2006 March 31 Friday
AFL-CIO Opposes Big Foreign Worker Import Program

The old labor unions haven't totally rolled over for the elites on how to make the US labor force cheaper. Organized labor opposes Ted Kennedy's plan to bring in massive numbers of low skilled low pay foreign workers.

New economic research that pits native-born workers against low-skilled immigrants in a struggle for jobs and wages has fueled a rift between some of Washington's most liberal lawmakers and their allies in economics and labor, who fear that the Democratic Party is pushing an immigration policy that forsakes the party's working-class mainstay.

The Democratic Party has abandoned its historical concern for working conditions and pay of the lower classes. It sees them as recipients of government programs, not primarily as workers. If lower classes can't be categorized as "oppressed" minorities most of the Democratic Party is just not interested in them.

Increase the supply of labor and the labor cost goes down for owners of capital.

"What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers," said George J. Borjas, an economist at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Somehow the upper class gatekeepers of the Democratic Party messed up weren't paying attention to North Dakota. They let Byron Dorgan, an old school Democrat, get elected to the Senate. I picture well heeled Democrats at some Westchester New York upper class party sipping wine and complaining to each other that Dorgan could drive up the price of gardeners and nannies if he isn't stopped.

But the work of Borjas and other economists is becoming a wedge in the Democratic Party. Citing Borjas's work, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) denounced the Senate immigration bill yesterday, saying: "This is clearly a corporate strategy to keep wages low. It clearly will replace the jobs of American workers."

At issue is a guest-worker provision that would allow hundreds of thousands of foreign workers legal access to the U.S. labor market each year and the impact those new low-wage workers would have on stagnant wages.

The number of native born males who are working is actually shrinking.

A Northeastern University study found that nearly 86 percent of all newly employed workers hired from 2000 to 2005 were immigrants. For men, the statistics were more stark. In that time, the labor market for men rose by 2.66 million while 2.77 million foreign-born men found work. In other words, Sum said, immigrants have begun replacing native-born male workers.

"Young guys are being displaced by immigrants," he said. "Some of my good liberal friends take issue, but if you're a young worker under 25, poorly educated, probably African American, the higher the share of new immigrants in your community, the worse your employment prospects are becoming."

Our elites truly are electing a new people. We are going to be swept away as somehow unworthy. Why don't they like us? Why do they want to replace us? I am used to employers replacing workers with other workers. But I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea of elites replacing the masses with a different population. Don't like your majority? Think it is too smart and uppity? Put it in its place by importing a newer, more compliant, and dumber majority. That describes what is happening to a once proud American people in the early 21st century.

Americans need to get mad enough to replace their elites before their elites replace them. It is them or us people. Who's it gonna be? Wake up.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 March 31 07:18 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
FriendlyFire said at April 1, 2006 4:27 PM:

Strangly enough I was watching the Daily show and they has Alfarari (sp?) on again most of the discussion centered on immigration.

He brought up the so far America has one of the most succesful immigration policies to date of any country. He compared the failed immigration policies of France which has created a poor arab class compared with America where Arab americans are largely middle class (and voted overwhelemingly Republican in 2000)

US immigration policy needs to be fixed, tweaked, admended but to carry outright deportations would be chaos. Its just isnt workable. There must be a middle ground that is a workable and viable solution. You should know this yet you pushing for what is an extreme and damaging solution.

Randall Parker said at April 1, 2006 4:49 PM:

FriendlyFire,

The Daily Show is predictably liberal.

Failed immigration policies of France? How so? They have worse immigrants because they are near Muslim countries.

Outright deportation would not be chaos. Why? The economy would rearrange very rapidly. Also, low paid people are not doing important work. If their work was high value it would pay more.

Deportation would be extremely beneficial.

Dave said at April 1, 2006 7:13 PM:

But, if an illegal immigrant came as a child, maybe 14-15 or so and has been living in the US for maybe 20-30 years is it not unreasonable to kick them out now when they probably have no life in Mexico to go back too?
I'm as against illegal immigration as anyone, but you can't turn back time and pretend the mistakes of the past didn't happen?

noone said at April 2, 2006 5:40 AM:

The US economy will not collapse because you have to cut your own grass(it will collapse when furriners realize America.com ain't reall all that good an investmentand stop loaning us money) and capital and technology will replace cheap labor in other industries.Unfortunatly,the tech nerds like Instapundit think "tech" is all about toys and games.

