough, some of my worst students are the wealthiest.
   116. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4397150)
Mexico is an awful place, in part due to our drug laws, and anyone who would refuse entry to someone willing to work hard in order to escape its hell is a cretin.

Utterly false. Mexico has above-average per capita GDP, and the vast majority of the country is not only safe, but far safer than a lot of major American cities. (Mexico's border zone is to Mexico as Chicago's slums are to the U.S. — i.e., not remotely representative.)
   117. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4397153)
I live in Scottsdale and I don't know anyone willing to admit they voted for Sheriff Joe, or who is outwardly racist in any way.
My wife works in Gilbert and... well, there are plenty of Joe fans down there, in votes and sympathetic attitude.
   118. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4397154)
I live in Scottsdale and I don't know anyone willing to admit they voted for Sheriff Joe


and yet some obviously did...

or perhaps not, the specific people you associate with may have overwhelmingly voted against him...

according to Wikipedia, Phoenix is only 46.5% non hispanic white (it used to be MUCH higher)
the State as a whole is very white, 89% in 2000 (65% non-hispanic white)


New Mexico is very different demographically, 68.4% white (40.5% non-hispanic white), 9.4% Native American, OTOH, very few blacks in NM...

In 1940, the State of New York was 94.6% non-Hispanic white- which looking at the state now is nearly incomprehensible (of course my particular hometown was and remains over 95% white...)

   119. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 26, 2013 at 06:55 PM (#4397165)
Utterly false. Mexico has above-average per capita GDP, and the vast majority of the country is not only safe, but far safer than a lot of major American cities.


Mexico's murder rate is far higher than the US, its reported theft and auto-theft rates are quite a bit lower

per the IMF, Mexico's GDP/Cap is 63rd out of 185
per the World Bank 65th out of 190
per the CIA 65th out of 192
per the UN, 66th out of 194

(In case you are wondering everyone has Somalia dead last except the IMF, who have apparently de-listed Somalia)

Mexico's GDP per cap ranges from $39 below to $100 above world average, so as nearly as you can compute these types of things, its GDP/Cap is almost perfectly average
of course Mexico's income disparity is greater than world average (not by a huge amount) and hence its median household income is lower than world average (not by a huge amount, basically within range of average)

Mexico is, aside from its murder rate (which is very very high), a very average country by world standards- which makes it oddly atypical, countries tend to be either well above or well below (average GDP)

   120. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4397176)
I'm not sure if #119 is meant as a rebuttal or an addendum. Either way, if people are trying to frame the immigration debate as the U.S. having some sort of moral imperative to give opportunity to the downtrodden, as per #114 and many other comments, Mexicans would be near the bottom of the list hemispherically and in the bottom third globally.

The economics aside, it's interesting how liberals who natter on and on about the wonders of diversity don't seem to care that the majority of recent U.S. immigrants have come from just one country.
   121. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 26, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4397184)
Utterly false. Mexico has above-average per capita GDP, and the vast majority of the country is not only safe, but far safer than a lot of major American cities.

that is news to my Mexican friends based around the country where among other things you have to take walks within compounds versus the city sidewalks, you don't wear good jewelry when going out because it is understood that you will be accosted and robbed at any traffic stop so just hand over the goods versus put up any resistance, and if your family has any money at all someone has been kidnapped for ransom and if you don't pay exactly as defined the relative is killed and left on your doorstep, often dismembered.

now you can trot out stats that may contradict these anecdotes but the above has been shared with me ad nauseum as the country, especially mexico city, has regressed over the last decade. but i will take my friends words given that though they despair for their country they stay and work to try and make things better.

i just spoke to Mario the other day who while excited over the upcoming mexico/u.s. soccer match was frustrated at a recent spike in shootings in his neighborhood
   122. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2013 at 08:01 PM (#4397195)
Harveys, I lived in Mexico from 2007 to 2012. It's a very safe place for people who (1) live away from the border zone and (2) take the most basic precautions that anyone should take anywhere.

There are places where one shouldn't wear flashy jewelry (which is also true in the U.S.) and there are cases of people being kidnapped. But it's generally not poor people who are robbed or kidnapped, so it's illogical to be using those as the rationale for accepting millions of mostly poor, low-skilled legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico.
   123. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 26, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4397198)
The only Europeans sent back before 1921 were known criminals, the feebleminded, and those with communicable diseases. Those "illegal immigrants" of today should be so lucky.

While it is true that the USA once had an open immigration policy, few think it is a practical option today. The fact that immigration laws were easier to comply with a century ago isn't much of an argument for breaking today's laws. People are expected to comply with the laws that as they exist at the time.
   124. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 26, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4397199)
I got all (ok, probably just most) of you suckers beat! Documentary evidence proves my ancestors were illegally distilling spirits in America as early as the 1680s. Unfortunately they were hounded out of America for their political beliefs a century later.


My earliest European ancestor in America was a Scot who got kicked over to America after losing to Cromwell. My earliest American ancestor got here before the Bering Straight appeared. So all y'all palefaces and English GTFO out of my country.

Of course, that would also go for the other 80-90%+ of my ancestry that got here later. But I've been meaning to lose weight.
   125. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 26, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4397208)
Both parties are certainly to blame for importing tens of millions of Mexicans, but only one party wants those Mexicans to stay forever as citizens.


And the other party wants those Mexicans to stay (hidden) forever (as cheap labour), as well.
   126. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2013 at 08:53 PM (#4397210)
While it is true that the USA once had an open immigration policy, few think it is a practical option today. The fact that immigration laws were easier to comply with a century ago isn't much of an argument for breaking today's laws. People are expected to comply with the laws that as they exist at the time.

