« Blog Update Links | HomePage | Extending the Question and QuestionList Interfaces »

Sunday, July 01, 20071183345091

But it would have been amnesty! Amnesty! Amnesty!

During the immigration debate, the Republican netroots would say "amnesty!" as if that ends the discussion.

TM Lutas was a voice in the wilderness, however, shouting the real points that the Sean Hannitys of America were ducking:


  • The point below which you are being inhumane by splitting up families or preventing their formation

  • The point below which you are impeding economic growth by favoring labor over capital so high wages choke growth

  • The point below which you start to get cultural stagnation due to cultural insularity

  • The point below which you are turning away great political assets to the nation

  • The point above which you are favoring capital over labor by crashing wages and destroying bargaining power

  • The point above which you lose cultural solidarity and cohesion

  • The point above which you lose political stability

  • The point above which you lose military control and eventually territorial control


Talk radio and the netroot bloggers would have done better if they would have addressed the real questions, instead of shouting "amnesty." But why should we expect anything but their usual brilliance when it comes to families who will take generations to assimilate (you know, just like everyone else)?

Comments

I remember reading primary source stuff in history class from the 1900s about how the Swedes and Germans were a bunch of lazy drunks who refused to integrate and were destroying American culture.

Ah yes, history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes (Mark Twain?).

Posted by: Adrian | Sunday, July 01, 2007

Interesting, the comment worked that time. I tried 3 times in Firefox and it didn't work (blogspirit gave me an error message) but I switched to IE (in a FireFox tab) and it posted.

Posted by: Adrian | Sunday, July 01, 2007

"Talk radio and the netroot bloggers would have done better if they would have addressed the real questions"... you didn't get your hopes up, did you?

Posted by: Adam | Monday, July 02, 2007

Adrian,

Indeed. I remember writing for national history day of Woodrow Wilson's campaign against "hyphenated Americans" (German-Americans, etc.). And in my home state, the Klan was largely organized to keep those strange immigrations from north-central Europe out (mostly Scandanavians and Germans)... How times have changed -- even the racist-supremecists become more integrated over time!

(What happened in Firefox after you clicked submit? I can submit an error report for you.)

Adam,

Yeah, I did. Through Rush Limbaugh, talk radio was my first exposure to conservatism as an ideology as opposed to a reflex. Sean Hannity has always been light compared to Rush, and the different ways they handled their opposition to this bill made that clear again.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, July 02, 2007

Assuming we're talking about increased immigration of poor people....

One problem with the above "level" argument is that they're different for different people.

Posted by: Steve French | Monday, July 02, 2007

The blogspirit error page came up where I submitted my error ticket, so you shouldn't have to create a new ticket.

Posted by: a517dogg | Monday, July 02, 2007

"done better" means what?

The bill was a hot steaming pile but both sides were primarily arguing for "yes" or "no" as it was. Find me the majority - not the rare rational voice in the wilderness - on either side that was open to honest and wide-ranging debate and we could have gotten somewhere.

This is what happens when your bills are drafted by interest groups. Citizen wiki-draft a reasoned, rational mock bill and see who salutes. Then you'll have identified the people who aren't bought and paid for or who are willing to put aside their ideological sunglasses.

Posted by: Michael | Monday, July 02, 2007

Steve,

Indeed, and thus this caboose-breaking [1] during the immigration debate.

That said, the idea that America should have a protected class of low-skilled workers is a ghettoizing [2] philosophy.

a517d0gg,

I submitted an error report for you and Adrian. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

Michael,

As I mentioned before [3], I'm not sure if I'm weakly opposed or weakly supportive of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy compromise. However, it was consistent with how the government passed globalizing reforms throughout the 1990s (NAFTA, WTO, etc): through elite cooperation.

Whether or not the public would actually support globalization on its merits is open to question, and the benefits of it may make it too important to risk a true public discussion. Globalization may indeed be a case where we "think Christian but speak Victorian" [4]

[1] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/03/caboose_braking_in_india_and_c.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/06/28/against-the-racial-gap.html
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/06/28/brilliant-baby.html
[4] http://cominganarchy.com/2007/07/01/how-to-you-say-speak-victorian-in-japanese/

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, July 02, 2007

Adrian = a517dogg = Adrian

Posted by: Adrian | Monday, July 02, 2007

"Adrian = a517dogg = Adrian"

I am now smarter... or at least more informed. :-)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, July 02, 2007

Post a comment