Also remember that a huge number of illegals work in industries that have boomed because of easy money-cheap credit policies.When the Fed raises interest rates and tightens the money supply(and it will)the construction and entertainment industries will shed workers like fleas as people stop buying McMansions and stop eating at overpriced resturants.

Kenelm Digby said at April 2, 2006 5:56 AM:

Randall,
You pose the question "Is it us or the elites?", my money is on the elite every time.
Very simply put, the elites actually have power - the "masses" do not.

Dave said at April 2, 2006 8:28 AM:

Big Bill, I don't know if you talkin about me, but if so you are mistaken. I feel no obligation to 'global humanity' what so ever, and if it was upto me I would close the borders to all illegal AND legal immigration for the simple reason that some Western nations are losing their identities due to out of control immigration, France for example, and it will happen to the rest if something isn't done to stop it.

I heard a guy on Fox News last night say he thought nothing should be done about illegal immigration and 'let the water find its own level' well thats just fkin nuts. The guy is either too arrogant to think 3rd worlders will have an effect on the US, or he doesn't care about US sovereignty. Probably both..


But, the problem the US has is that you have ignored illegal immigration for so long already. Its not a question of these illegals being highly sneaky people and skilled at avoiding the Police, you have sanctuary cities, some parts of law enforcement are not allowed to check legal status, you have only a handful of border guards for one of the longest borders in the world, illegals can get mortgages to buy US property, they can in some cases get drivers licenses, etc, etc, etc. The situation that has been created is not an accident, it is an intentional corruption of the democractic process by politicans who knew they couldn't get elected on a pro legal open border route so they did all they could to damage immigration control. Yes illegal immigrants are to blame but there also needs to be much more attention given to the people who actively encourage (effectively invited) the illegals into the US.
We in the whole Western world are victims of the two party state, which in many cases is worse than a one party state because they give the illusion of choice and democracy when in reality on many issues there is none. (I know we can vote for more than two parties, but in reality its very hard for others to make any kind of break through).


All I was saying was, America has effectively been operating an open border with Mexico for years, I don't see how you can just suddenly decide to turn back time with regard to the people you have already let in.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 2, 2006 8:51 AM:

"What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers,"

That is ridiculous. It totally doesn't take into account the huge gain in wealth to the immigrants.

Further, total-compensation has been rising consistently for decades:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010606H

The only economic argument against today's immigration relates to government institutions which are used more than the savings in wages. There is a cultural argument that can probably be debated to death.

Randall Parker said at April 2, 2006 8:54 AM:

Ivan Kirigin,

Show me a country where the average IQ is much lower than the US where the 125 IQ people make as much as they do in the US or Germany or Britain. Fact is, if you are a smart person you will make less in a country whose average IQ declines.

I'm about to do a post on this that fleshes it out. In my view the Open Borders Libertarians are Benthamite Collectivists.

D Flinchum said at April 2, 2006 9:37 AM:

"I heard a guy on Fox News last night say he thought nothing should be done about illegal immigration and 'let the water find its own level'"

The late George Kennan on massive immigration to the US: it will decline naturally "only when the levels of overpopulation and poverty in the United States are equal to those of the countries from which these people are now anxious to escape."

Russ said at April 2, 2006 10:45 AM:

No matter what policies we undertake, Mexico will always be our immediate neighbor. I'm always perplexed why the option of improving Mexico is never brought up. Obviously, if Mexico had a more robuse economy, stable society, and higher wages there would be less illegal immigration.

Aren't we faced with the same problem Europe was and is from it's poorer neighbors. Spain, Portugal, and Ireland were solidly second world countries who's emigrants constantly flooded their richer neighbors. But, with appropriate long-term incentives from their richer neighbors these nations began a consistent path towards democracy, modernization, and economic liberalization. Now these nations absorb immigrants from Eastern Europe (whose nations seem on the same track to 1st world status within this generation). Isn't this a cycle we can try to replicate with Mexico?