Exactly right, and it's absurd that it even needs to be said.

If a person tried to use the "But a hundred years ago ..." defense if caught with an unlicensed gun, Andy would laugh him out of the room.
   127. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4397509)
Where are you getting your immigration numbers from Joe? Last I heard the estimate of illegal immigrants in the US was at roughly 11.5 million with approx 60% of those Mexican - this was from a Pew study in 2011.
   128. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:22 AM (#4397515)
Well, duh, as there were no quotas governing Europeans during that entire period. But if they'd waited until 1925 you would have been born in Communist Poland.

Yes, and if my ancestors were from Uganda or Vietnam or any number of other places that didn't send many (or any) immigrants to the U.S. a hundred years ago, I would either have been born in one of those places or not at all, regardless of the U.S.'s immigration laws in 1895 or 1921 or 1955. But unless you're advocating a complete open-borders policy for the U.S., that has nothing to do with the immigration debate. It's just a silly appeal to emotion.


Ann Richards' description of Bush I fits you perfectly: Born on third base,** and you think you've hit a triple. There's no refuting attitudes like that other than at the ballot box, even if it might take a few more elections like 2012 to get it straight.

**With automatic U.S. citizenship
   129. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4397519)
While it is true that the USA once had an open immigration policy, few think it is a practical option today. The fact that immigration laws were easier to comply with a century ago isn't much of an argument for breaking today's laws. People are expected to comply with the laws that as they exist at the time.

Of course they are. But laws can be changed for the better, and today's "criminals" can be tomorrow's productive citizens, if only the Arpaios of the world would do us a favor and let a more openminded generation take over.
   130. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4397792)
Where are you getting your immigration numbers from Joe? Last I heard the estimate of illegal immigrants in the US was at roughly 11.5 million with approx 60% of those Mexican - this was from a Pew study in 2011.

I said "the majority of recent U.S. immigrants have come from just one country." Sixty percent = a majority. (And I've seen estimates that were even higher than 60 percent.)

***
Ann Richards' description of Bush I fits you perfectly: Born on third base,** and you think you've hit a triple. There's no refuting attitudes like that other than at the ballot box, even if it might take a few more elections like 2012 to get it straight.

**With automatic U.S. citizenship

This glib piece of nonsense was the best you could do?

Even by '60s hippie standards, your persistent claims that the U.S. will be better off when its average citizen is poorer, less educated, and lower-skilled are nonsensical. Only in Andy's World are illiterate workers from Oaxaca and Chiapas just a couple classes away from curing cancer. And only in Andy's World does the U.S. — a country with ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and stagnant wages among employed low-skilled workers — need even more low-skilled workers.
   131. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4397807)
Even by '60s hippie standards, your persistent claims that the U.S. will be better off when its average citizen is poorer, less educated, and lower-skilled are nonsensical. Only in Andy's World are illiterate workers from Oaxaca and Chiapas just a couple classes away from curing cancer. And only in Andy's World does the U.S. — a country with ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and stagnant wages among employed low-skilled workers — need even more low-skilled workers.

Of course minus the details, this is exactly the same sort of picture than xenophobes were painting of your bedraggled ancestors at the time they came over on the boat, but then appreciation of irony or a knowledge of history have never been two of your stronger points. It must be painful for you to see your idealized vision of the United States slipping away little by little, isn't it? Too bad there isn't anything you're going to be able to do about it, but maybe the yahoos in Arpaioland will step up their breeding and you'll get a reprieve for a few years longer.
   132. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4397812)
Of course minus the details, this is exactly the same sort of picture than xenophobes were painting of your bedraggled ancestors at the time they came over on the boat, but then appreciation of irony or a knowledge of history have never been two of your stronger points. It must be painful for you to see your idealized vision of the United States slipping away little by little, isn't it? Too bad there isn't anything you're going to be able to do about it, but maybe the yahoos in Arpaioland will step up their breeding and you'll get a reprieve for a few years longer.

You're like one of those pull-string dolls with the "Arpaio" stuff.

Do you think the U.S. would have had such a welcoming immigration policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s if there was ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and/or stagnant wages among workers who were already in the U.S.?
   133. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4397816)
Do you think the U.S. would have had such a welcoming immigration policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s if there was ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and/or stagnant wages among those who were already in the U.S.?

Shhh. Those favoring non-enforcement of the immigration laws don't like to talk about how it depresses wages for low-skilled workers.
   134. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4397820)
Only in Andy's World are illiterate workers from Oaxaca and Chiapas just a couple classes away from curing cancer.


They could be replacing cancerous and otherwise failed organs in Americans at this very moment if the government would only get out of the way.
   135. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4397828)
You're like one of those pull-string dolls with the "Arpaio" stuff.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? If the shoe fits, wear it.

Do you think the U.S. would have had such a welcoming immigration policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s if there was ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and/or stagnant wages among workers who were already in the U.S.?

Lucky for you that you're already here, isn't it?

And if you're really worried about depressed wages for low-skilled workers, why aren't you directing your steam towards union organizing efforts? That would do more for existing U.S. workers than building walls along the Mexican border, even if it might not be so good for outside investors in factory farms.

And yes, in some cases food prices might go up as a result, but right now those prices are being had at the expense of the people who produce them. That's not a Biblical command by any means.
   136. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4397830)
I said "the majority of recent U.S. immigrants have come from just one country." Sixty percent = a majority. (And I've seen estimates that were even higher than 60 percent.)


