Ethnic Cleanising or Amnesty

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

Well, it just seems strange for the U.S. to increase immigration laws enforcement at the expense of the domestic economy. Why not allow for more increased immigration if it is an economic boost.

because not every question is satisfactorily answered by whatever puts the most money in my pocket....

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You're quite correct about soccer - v. good ol' god fearin' Football.....

I saw this image as being quit symbolic of the larger cultural changes taking place -- the staunchly Texan Tradition of Friday Night Football giving way to the very international (and not so uniquely Texan) tradition of soccer.

It seems to me jack that you have very little regard for the customs and cultures of we rubes in the hinterlands. I can imagine that you regard the substantial demise of a, as I described it, cracker-baptist community as a thing of no significance whatsoever, or perhaps a good thing. Otherwise you might understand that this is not so much disdain for Mexico but nostalgia for Texas.....

Regardless and frankly, I can't quite understand why you think it's somehow wrong for a person to express some sadness at seeing his hometown change dramatically. That seems to me a quite human thing, and quite reasonable.

regards,

(i'm curious, too, what must I do to prove myself to you? Should I say that I'm sorry for wrongly picking my parents? Should I have moved to a more enlightened part of the world at the grand old age of 2? Or should I now just renounce every happy and fond memory of my family and friends and and seek psychiatriatic help for not being sufficiently troubled by my childhood?)

Dude, you do NOT want to be throwin' down cracker-Baptist rube credentials with me--I can out-rube you any day of the week and twice on Sundays. (Deep East Texas roots, to answer your earlier query, where a local religiously affiliated institution of higher education acted as a sort of magnet for some Cuban-refugee academics in the late 1960s/early 1970s)

It's not so much that I have no regard for the customs and cultures of the rubes in the hinterlands--I'm intimately familiar with them, both the good and the bad. And I still have parents and older relatives who are experiencing the same things you are, from the same perspective, with varying degrees of diffidence and resentment. I know what of you speak. And I think I recognize some of the "sensibilities" you're describing for what they are--resistance to change, rooted in fear of the different, the different in this case, being a difference in culture.

But, yeah, I do think I'm more sanguine about the cultural change apace in the home lands. I WISH that I had had the opportunity to grow up in a more bi-cultural or multi-cultural environment. I think kids from different backgrounds (Anglo and otherwise) will have at least an opportunity to grow up with a little broader perspective--depending on the extent to which they (and their parents) are able to be open to what's going on around them.

And finally, what are you worried about proving yourself to anyone on an internet chat board about anyway? Do you write here for approval? Or to articulate your own thoughts, get a little give and take, and maybe learn a little from (or at least about) a different perspective? You certainly don't have to prove yourself to me, but if you're experiencing some doubts about the cultural discomfort you're feeling, is it possible that the doubts are coming from within? Just a thought.

Finally, I would like to thank you for changing the valedictory from the British-affected 'cheers' with which you so regularly pepper your posts to the more Americanized 'regards'.
Our forefathers dumped some tea and fought a war so that we would not be bound to the lingusitic affectations of our colonial oppressors, the British, and I personally have on more than one occasion resented your obsequious and gratuitous use of British expressions. I just hate the cultural pretension of the Brits, with their tea and crumpets and scones.....give me black coffee and biscuits smothered in red-eye gravy or give me death.

Yeah, and tally THAT, ho.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

because not every question is satisfactorily answered by whatever puts the most money in my pocket....

Well I can't disagree with you there.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Discomfort with that verily defines xenophobia, amigo.

actually....discomfort with respect to curry, jerk chicken or enchiladas doesn't so much define xenophobia as it would define a distaste for spicy food.

Xenophobia, generally, is a "fear and hatred of things foreign." Often the qualifier "irrational" is added to "fear and hatred of things foriegn" in definitions of xenophobia.

Snce you've seen fit to judge my character on the basis of a few short internet posts maybe you can provide some satisfactory explanation on how feeling *somewhat discomfortable* rises to the level of *irrational hatred*, and therein show how I am the racist that you suggest?