Even the most virulent "Mexico is corrupt" argument proponent must concede that Mexico has made drastic moves in the right direction over the past ten years. Free and fair elections, a wave of privatization of state owned companies, free trade agreements with several countries, and just a week ago the Mexican Supreme Court has allowed extradition of felons to the US (a massive coup against Mexico's corrupting illegal drug industry). Hopefully, this summer Mexico will have it's second free and fair election to cement it as a democratic nation that is responsive to it's people.

Is there not more the United States can do to move Mexico towards becoming a more equal neighbor? Meeting benchmarks in exchange for aid? Privatizing Pemex in exchange for a guest worker program? Reforming its property laws for promises to uphold the peso?

No one is expecting Mexico to turn into Denmark. But is it so unreasonable to expect it to turn into Spain?

Jorge D.C. said at April 2, 2006 10:46 AM:

Ivan:

"What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers,"

That is ridiculous. It totally doesn't take into account the huge gain in wealth to the immigrants.

No it is not ridiculous. Immigration widens the gap between rich and poor. Immigration's benefits are privatized by employers while the costs are socialized. Immigration suppresses lower class native wages (or middle class natives in the case of H1B visas etc.). Immigration into a socialized welfare state like the modern USA is a net cost to taxpayers.

These assertions have been borne out by multiple studies and you will notice that the study findings are not refuted by the Open Borders Lobby. The arguments made against controlling the borders are canards like "immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do" and "family values don't stop at the border".

In other words once again the Left has retreated from logical argument and fallen back on emotional arguments.

Jorge D.C. said at April 2, 2006 11:23 AM:

Russ says:

No one is expecting Mexico to turn into Denmark. But is it so unreasonable to expect it to turn into Spain?

Yes, it is utterly unreasonable. Spain is a comparably homogenous caucasian society. Mexico is composed of a small caucasian market dominant minority and a very large majority of mestizos and another significant minority of pure blood Indians.

Market dominant minority nations are inherently corrupt and weak. Market dominant minorities provide certain advancements for the society but retard overall progress in the long run. The project to "elevate" Mexican society as a whole is a slightly less pointless exercise than the project to rescue Africa.

The USA is already plagued by a repressive market dominant minority atmosphere in the intellectual fields. Just ask Steve Sailer! And we are headed toward a market dominant minority dynamic overall when whites become minority nationwide which is of course a complete disaster. It means the end of individual liberty as all market dominant minorities end up asserting control over the majority in order to secure their position. If they do not assert control they are in constant danger of violent retribution sourced in the natural human inclination known as jealousy.

This is the kind of discussion that is completely banned in the educational establishment. But it is not bigotry or racism. It is logical inference based on the facts.

There is much outcry in anti-immigration circles against the corrupt Mexican elite. But the elites won't budge because they are betting any serious liberalization of the mestizos would immediately lead to a slaughter of said elites.

IMO your post ignores the racial and cultural realities of Mexico.

Russ said at April 2, 2006 11:56 AM:

Jorge,

Thanks for including veiled references to a Jewish "repressive market dominant minority" in America in your a discussion about Mexico. This irrelevant "fact" you brought up speaks volumes.

Russ

Randall Parker said at April 2, 2006 11:57 AM:

Russ,

Spain has a higher average IQ than Mexico. Spain is 97 IQ average versus Mexico at 87.

We need to build a wall and keep them out.

Russ said at April 2, 2006 12:37 PM:

So, is IQ really that determinative? If so, shouldn't we be subsidizing the reproduction of the "market dominant minorities" Jorge has a problem with while providing incentives to sterilize any mid-range or lower IQ group, which Jorge presumably belongs to?

The crux of my argument is that the most viable solution to illegal immigration is to make Mexico a more appealing place to stay. I contend that societies have a capacity to change drastically. In the 1930s it was Spain that was in the middle of a revolution. Landowning "Dons" being pulled out of their villas and executed by fellow Spaniards. Now it is a dynamic western society. That is why my analogy is prescient. No one expects Mexico to send a man to the moon but I don't see any fundamental Mexican exceptionalism that prevents them from becoming a liberal Western society in the mold of today's Spain.