Is it in any way surprising to you that the majority of illegal immigrants come from one of the two countries that share a land border with the US?

You also said this:

Andy, your "quota" argument seems rather weak, given that Mexico has already sent more immigrants to the U.S. than Italy, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries — combined.


That and your agreement with The Good Face that there are tens of millions of Mexicans coming in annually was what I was highly doubting.
   137. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4397832)
Do you think the U.S. would have had such a welcoming immigration policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s if there was ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and/or stagnant wages among workers who were already in the U.S.?


Umm yes, because the US did have extended bouts of such economic conditions and a much more welcoming immigration policy (than today).

We didn't really tighten up immigration laws until 1921 and 1924... when the economy was "roaring"

and the main impetus then (as now) was clearly the ethnicity of the more recent immigrants rather than their economic impact.



   138. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4397834)
Of course they are. But laws can be changed for the better, and today's "criminals" can be tomorrow's productive citizens, if only the Arpaios of the world would do us a favor and let a more openminded generation take over.

Though I agree with him on wide swaths of the immigration issue, one can't help but take note -- again -- of Andy's distinctive love-hate relationship with actual laws.
   139. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4397835)
Of course minus the details, this is exactly the same sort of picture than xenophobes were painting of your bedraggled ancestors at the time they came over on the boat, but then appreciation of irony or a knowledge of history have never been two of your stronger points. It must be painful for you to see your idealized vision of the United States slipping away little by little, isn't it? Too bad there isn't anything you're going to be able to do about it, but maybe the yahoos in Arpaioland will step up their breeding and you'll get a reprieve for a few years longer.


You're like one of those pull-string dolls with the "Arpaio" stuff.

Do you think the U.S. would have had such a welcoming immigration policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s if there was ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers and/or stagnant wages among workers who were already in the U.S.?


Andy is completely right in bringing up past immigration. There has always been backlash from established 'Americans' when new ethnic groups enter the country in large numbers. The Irish were despised, then the Italians. For a while Eastern Europeans were seen as ruining the country. Chinese people were restricted or outright banned. Now it's all about stopping Mexicans. Whatever the case, it's always done without any regard for the history of the US, and there is an underlying racist attitude that should not be tolerated. I am not advocating for a completely open immigration policy, but we need to stop singling out nationalities that look different and claiming they are ruining the country.

Edited for clarity.
   140. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4397840)
Lucky for you that you're already here, isn't it?

Yes, and lucky I was born in 1973 rather than 1873 or 1773, regardless of whether I was born in the U.S. or Ireland or the Ukraine. But this, of course, has nothing to do with the immigration debate, unless you favor a complete open-borders policy. It's just another glib appeal to emotion.

And if you're really worried about depressed wages for low-skilled workers, why aren't you directing your steam towards union organizing efforts? That would do more for existing U.S. workers than building walls along the Mexican border, even if it might not be so good for outside investors in factory farms.

And yes, in some cases food prices might go up as a result, but right now those prices are being had at the expense of the people who produce them. That's not a Biblical command by any means.

Comical. Unions would do precisely zero for the current ~16 percent of low-skilled workers who are unemployed, and have probably exacerbated that number in some industries. As for employed low-skilled workers, unions can override the supply/demand curve for a little while, but they're not going to solve the problem of wage stagnation for tens of millions of workers. That's a fairy tale that not even the SEIU folks would try to tell with a straight face.
   141. The Good Face Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4397841)
Shhh. Those favoring non-enforcement of the immigration laws don't like to talk about how it depresses wages for low-skilled workers.


Well, that is pretty much the entire point of the exercise.

That and your agreement with The Good Face that there are tens of millions of Mexicans coming in annually was what I was highly doubting.


Never said that. It's a short thread, just quote me rather than make things up.
   142. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4397843)
There has always been backlash from established 'Americans' when new ethnic groups enter the country in large numbers. The Irish were despised, then the Italians. For a while Eastern Europeans were seen as ruining the country. Chinese people were restricted or outright banned. Now it's all about stopping Mexicans. Whatever the case, it's always the done without any regard for the history of the US. And every time it is racist and should not be tolerated. I am not advocating for a completely open immigration policy, but we need to stop singling out nationalities that look different and claiming they are ruining the country.
And when these groups were vilified, not once has history proven the haters correct. "Whoa, those Italians/Irish/Chinese really were going to ruin the country!"
   143. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4397845)
Is it in any way surprising to you that the majority of illegal immigrants come from one of the two countries that share a land border with the US?

When did I say I was surprised? I simply corrected your misunderstanding of the word "majority."

You also said this:

Andy, your "quota" argument seems rather weak, given that Mexico has already sent more immigrants to the U.S. than Italy, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries — combined.

That and your agreement with The Good Face that there are tens of millions of Mexicans coming in annually was what I was highly doubting.

Neither Good Face nor I have claimed that "tens of millions of Mexicans [are] coming in annually."

Edit: A Jack and Coke to Good Face.
   144. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4397847)
"Whoa, those Italians/Irish/Chinese really were going to ruin the country!"


Well, there's Scalia ...
   145. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4397848)
Well, there's Scalia ...
I cannot argue this point.
   146. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4397849)
Umm yes, because the US did have extended bouts of such economic conditions and a much more welcoming immigration policy (than today).