And if you are by any chance a rational and intellectually honest person you will do this without resorting to begging the question.

thanks

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

It's not so much that I have no regard for the customs and cultures of the rubes in the hinterlands--I'm intimately familiar with them, both the good and the bad.

ok, answer the question -- what is wrong with a person expressing some sadness at seeing their hometown change dramatically, notwithstanding the possibility that the person is well aware of the town's good and bad traits?

But, yeah, I do think I'm more sanguine about the cultural change apace in the home lands. I WISH that I had had the opportunity to grow up in a more bi-cultural or multi-cultural environment.

I'm sorry to learn that you are unhappy with your childhood. Perhaps if you had not had a lousy childhood you wouldn't be so disdainful of those who have fond memories of their own.

what are you worried about proving yourself to anyone on an internet chat board about anyway?

I would suggest you turn your facetiousness detector up a notch -- my question of whether you would have me seek a psychiatrist to help me get over my fond memories of childhood was not an offer made in earnest.

Just a thought.

yes, but not a very strong one.

Finally, I would like to thank you for changing the valedictory from the British-affected 'cheers' with which you so regularly pepper your posts to the more Americanized 'regards'.

*cheers* is an expression I picked up while working abroad -- I hung out alot of the time overseas with the English folks, what with it being much more rewarding to communicate with people who spoke a similar language and all...

I experienced and learned a great deal about several of other cultures during the time I spent in Europe and Africa, and paradoxically came to respect the unique nature of my own culture all the more.

Perhaps that's what really seperates our opinions -- I know enough about other cultures and I respect other cultures enough to really appreciate my own culture without fearing or hating other cultures. You, on other hand, are a prick who thinks he is too good for his own folks.

Cheers

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

ok, answer the question -- what is wrong with a person expressing some sadness at seeing their hometown change dramatically, notwithstanding the possibility that the person is well aware of the town's good and bad traits?

Nothing wrong with expressing genuine nostalgia, though you gotta admit some people tend to romantize the good times of their childhoods.

What DOES seem at least dishonest, is to try to mask a discomfort based in racial/cultural differences with that same "nostaliga". It's a pretty transparent mask in this case.

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm sorry to learn that you are unhappy with your childhood. Perhaps if you had not had a lousy childhood you wouldn't be so disdainful of those who have fond memories of their own.

Who's being a prick here? My childhood was what it was, with both strengths and weaknesses of circumstance. I neither romanticize it nor demonize it. Nor do I wish to repeat it. I'd certainly try for better for my own kids.

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I would suggest you turn your facetiousness detector up a notch -- my question of whether you would have me seek a psychiatrist to help me get over my fond memories of childhood was not an offer made in earnest.

You really do have a knack for hanging yourself with the rope you're given, don't you? Again, I extend just a little bit of wiggle room to you, that maybe the cognitive dissonance you're feeling is the better part of your conscience picking at you. Again, sincerely, you probably don't need a psychiatrist, but maybe a good therapist wouldn't hurt.

Originally Posted by alexamenos

*cheers* is an expression I picked up while working abroad -- I hung out alot of the time overseas with the English folks, what with it being much more rewarding to communicate with people who spoke a similar language and all...I experienced and learned a great deal about several of other cultures during the time I spent in Europe and Africa, and paradoxically came to respect the unique nature of my own culture all the more.

Ahh, mate...I was just takin' the piss out of ya, there.........at least I meant for you to take it in good fun. I mean, it really DOES sound affected and pretentious and not a little ridiculous the way you use it without any sense of irony whatsoever, but I figured you could take a little good natured ribbing about it. Yeah, yeah....Europe, Europeans....been there, done that. I don't romanticize their cultures either. Again, saw the good and bad there, and got home without a complex about where I grew up.

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Perhaps that's what really seperates our opinions -- I know enough about other cultures and I respect other cultures enough to really appreciate my own culture without fearing or hating other cultures. You, on other hand, are a prick who thinks he is too good for his own folks.

Nah...I'd say that what separates our perspectives is that stripped down bare-butt nekkid, you are a bigot, but you've seen enough of the world to know it ain't respectable.

My "folks" are good people, bigoted opinions and all. Yeah, I've moved a little further down that path than they have, and I'm not embarrassed to admit it. I'm also honest enough to recognize their many, many strengths and to understand that a person can be both good AND a bigot all at the same time. Still doesn't excuse the bigotry though.