Randall Parker said at April 2, 2006 1:36 PM:

Russ,

Yes, IQ really is that determinative. See my post "Benthamite Libertarian Collectivists Wrong On Open Borders" and click thru on the links there on IQ and the Wealth of Nations and Griffe's Smart Fraction Theory. There's also a later book by Lynn with even more detailed data on IQ by nation that reinforces the conclusions of his first book.

Subsidizing reproduction: On my FuturePundit blog see my posts "Personal genetic profiles and the mating dance" and "More Single Women Using Sperm Donors".

I'm telling you that, no, we can't lift Mexico up so high that Mexicans will stop trying to come over the border. The Spaniards aren't especially smart. But they are smarter than the Amerinds.

arch said at April 2, 2006 2:09 PM:

Russ,

Mexico cannot become a liberal Western society because it is neither liberal nor Western. Don't be fooled by the fact that they speak Spanish and that they are Roman Catholic. The cultural practices of the mestizos cannot be described, with a straight face anyways, as "Western". Mestizos are also not European and do not identify themselves as such so their "Western-ness" is entirely cosmetic.

Jorge D.C. said at April 2, 2006 2:32 PM:

Russ says:

shouldn't we be subsidizing the reproduction of the "market dominant minorities" Jorge has a problem with while providing incentives to sterilize any mid-range or lower IQ group

Only if you're a leftist maniac bent on ushering in the marxist utopia.

The crux of my argument is that the most viable solution to illegal immigration is to make Mexico a more appealing place to stay.

Easier said than done. Let's pursue our own self-interest please. We should carrot and stick them instead of getting into bed with the corrupt Mexican elite. No Marshall Plan for Mexico. No Iraq style reconstruction plan. It is the job of Mexicans to make Mexico a more appealing place to stay. We can help ourselves by enforcing the border and making the USA a less appealing place for illegals to stay.

In the 1930s it was Spain that was in the middle of a revolution. Landowning "Dons" being pulled out of their villas and executed by fellow Spaniards. Now it is a dynamic western society.

Well, once again, if you're a leftist, this sounds like a reasonable timeline of historical events and a logical progression from point A to point B.

No one expects Mexico to send a man to the moon but I don't see any fundamental Mexican exceptionalism that prevents them from becoming a liberal Western society in the mold of today's Spain.

Connect your own dots. The fact that Mexico can't send a man to the moon demonstrates their fundamental exceptionalism.

You sound like GW:

"No one expects IRAQ to send a man to the moon but I don't see any fundamental IRAQI exceptionalism that prevents them from becoming a liberal Western society"

Russ, are you posting from the Whitehouse?

JT said at April 2, 2006 6:05 PM:

Randall, Spain has a higher per capita GDP than South Korea and is almost as wealthy as Taiwan.

Randall Parker said at April 2, 2006 6:24 PM:

JT,

First off, South Korea started from no capital in the early 1950s due to the war. Spain's civil war in the 1930s was more distant in time and a lot less destructive.

Second, Griffe explains in his Smart Fraction Theory II that obviously verbal IQ is the more important component for per capita GDP. East Asians lag in verbal IQ.

So South Korea's performance isn't surprising.

AMac said at April 2, 2006 8:50 PM:

Mexicans may have lower average IQs than Spaniards, but they aren't so dumb as to fail to see where their obvious interests lie. For many people--young, uneducated, unskilled, ambitious--that means coming to El Norte to work. Sure, sub-minimum wage, no-benefit, boring jobs suck, but they obviously suck less than what's on offer south of the border.

Nothing in the current push for immigration reform changes these dynamics. Do whatever you want about the 12 million-plus illegals already here. If, after that, (1) there are still crummy jobs available, and (2) you can cross the border reasonably cheaply at a reasonably low risk--well, then Mexicans will continue to come. Why wouldn't they?--Nothing's changed!

Actually that's too kind a view of the reforms. As with the 1986 amnesty-to-end-all-amnesties, the 2006 package reassures illegals that, if they can just get here and stick around, their opportunity to jump the queue will come, too.