We didn't really tighten up immigration laws until 1921 and 1924... when the economy was "roaring"

and the main impetus then (as now) was clearly the ethnicity of the more recent immigrants rather than their economic impact.

The U.S. was allowing millions of dirt-poor immigrants into the country, ~16 percent of whom couldn't find work? Sorry, not buying it.

Just because the laws might have allowed such a thing doesn't mean it was actually happening. Immigration from Mexico always slows when the economy slows, and all Mexicans have to do is walk across the border. Poor Europeans in the 1800s weren't taking boats across the Atlantic when there was ~16 percent unemployment and no safety net.
   147. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4397851)
Never said that. It's a short thread, just quote me rather than make things up.


12. The Good Face Posted: March 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4396620)


Assuming that's sarcasm, perhaps the Democrats should stop trying to implement Mexico's gun laws in the US while importing tens of millions of actual, you know, Mexicans?


   148. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4397854)
With all due respect, is English not your first language or something? That quote doesn't include the word "annually," or even hint at such a thing.
   149. The Good Face Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4397856)
And when these groups were vilified, not once has history proven the haters correct. "Whoa, those Italians/Irish/Chinese really were going to ruin the country!"


But nobody has vilified anybody here; you're arguing with strawmen.

The claim at hand is factual and logic-based.

Proposition A. Adding tens of millions of Mexicans as citizens or permanent residents of America will make America more like Mexico than not adding those people.

Proposition B. Mexico sucks compared to America.

Assuming Propositions A & B are true, which of course they are, we're left with Conclusion C; Adding tens of millions of Mexicans as citizens or permanent residents will make America suck more. I'm saddened that so many people here are so dead set on making life worse for their neighbors and countrymen; truly a depressing commentary on our sick culture.
   150. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4397861)
But nobody has vilified anybody here; you're arguing with strawmen.

That's all they have here. I've tried to engage Andy on the merits about 20 times, and all he comes back with is "Arpaio" and "xenophobia." I'm still waiting for his (or any liberal's) economics-based explanation of how it makes sense to add millions of additional low-skilled workers to a labor market that already has millions of excess and apparently unneeded low-skilled workers.
   151. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4397868)
With all due respect, is English not your first language or something? That quote doesn't include the word "annually," or even hint at such a thing.


Fine, take off 'annually' - apparently I was interpreting the post incorrectly. But my questioning regarding your numbers still stands. According to Pew in 2011 there were approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants - of these 58% are Mexican, so 6.67 million. That is not 'tens of millions'.

Again, where are you getting your numbers from? And you never backed up your claim that 'Mexico has already sent more immigrants to the U.S. than Italy, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries — combined.'
   152. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4397870)
That's all they have here. I've tried to engage Andy on the merits about 20 times, and all he comes back with is "Arpaio" and "xenophobia." I'm still waiting for his (or any liberal's) economics-based explanation of how it makes sense to add millions of additional low-skilled workers to a labor market that already has millions of excess and apparently unneeded low-skilled workers.


Well, to start with, you are assuming that all illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers. That in and of itself is racist.
   153. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4397872)
But nobody has vilified anybody here; you're arguing with strawmen.
I live in Maricopa County; I'm arguing with jackholes like the late, unlamented J.T. Ready.
   154. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4397874)

Proposition A. Adding tens of millions of Mexicans as citizens or permanent residents of America will make America more like Mexico than not adding those people.

Proposition B. Mexico sucks compared to America.

Assuming Propositions A & B are true, which of course they are, we're left with Conclusion C; Adding tens of millions of Mexicans as citizens or permanent residents will make America suck more. I'm saddened that so many people here are so dead set on making life worse for their neighbors and countrymen; truly a depressing commentary on our sick culture.


This also is ridiculous. Mexico sucks, therefore all Mexicans suck. How is this not expressing xenophobia?
   155. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4397875)
I love how GF thinks he's pulled a gotcha on us darn libruls in post #149.

I really do.

"Whoa, those Italians/Irish/Chinese really were going to ruin the country!"


The Chinese are still working on it, in fact I believe my wife (Canadian citizen but born in Fuzhou) is one of their sleeper agents, but I'm on to her, I've got son #1 spying on her. (I tested his loyalties once by offering him a choice between a hot dog and steamed pork bun for lunch- he chose the hot dog... my wife snarled at him, "you're not Chinese!")
   156. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4397878)
Fine, take off 'annually' - apparently I was interpreting the post incorrectly. But my questioning regarding your numbers still stands. According to Pew in 2011 there were approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants - of these 58% are Mexican, so 6.67 million. That is not 'tens of millions'.

You're conflating two different comments. I talked in percentages, while Good Face used raw numbers. But both comments, individually, are correct.

If you look at the latest Census numbers, you'll see that there were 40 million foreign-born people in the U.S. as of 2010. Only a quarter of them are in the country illegally.

Again, where are you getting your numbers from? And you never backed up your claim that 'Mexico has already sent more immigrants to the U.S. than Italy, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries — combined.'

The numbers are easily available, whether you look at Wikipedia, the government sites, the Ellis Island site, or sites like CIS.
   157. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4397883)
I tested his loyalties once by offering him a choice between a hot dog and steamed pork bun for lunch- he chose the hot dog... my wife snarled at him, "you're not Chinese!"
Somebody needs re-education (summer) camp!
   158. The Good Face Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4397884)
I love how GF thinks he's pulled a gotcha on us darn libruls in post #149.

I really do.