Oh and by the way, you're right....I am a total prick, but for reasons different than those you assert. I'm sure it'll come across in my posts. Another difference between you and me, though, is that I won't sugarcoat the fact with transparent conceits like "nostalgia".

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Cheers

And cheers to you, mate. Let me pass you a fag.

[Usually Lurkin]

Jack, you're telling him that his culture isn't worth saving. And calling him a bigot.
Do you say the same when it comes to "gentrification" of a minority neighborhood in a large city?

[dude1394]

If you don't agree with him, then you are xenophobic. Not wanting your culture to change isn't xenophobic. Wanting to have mexicans come into american and assimilate into the cutlure is not xenophobic, it's common sense.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Jack, you're telling him that his culture isn't worth saving. And calling him a bigot.
Do you say the same when it comes to "gentrification" of a minority neighborhood in a large city?

Said no such thing. Don't fabricate something and say I said it.

But if by "saving" the rural Texas of someone's childhood you mean enacting an immigration policy rooted in fear and bigotry........I don't think such an approach will be successful without imposing a police state. There are forces bigger than mere "nostalgia" at work.

The neighbhorhoods? Gentrify the hell out of them with bells and whistles. You hail from Austin right? Great place to live, but there is a certain old-head mentality hanging on there that tries to prevent the city from becoming more than the small-town state capital/univesity town it was 30 years ago. They should give it up already.

Austin is eventually going to be a city, like it or not. They can lament that reality from Bastrop or Dripping Springs, but Austin isn't ever going to be a small town anymore. They can call themselves "nostalgic" but they just sound like reactionary losers. As with immigration, bigger forces in play.

[chumdawg]

Just want to say that if you have thus far missed this thread, you are missing out on the best intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual, as the case may or may not be) tete-a-tete's in a long while here at d-m.com. It's worth going back and reading.

As for my own contribution to this remarkable thread, for now I'll just ask that whatever you guys figure out as a solution, for the love of all that is holy please leave us with the latinas and the tacos.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Just want to say that if you have thus far missed this thread, you are missing out on the best intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual, as the case may or may not be) tete-a-tete's in a long while here at d-m.com. It's worth going back and reading.

As for my own contribution to this remarkable thread, for now I'll just ask that whatever you guys figure out as a solution, for the love of all that is holy please leave us with the latinas and the tacos.

I guess I need to read this thread, if Chumdawg gives it such high praise. I'll comment after I've read it through.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Said no such thing. Don't fabricate something and say I said it.

But if by "saving" the rural Texas of someone's childhood you mean enacting an immigration policy rooted in fear and bigotry........I don't think such an approach will be successful without imposing a police state. There are forces bigger than mere "nostalgia" at work.

The neighbhorhoods? Gentrify the hell out of them with bells and whistles. You hail from Austin right? Great place to live, but there is a certain old-head mentality hanging on there that tries to prevent the city from becoming more than the small-town state capital/univesity town it was 30 years ago. They should give it up already.

Austin is eventually going to be a city, like it or not. They can lament that reality from Bastrop or Dripping Springs, but Austin isn't ever going to be a small town anymore. They can call themselves "nostalgic" but they just sound like reactionary losers. As with immigration, bigger forces in play.

allright, I see where you are coming from, then, as far as the "cultural invasion". And I agree on a large scale that change is unavoidable. It's a crappy, crappy, thing, though, for a community to just move into a neighborhood and boot out a bunch of families that have been there for generations. And if, in advocating the position that you have in this thread, you don't empathize with those people whose culture you would so willingly allow destroyed, then you are a crappy, crappy person. Pride in community and pride in culture is not necessarily rooted in hatred of anything.

As for other aspects of the deportation/amnesty argument, do you just not believe that motives of "political invasion" or "economic invasion" exist in the northward immigration, or do you not respect those motives enough to do anything about them?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

Well, it just seems strange for the U.S. to increase immigration laws enforcement at the expense of the domestic economy. Why not allow for more increased immigration if it is an economic boost.

Trade and economic progress are not zero-sum games. It is a GOOD thing for americans to see some industries that intensively use low-skill labor moved off-shore... the continuous destruction/demolition of some jobs/industries is vital to our country, it is part of the mechanism of capitalism that allows resources to be allocated to their highest end uses. A VERY important part of the mechanism.