Immigration reform is just Open Borders, deceptively sold, unless it has three components. In the following order.

(1) Make it much more difficult to cross the border.

(2) Make it much more unattractive for employers to hire illegal immigrants.

(3) Anything else that strikes your fancy.

Spend a few minutes thinking about immigration policy from the point of view of a 20-something high-school dropout in a Mexico City barrio, or an illiterate farmer's daughter in Chiapas. This is so obvious that it's hardly worth writing. But it's a perspective that eludes Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and every newspaper editorialist and radio/TV news director. Unless they don't really mean what they proclaim about improving the US's immigration policies. But that degree of cynicism and disingenuousness is very unlikely in a politician or mass-media higher-up.

Jorge D.C. said at April 3, 2006 12:22 AM:

Here are three writers from America's leading (neo)conservative magazine National Review. The subject is each writer's response to last week's Mexican flag extravaganza in Los Angeles (the Podhoretz link is nypost but he is a regular NRO contributor).


Rich Lowry: patriotic alarm

Quote: "All such warnings seem unduly dire — until, as the Europeans have learned, they come to pass. Then it’s too late (what are you going to do, deport them all?). The stakes in the current immigration debate are huge, in both defining our laws and what we are as a nation. The protesters in the street get it. Does Congress?"


Mark Krikorian: patriotic alarm

Quote: "This isn’t really about immigration, though — it’s about power. What we’re seeing in the streets is a naked assertion of power by outsiders against the American nation."


John Podhoretz: post-national serenity

Quote: "They fear the kind of social disorder now on display in Europe, where disgruntled Muslim immigrants are increasingly testing the limits of democratic civil society. That's not the America I see, or the America I live in."

Podhoretz is the same guy who has tried to marginalize/muzzle authentic conservative John Derbyshire at NRO.

What happened last week in LA was outrageous. The reaction in the senate was even more incredible. I read somewhere an opinion that the appropriate presidential response was to cancel the Mexico trip in protest and I agree. That would be planet earth instead of the bizarro world we have entered.

Some of our formerly not-so-concerned media elites are now concerned. That is good news. Others like Hugh Hewitt and Tony Snow and Podhoretz and his crowd have been steering us to this juncture for decades and are now in damage control mode. We need to recognize this "damage control" and complain.

Jorge D.C. said at April 3, 2006 12:26 AM:

Today on CNBC Chris Matthews Hardball weekend edition I presume there was a very interesting animated immigration debate. Matthews is on the left for sure but lately on this issue he has tried to be fair.

Joe Klein from Time magazine represented The Lobby or the far Left or both. He claimed "we can't build a wall" it would cost "a trillion dollars" etc. and that we would never have enough bp agents to "man the wall" anyway and various negative comments about "nativism". His goal obviously was to inject relentless defeatism into the debate.

Matthews has been asking the question of liberal guests "Why is it wrong to complain that the population of your town is being displaced? To have your culture replaced? Like the natives out in Watsonville CA..." Twice I have seen on the set of his show leftists visibly calculate their answer before reluctantly agreeing that, yes, indeed it is reasonable to complain about such a thing. But that appears to be just a show for the cameras. It's hard not to get the idea that they are not upset at all that natives are literally on the run in the southwest or on the run anywhere in these United States for that matter.

Also on Matthews show recently was Hugh Hewitt perhaps the most neocon conservative of them all. This guy was doing backflips in making the argument that conservatives didn't have a problem with Mexican culture. Saying that he lives in Santa Ana CA with the 2nd largest population of Mexicans in the world after Mexico City just 5 minutes from his house (in an adjacent exclusive gated suburb I assume) and loves Mexicans and Mexican culture. It was complete blank slate marxism coming out of the mouth of one of America's leading "conservatives". No assimilation of Mexicans to American culture was necessary for him. No sir. Pathetic. A man with no concept of nationhood other than as an economic development area.

Jorge D.C. said at April 3, 2006 12:34 AM:

Parapundit says:

Our elites truly are electing a new people. We are going to be swept away as somehow unworthy. Why don't they like us? Why do they want to replace us? I am used to employers replacing workers with other workers. But I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea of elites replacing the masses with a different population. Don't like your majority? Think it is too smart and uppity? Put it in its place by importing a newer, more compliant, and dumber majority. That describes what is happening to a once proud American people in the early 21st century.