Not actually a rebuttal. Never seems to be one in these debates.
   159. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4397886)
The numbers are easily available, whether you look at Wikipedia, the government sites, the Ellis Island site, or CIS.


The enlighten me please. I have yet to find a set of numbers that shows historic figures for immigrant country of origin.
   160. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4397887)
Well, to start with, you are assuming that all illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers.

I've made no such assumption. You're either really bad at English or deliberately misrepresenting people's comments.

(But just for the record, I do assume that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers, because it's the simple truth. Per the link, only 7 percent (!) of illegal immigrants have a high school diploma.)

... That in and of itself is racist.

There it is! I'm surprised it took this long.
   161. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4397888)
Again, where are you getting your numbers from? And you never backed up your claim that 'Mexico has already sent more immigrants to the U.S. than Italy, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries — combined.'


according to Wikipedia,
"Ancestry of the people of the United States"


Rank Ancestry Number Percent of total
population
1 German 42,841,569 15.2%
2 Irish 30,524,799 10.8%
3 English 24,509,692 8.7%
4 American 20,188,305 7.2%
5 Mexican 18,382,291 6.5%
6 Italian 15,638,348 5.6%
7 French 11,800,000 4.0%
8 Polish 8,977,235 3.2%
9 American Indian 7,876,568 2.8%
10 Scottish 4,890,581 1.7%
11 Dutch 4,541,770 1.6%
12 Norwegian 4,477,725 1.6%
13 Scotch-Irish 4,319,232 1.5%
14 Swedish 3,998,310 1.4%
15 White 3,834,122 1.4%


Of course that is not the same as "immigrants"- the vast majority of those German Americans were born here.

Anyway, currently 12.5% of the US Population is foreign born- that is quite a bit higher than the 1940s to 1990s era- but the percentage was higher than 12.5% most of the 19th century and right up to about 1930.

   162. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:52 PM (#4397894)
There has always been backlash from established 'Americans' when new ethnic groups enter the country in large numbers. The Irish were despised, then the Italians. For a while Eastern Europeans were seen as ruining the country. Chinese people were restricted or outright banned. Now it's all about stopping Mexicans.


To illustrate this point, here are a few late 19th / early 20th century depictions in the popular press of

The Chinese

The Irish

The Italians

The Jews

and Immigrants in general


I should add in fairness to a group that I regularly bash, that one of the leading libertarian magazines (Reason) has consistently come out against this sort of nativist drivel, and in fact featured many of these same images in a special issue on immigration in 2005 or 2006. It's just pathetic to see so many people look at our country and totally miss the point of what makes us distinctive.
   163. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4397895)
Well, to start with, you are assuming that all illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers.

I've made no such assumption. You're either really bad at English or deliberately misrepresenting people's comments.


do you really want someone to add up the number of times you have made a connection between low-skilled workers and Mexican immigration?
and then when called on it, you claim, "I said/assumed no such thing..."

It's a low grade trolling tactic, everyone can see through it, I don't know why you bother.

   164. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:54 PM (#4397897)
Well, to start with, you are assuming that all illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers.



I've made no such assumption. You're either really bad at English or deliberately misrepresenting people's comments.


WTF? You have mentioned low skilled workers and unemployment multiple times - while talking about illegal immigrants and Mexicans. How is that not tying them together and insinuating that illegal immigrants are low skilled workers?
   165. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4397901)
WTF? You have mentioned low skilled workers and unemployment multiple times - while talking about illegal immigrants and Mexicans. How is that not tying them together and insinuating that illegal immigrants are low skilled workers?


It was a rather clumsy attempt attempt at an internet trick- GF was doing the same thing- but much more smoothly, Joe should be taking notes...

   166. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4397903)
Rank Ancestry Number Percent of total
population
1 German 42,841,569 15.2%
2 Irish 30,524,799 10.8%
3 English 24,509,692 8.7%
4 American 20,188,305 7.2%
5 Mexican 18,382,291 6.5%
6 Italian 15,638,348 5.6%
7 French 11,800,000 4.0%
8 Polish 8,977,235 3.2%
9 American Indian 7,876,568 2.8%
10 Scottish 4,890,581 1.7%
11 Dutch 4,541,770 1.6%
12 Norwegian 4,477,725 1.6%
13 Scotch-Irish 4,319,232 1.5%
14 Swedish 3,998,310 1.4%
15 White 3,834,122 1.4%


Of course that is not the same as "immigrants"- the vast majority of those German Americans were born here.

And what would our country look like today if the mentality our Arpaios** and Kehoskies had prevailed back when the ancestors of our current generation Kehoskies and Arpaios had been formulating our immigration policy?

**Joe K doesn't seem to like this constant bringing up of the sheriff's name as a rhetorical meme, but in what case has Joe K ever diagreed with Joe A's take on immigration?
   167. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4397904)
It was a rather clumsy attempt attempt at an internet trick- GF was doing the same thing- but much more smoothly, Joe should be taking notes...

Yeah, I am sorry I ever engaged him. I am still very curious about the claim of more Mexican immigrants that from Germany, etc. but I doubt I will ever get numbers that support that.
   168. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4397906)
do you really want someone to add up the number of times you have made a connection between low-skilled workers and Mexican immigration?
and then when called on it, you claim, "I said/assumed no such thing..."

It's a low grade trolling tactic, everyone can see through it, I don't know why you bother.
WTF? You have mentioned low skilled workers and unemployment multiple times - while talking about illegal immigrants and Mexicans. How is that not tying them together and insinuating that illegal immigrants are low skilled workers?