Americans need to get mad enough to replace their elites before their elites replace them. It is them or us people. Who's it gonna be? Wake up.

Hey Pundit I copied this quote above because it is such a good distillation of current events. I am now thinking the best outcome this year is no legislation at all. Because no matter how incensed the public becomes and no matter how many media personalities wake up the votes in congress are simply not there to restrict illegal immigration in any serious way. The bodies are simply not present on capitol hill. Therefore hope for stalemate until a punishing election wakes them the hell the up in Wash DC. We need to get bodies on the floor of both houses of congress. I do not believe the current crop will ever support border control. Sadly they have sold their souls and don't have a choice.

FriendlyFire said at April 3, 2006 4:28 AM:

The Daily Show is predictably liberal.

Failed immigration policies of France? How so? They have worse immigrants because they are near Muslim countries.

Outright deportation would not be chaos. Why? The economy would rearrange very rapidly. Also, low paid people are not doing important work. If their work was high value it would pay more.

Deportation would be extremely beneficial.

I like the daily show, Iam fully aware of it libeal views and bias.

How come previous waves of immigrants have been succesful at intergrating into america and becoming a huge benefit ? As i pointed out for some reason the arabs in america are mostly middle class and "americanised". While in france they make up the vast lower and poor.

Deportation would definitly create chaos. For crimminal even minor criminal crimes I would definitely support.
Are you going to confliscate propety and wealth prior to deportation ?
What about american born and raised illegals ?
What about breaking apart families ?
What measures to prevent them returning ? Will we imprision repeat illegals ?
What about incorrect deportation ?
What punishment for employees of illegals ?
Will business suffer or economic reprecussion of labour shortage result ?

Build your wall, toughen immigration laws, deport those crimminal.
Mass deportation to seems so chaotic and unrational

Russ said at April 3, 2006 4:46 AM:

Jorge,

My analogy about spain is that it went from leftist/fascist revolution to a modern liberal state. Obviously, I was implying that it did this inspite of the leftist/fasist revolution not because of it.

Seeing as how we're calling names. You're a bigot, racist and an anti-semite. Get a life.

Russ

Rick Darby said at April 3, 2006 7:28 AM:

FriendlyFire,

If we got serious about enforcing laws against hiring illegals, and stopped rewarding border jumpers with welfare benefits, citizenship and free schooling through college for their kids, the great majority of illegals would "deport" themselves. Removing the possibility of employment -- even hard, low-paying employment -- and ending birthright citizenship would send the right message. Mass deportation would not be needed.

Jorge,

I agree. We will be lucky enough just to avoid any bill being passed for the time being. A good bill (i.e., border enforcement only) is too much to hope for. Public opinion is gradually moving in the right direction; some legislative damage control now will help hold the line until the dire effects of The Invasion are so obvious that appropriate measures become politically feasible.

Roy said at April 3, 2006 8:07 AM:

FriendlyFire writes:
"Are you going to confliscate propety and wealth prior to deportation ?"
First, most don’t have much property and wealth, and I see no reason those that did couldn’t either sell it or ship it back to mexico. If nothing else, treat their good the same way you’d treat the good of someone who died without a will or heirs. . . it falls back to the state.

"What about american born and raised illegals ?"
You can’t be an American born illegal.

"What about breaking apart families?""
If they cared about “family”, they wouldn’t put themselves in this position in the first place.

"What measures to prevent them returning ? Will we imprision repeat illegals ?"
Border security and employer sanctions. We’ve severely limited illegal immigration in the past, I see zero reason we couldn’t do it again.

"What about incorrect deportation?"
If you actually have the legal right to be in the US, you can get back in. Besides, do you have ANY evidence that this is a problem?

"What punishment for employees of illegals ?"
How about simply a $5,000 fine per illegal. I suspect that would greatly diminish the incentive to hire illegals.