Are you two really this dumb and/or dishonest? I've never said that "illegal immigrant" was a synonym for "Mexican," and I've never claimed that 100 percent of illegal immigrants were low-skilled. But the vast majority of illegal immigrants — and illegal-immigrants from Latin America — are low-skilled. If I'm wrong, take a break from the phony self-righteousness and post some links.

***
Yeah, I am sorry I ever engaged him. I am still very curious about the claim of more Mexican immigrants that from Germany, etc. but I doubt I will ever get numbers that support that.

Ha ha. "Engaged"? All you did was spout nonsense. I'm still waiting for you (and Andy, and JSLF, et al.) to post a single fact in rebuttal of anything I've said in this thread. (Funny how Andy has time to post links to old posters and to talk about Arpaio for the hundredth time, but still hasn't gotten around to answering #132 or #140.)
   169. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:05 PM (#4397912)
Yeah, I am sorry I ever engaged him. I am still very curious about the claim of more Mexican immigrants that from Germany, etc. but I doubt I will ever get numbers that support that.


Most German immigration to the US was in the 18th and 19th Centuries- its' entirely possible that "only" 3-5 million came here as immigrants (the 40 million now being descended form those original 3-5 million) whereas some 6-10 million people have immigrated from Mexico.

Therefore Joe's statement could be literally true (just extremely misleading - like comparing 2012 dollars to 1890 dollars with no inflation adjustment)
   170. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4397913)

Are you two really this dumb and/or dishonest?


dumb: No.

dishonest: No, but you are and everyone else here knows it you lying sack of ####, jeebus why did I ever take you off ignore anyway.
   171. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:10 PM (#4397915)
170. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4397913)

Are you two really this dumb and/or dishonest?


dumb: No.

dishonest: No, but you are and everyone else here knows it you lying sack of ####, jeebus why did I ever take you off ignore anyway.

That's funny. I'm a liar, but you haven't refuted a single thing I've said. (But you win a lot of arguments in your head, so you have that going for you.)

By the way, aren't you a lawyer? Your #170 seems libelous absent some supporting proof.
   172. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4397919)
Most German immigration to the US was in the 18th and 19th Centuries- its' entirely possible that "only" 3-5 million came here as immigrants (the 40 million now being descended form those original 3-5 million) whereas some 6-10 million people have immigrated from Mexico.

Therefore Joe's statement could be literally true (just extremely misleading - like comparing 2012 dollars to 1890 dollars with no inflation adjustment)


Yep, according to this website

efore the major waves of German immigration began, already 8.6% of the population was German. Many had immigrated to Pennsylvania seeking religious freedom or had come under the redemptioner system. German peasants would receive free passage to America but would be required to work for a businessman for 4-7 years to repay the cost of the voyage.
1850's - Nearly 1 million Germans immigrated to the United States.
1870's - 723,000 Germans immigrated to the United States.
1880's - 1,445,000 Germans immigrated to the United States.


But as JSLF points out, that is not really being comparable. U.S. Population during those years was significantly less, 23mil in the 1850's, 38mil 1870's and 50mil 1890's. Compared to 300mil today.
   173. Shibal Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:14 PM (#4397920)
Most German immigration to the US was in the 18th and 19th Centuries- its' entirely possible that "only" 3-5 million came here as immigrants (the 40 million now being descended form those original 3-5 million) whereas some 6-10 million people have immigrated from Mexico.

Therefore Joe's statement could be literally true (just extremely misleading - like comparing 2012 dollars to 1890 dollars with no inflation adjustment)


What is misleading about it? You are the one trying to put offspring of immigrants into the immigrant column.

My grandparents came from Ireland. That doesn't make me an immigrant.
   174. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4397922)
The Chinese


Those Mongoloid heathens?

The Irish


Those drunken Papist wogs?

The Italians


Those greasy dago criminals?

The Jews


Good folks, the lot of 'em.
   175. Lassus Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4397924)
Assuming Propositions A & B are true, which of course they are, we're left with Conclusion C; Adding tens of millions of Mexicans as citizens or permanent residents will make America suck more. I'm saddened that so many people here are so dead set on making life worse for their neighbors and countrymen; truly a depressing commentary on our sick culture.

The logic of #149 is surreal, but it leaves out one important point.

Conclusion D: It makes Good Face less happy.

That one's good enough for for full speed ahead as far as I'm concerned.
   176. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4397925)
But as JSLF points out, that is not really being comparable. U.S. Population during those years was significantly less, 23mil in the 1850's, 38mil 1870's and 50mil 1890's. Compared to 300mil today.

How is it not comparable? Do you not understand how percentages work?

***
The logic of #149 is surreal, but it leaves out one important point.

Lassus, how is the "logic of #149 surreal"?

The only thing surreal in this thread is how the lefties believe self-righteousness trumps basic facts and basic economics.
   177. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4397929)
How is it not comparable? Do you not understand how percentages work?


Yes, but I'm not sure what you are arguing, my link shows that German Immigrants accounted for about 6% of the of the U.S. population by 1890's...(not including their descendants, and unfortunately not able to account for their deaths) Assuming 10 million mexican immigrants to the U.S. we are talking about a percentage of around 3.3%....

If you are going to just go by the different decades, german immigrants who immigrated to the U.S. in that decade accounted for 4.3% in the 1850s, 1.9% in the 1870's, and 2.9% in the 1890's.
   178. The Good Face Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4397930)
It was a rather clumsy attempt attempt at an internet trick- GF was doing the same thing- but much more smoothly, Joe should be taking notes...


Ah yes, the old internet mind trick. These are not the arguments you're looking for! Although apparently it worked, because you haven't made a single effective one yet. It's like the lefty B-team in this thread today... honestly, this was a sad display. I'm sad now. For you. Because of the arguments.

Unless... unless that was your plan all along! To fill me with the unfamiliar emotion of "pity" thereby rendering me vulnerable to your ad hominem arguments and insane troll logic. Well I'm on to your machinations you tricksy fellow, you!
   179. Lassus Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4397931)
Lassus, how is the "logic of #149 surreal"?

1870.

Ireland sucks.

More Irish will make the United States more like Ireland.

More Irish will make the United States suck more.

It's also turning the movement of populations into a 5th-grade science experiment. Conclusion: a 23% saline solution is more like salt than a 16% saline solution. No other factors exist! Done and done.
   180. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4397938)
OK, now I get it. The logic of #149 was "surreal" if you assume it was an entirely different logic than the one that was plain to other readers.
   181. The Good Face Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4397948)
Conclusion D: It makes Good Face less happy.


Your unseemly ressentiment aside, it won't actually make ME less happy. For people like me, illegal immigration from Mexico is mostly upside; I get to pay less for people to clean my house, renovate my kitchen, watch my children, pick my boysenberries, etc. I may wind up paying a bit more in taxes, but I'll make up for it with lower prices elsewhere. Poor, unskilled Americans will get dongued of course, but screw those guys, right?

More Irish will make the United States suck more.


Well that's simply irrefutable.
   182. zenbitz Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4397994)
I think i have ancestors who immigrated in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, the most recent beong my jewish grandmother who fled europe in the 30s.

I have lived in 4 of the most liberal cities in the US -- NY, LA, SF, and Oakland -- and all are remarkable segregrated wrt Blacks and somewhat wrt Latinos, but not asians so much. Of course, as recently as 1997 i went in a Bodega in Greenpoint (Brooklyn) and was greeted in Polish.

Maybe to prevent the dilution of our American Greatness with Mexicans, we can ship more Kehoskies south of the border.
   183. Spahn Insane Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:54 PM (#4398001)
In Arizona, a foreigner will get busted if he isn't carrying his papers as required by federal law. That's just like Mexico.

And if there's a country America should aspire to be more like, its Mexico.


In any case, I never carry my passport (assuming by "papers" the OP means passport and/or that exit card they give you upon entry) when I'm out and about in Mexico; it stays locked in the safe.
   184. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:00 PM (#4398005)
I have lived in 4 of the most liberal cities in the US -- NY, LA, SF, and Oakland -- and all are remarkable segregrated wrt Blacks and somewhat wrt Latinos, but not asians so much. Of course, as recently as 1997 i went in a Bodega in Greenpoint (Brooklyn) and was greeted in Polish.

Maybe to prevent the dilution of our American Greatness with Mexicans, we can ship more Kehoskies south of the border.

Another non-rebuttal rebuttal (and one that doesn't even make sense as a joke). I guess none of the liberals even want to try to craft an argument based on facts and economics.
   185. Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM (#4398104)
Another non-rebuttal rebuttal (and one that doesn't even make sense as a joke). I guess none of the liberals even want to try to craft an argument based on facts and economics.


I'm not a liberal, although I also have very few positions in common with what the Republicans have become, but I'd love to see an honest statement of the long-term implications of the Republican immigration position. If nothing else, just a "Joe, as a well-educated person who clearly self-identifies with the republican party, what do you think 2035 will look like?"

I don't have any hard numbers available, but given the current demographic situation in the US, limiting immigration seems intuitively to be (from a strictly economic standpoint) pretty much insane, for the same basic pragmatic reasons that the US legal position on abortion is economically insane- we desperately need young people. Our yuppies aren't having children, the baby boomers are retiring, SS is going to be insolvent soon, Bernanke is nuking our savings accounts, Obamanomics is crushing the working class, and the EU disintegration/Japanese economic meltdown means there is likely going to be a hard reset soon. Someone's going to have to pick up Humpty Dumpty and put him back together again.

I just don't see how the Republicans, who are generally the "long-term thinkers", can logically reconcile the current immigration platform with any kind of long-term perspective.
   186. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:15 PM (#4398115)
I'm not a liberal, although I also have very few positions in common with what the Republicans have become, but I'd love to see an honest statement of the long-term implications of the Republican immigration position.

The long term is a challenge, but that doesn't mean the GOP should just throw up its hands and accelerate its potential extinction.

Despite all the rhetoric, including some from saboteurs inside the GOP, low-skilled immigrants, especially low-skilled immigrants from Latin America, are natural Democrats. They like big government and they want big government. Hell, a poll last month showed that the average "Republican" Latino likes big government more than the average white Democrat.

I don't have any hard numbers available, but given the current demographic situation in the US, limiting immigration seems intuitively to be (from a strictly economic standpoint) pretty much insane, for the same basic pragmatic reasons that the US legal position on abortion is economically insane- we desperately need young people.

I'm not looking to end immigration; I'm looking to end low-skilled and chain immigration, especially during times of high low-skilled unemployment, such as the U.S. has right now. It simply makes no sense to keep bringing low-skilled workers (and their dependent family members) into an advanced economy that offers fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage for a single person, let alone a living wage for a family.