"Will business suffer or economic reprecussion of labour shortage result ?"
First of all, the illegals aren’t all going to just vanish overnight. And even if you could rid the country of almost every illegal in 6 months, (which is unlikely) that’s enough time for employers to hire replacements. Sure they’d have to pay the employees more, but I fail to see how increasing the demand for low-skilled American workers is a bad thing. Their rising income means less money spent on social programs for the rest of us.

Russ wrote of Jorge:
"You're a bigot, racist and an anti-semite."
Maybe you could try actually refuting his claims, in stead of falling back on the tired racist line.

Bob Badour said at April 3, 2006 8:57 AM:
As i pointed out for some reason the arabs in america are mostly middle class and "americanised". While in france they make up the vast lower and poor.

Americanized like Mohammed Atta?

Have you considered that America gets the cream of the crop when it comes to muslim immigrants due to the longer commute? Have you considered that the muslims in America trying to flee the dummies who make Islam such a shithole would want to flee the dummies who can only make it as far as France too?

Consider that getting from North Africa to France is only a little more difficult than getting from Cuba to Florida.

Likewise, I suspect the Mexican immigrants to Europe are relatively middle-class.

Randall Parker said at April 3, 2006 3:29 PM:

FriendlyFire,

For some ethnic groups in America they came here to go to school and are smarter than the average in their home country. For example, every Iranian I ever knew in college was very bright, brighter than the average student.

Also, until recently most Arab immigrants in the US were Christians. The Christians came first. They were in part fleeing the Muslims. They were higher in social class and therefore atypical.

Jorge D.C. said at April 3, 2006 6:01 PM:

Russ:

I think it's clear that you are someone on a higher intellectual and moral plane than myself.

Your high IQ status is demonstrated by your laser-sharp refutation of my comparison of market dominant elites and their destructive impact on liberty in Mexico and the USA.

And though you ruminate about "providing incentives to sterilize" us low IQ folks down the ladder from you, you make up for it with arguments such as American tax payers should provide for the general welfare of Mexicans in Mexico. That makes you a really good person.

And even when you display the "soft bigotry of low-expectations" with comments like: "No one is expecting Mexico to turn into Denmark" and "No one expects Mexico to send a man to the moon..." - even then readers still intuitively understand that you are not a "racist" or a "bigot" but a highly moral person free of all such baggage i.e. a New Soviet Man.

I, for one, salute you!

Jorge D.C. said at April 3, 2006 6:27 PM:

Here is a great writer and patriotic American Jew, Larry Auster, calling out a post-nationalist Jew whose loyalties are presumably global:

William Kristol’s repulsive arrogance on illegal immigration

On Sunday morning on Fox Five News with Chris Wallace, William Kristol said:

"I’m a liberal on immigration.… What damage have they done that’s so great in 20 years [since the 1986 amnesty]?… What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?"

"And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people—what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.?"

"… I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration."

Isn’t that something? The neocons, and in particular the Jewish neocons, have been long seen by the paleo right as people who only care about spreading an American democratic empire abroad and who, in their pedal-to-the-metal support for open borders, are indifferent to the actual well-being of America as a country, or even its long-term survival. The neocons, of course, see such suspicions as nothing but irrational bigotry against Jews. And so what does Kristol do? He comes right out and says on national television that he couldn’t care less about the mass invasion of this country by illegal aliens. He looks at 500,000 illegals and their co-ethnics demonstrating in Los Angeles,—illegal aliens demanding favors from the government of this country while carrying Mexican flags and signs saying that this continent belongs to them, not to us—and it has no effect on him. He’s pleased to inform us that personally he’s not bothered by it. Even Brit Hume was put off by Kristol’s smiling demeanor.

Larry Auster's blog link

I have had the temerity to post comments on Parapundit's website in the last few days critical of the greatest power behind mass immigration into the USA namely radical post-nationalist Jews like Bill Kristol. Posters have countered that it is bigger picture than that. I agree. There is a broad Open Borders coalition in this country obviously. But to avoid identifying this key group is pure intellectual dishonesty. If you are afraid or unable to speak truth to power you are NOT free.

Russ said at April 4, 2006 7:42 PM:

Thanks for coming around to my way of thinking Jorge.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©