As a conservative, I want to see the GOP start worrying a lot more about appealing to working-class people of all races and ethnicities rather than engaging in an ill-fated mission to bribe Latinos with amnesty (which we know, from Reagan's 1986 amnesty, won't work anyway).
   187. Steve Treder Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:20 PM (#4398117)
Republicans, who are generally the "long-term thinkers"

On what planet, exactly?
   188. RollingWave Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:28 PM (#4398120)


Let me get this strait, if you get pulled over and taken in without paper, is that a crime in itself with this law (cause that would be insane) or is it only until you can produce the paper later on? because if it's the former, then they better apply that to everyone they take in for any reason.
   189. McCoy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4398128)
63% of the adults that make up part of the 11 million undocumented immigrants have been in this country for 10 years or more and from 2009 to 2011 (current numbers) the numbers have stayed neutral. Meaning that for just about every new illegal immigrant coming to this country one was leaving it.


Out of the 1 million legal immigrants that come here a year the DHS can classify almost 800,000 of them. Only a little over 1% of them are unemployed. Over half are homemakers, children, or students.

Illegal and legal immigrants are a largely meaningless economic issue that gets puffed up for political reasons.
   190. starksy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM (#4398130)
I agree that Columbia should be protected (Bioshock Infinite poster link; fun game).

Edit: I'd like to see some immigration reform, if for no other reason than to have more taxpayers to fund my social security. Pragmatism at best.
   191. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:41 AM (#4398184)
Republicans, who are generally the "long-term thinkers"


On what planet, exactly?

Hey, see for yourself. Their vision is positively Churchillian:

To the Moon, Newt!

Newt Gingrich described himself as a visionary when he unveiled plans Wednesday to create a mammoth new space program, including a permanent colony on the moon within the next nine years. Within eight years, he pledges a new Mars rocket program—specifically, a “continually operating propulsion system) capable of getting to Mars within a remarkably short time.” He also reiterated his plan to declare at least part of the moon as U.S. territory, with colonists capable of petitioning for statehood status....

Not content to merely colonize the moon in a decade, Gingrich has also promised to develop a viable Mars program to begin human space exploration of that planet within the next decade. It is hard to imagine why he didn’t also promise an intergalactic starship in this timeframe as well, as long as he was being visionary.
   192. Lassus Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:53 AM (#4398202)
I can get on Newt for a lot of crap, but I cannot do anything but support space travel.


I'm not looking to end immigration; I'm looking to end low-skilled and chain immigration, especially during times of high low-skilled unemployment, such as the U.S. has right now.

Since you didn't toss any grenades - desperate or otherwise - at the concept of desperately needing young people, wouldn't the beggars and choosers bit apply here?
   193. just plain joe Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:24 AM (#4398213)
I can get on Newt for a lot of crap, but I cannot do anything but support space travel.


As long as Newt is on the first rocket to Mars, I'm down with this.
   194. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:31 AM (#4398217)
We don’t stop people because they look like they’re from somewhere else. I’m an equal-opportunity guy. My guys arrest everybody.


I don't know if it was mentioned on page one, but this is the creepiest thing Joe Arpaio has ever said. He seems to think a system that "arrests everybody" without cause or reason is just hunky dory fine.
   195. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:31 AM (#4398218)
I can get on Newt for a lot of crap, but I cannot do anything but support space travel.


As long as Newt is on the first rocket to Mars, I'm down with this.

I'm holding out for an ocean liner that takes the entire Tea Party to Mercury for a global warming conference.
   196. OCF Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM (#4398321)
Where I work and teach, I am surrounded by immigrants, both as colleagues and students. Immigrants from everywhere. Having half or more of the students on a class roster have Spanish surnames would not be at all surprising. (Side note: a few of those with Spanish surnames are actually Filipino.) Being that close to so many different people from so many different places leaves me convinced of two things. The first is that behind every ethnic label lies incredible internal diversity, none more than the label "Hispanic" or "Latino". The second is that the children of immigrants to America are Americans. For better or worse, they act like Americans, they talk like Americans, they respond to American culture.
   197. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4398347)
The first is that behind every ethnic label lies incredible internal diversity, none more than the label "Hispanic" or "Latino". The second is that the children of immigrants to America are Americans. For better or worse, they act like Americans, they talk like Americans, they respond to American culture.

Wow, I thought they were all just sticking around in order to make life miserable for Joe Kehoskie.
   198. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4398353)
He seems to think a system that "arrests everybody" without cause or reason is just hunky dory fine.
He'll arrest everybody except for those who commit sex crimes, especially against children. As for them, well, there's only some many hours in a day.
   199. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4398356)
The children were all drunk & had it coming, probably.
   200. zenbitz Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4398395)
One does not rebut a force of nature, one simply waits until the wind stops blowing.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1140 - 9:36pm, Nov 26)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4996 - 9:30pm, Nov 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(10 - 9:29pm, Nov 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(7 - 9:14pm, Nov 26)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(5 - 9:10pm, Nov 26)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(27 - 8:57pm, Nov 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogRolling Stone: The 15 Worst Owners in Sports
(51 - 8:56pm, Nov 26)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(26 - 8:11pm, Nov 26)
Last: Walt Davis

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(22 - 7:39pm, Nov 26)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8706 - 6:27pm, Nov 26)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(17 - 6:18pm, Nov 26)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogAdam Rubin: My Hall of Fame ballot
(65 - 6:15pm, Nov 26)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-26-2014
(12 - 6:12pm, Nov 26)
Last: The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(538 - 5:45pm, Nov 26)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(4 - 5:43pm, Nov 26)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

Page rendered in 0.8460 seconds
54 querie(s) executed