I am constantly amazed that people look at every "job", no matter how crappy, as some delicate gem that has to be cherrished and jelously guarded, as if there is some fixed supply x of them, and every "job" that is lost means the econmy will have to survive on x-minus-the-lost-"jobs" for the rest of eternity (which I guess means that eventually we will ALL be fighting over the fourteen jobs that have not been lost to china).

THis doesn't make any sense to me. THose jobs were lost in California BECAUSE our economy is doing well, and the productivity of labor in OTHER industries is high enough that the cost of hiring workers is high enough that perhaps it isn't productive to hire workers to sweat in a field for 45cents/a/head of lettuce the way it was done 40 years ago. SOme sort of change has to happen: either the process is made more efficient (which in turn makes the WORKERS more efficient--- which means they are worth the higher wages) OR you have to move the operations somewhere it is cheaper to hire workers--- AND the resources that HAD been devoted towards that industry get diverted somewhere else, where someone can still turn a profit (so somewhere by definition more productrive)



THE only problem with this beuatiful story is that there are specific INDIVIDUALS involved as well, some of whom may have specific skills built up in the declining industry... in general they suffer some in the interum between when their old job was destroyed, until they find a new job (which may entail building up new skills, either before the job or on-the-job--- before they can maintain the wage rate that was too high for the dying job to survive).......

BUT IN THIS CASE THAT ISN'T A PROBLEM! the scenario you described as horrific because it displaces precious american jobs/industry is EXACTLY a case of the system working perfectly. Previously we had a situation where an industry wasn't able to survive with the going legal-wage, and was forced to uproot workers from another, lower-wage region (Mexico) AND keep them excluded from the general labor market (undocumented) to KEEP the wages low (which of course cannot work for long with individuals, whom will seek out the higher paying jobs if they can--- so you will need CONINUOUS waves of new low-wage workers)..... INSTEAD, after the "outsourcing" you have the same workers able to get jobs that previously were unavailble locally (which was why they had to uproot to the US) AND they don't have to uproot themselves. AND our Gyros and Caesar Salads stay cheap. AND the head farmer dude makes a profit that was harder and harder to sustain back in Cali. It kinda sounds like a win-win-win-win situation to me....?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

....I agree on a large scale that change is unavoidable. It's a crappy, crappy, thing, though, for a community to just move into a neighborhood and boot out a bunch of families that have been there for generations. And if, in advocating the position that you have in this thread, you don't empathize with those people whose culture you would so willingly allow destroyed, then you are a crappy, crappy person. Pride in community and pride in culture is not necessarily rooted in hatred of anything.

if I may respond....

what you are doing is masking your bigotry behind a pride in your community and pride in your own culture -- really you just hate people with different skin color.

now, should you deny that your motivations are rooted in a hatred of people of a different skin color, then this will be evidence that you are not only a xenophobic bigot but also that you are well aware that it is very, very wrong to be a xenophobic bigot.

and, inasmuch as you say that you think that the changes on a large scale are *unavoidable* (and I completely agree, btw), what you clearly mean is that draconian and drastic measures are needed to prevent these changes from taking place....

to summarize....you are obviously a reactionary xenophobic bigot who thinks we need to round all brown-skinned people into labor camps and then send them to gas chambers.

gawd, it's impossible to have a rational and reasonable discussion with you hitler loving nazis.

Cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Who's being a prick here?

you.

Oh and by the way, you're right....I am a total prick

at least we agree on one thing.

cheers

[DevinFuture]

mcsluggo,

While we're on the topic of the intersection of immigration politics and capitalism...

From what I remember from reading Smith's Wealth of Nations, he seemed to think that part of the reason markets work is because when people are unsatisfied with the wages they get, they can go somewhere else. And that was true in England when he was writing. If you wanted something better, you could go somewhere else legally to seek it.

But since then we have moved toward a much more global economy in which capital crosses national borders every day in massive amounts. There used to be a lot more restrictions on capital crossing borders. Take southeast asis for example where there were some severe criminal penalties assessed for investing capital outside your own nation. Today, capital has far surpassed labor in mobility. National borders are a barrier to labor, but not to capital. I'm generally in favor of bringing that back in to balance by gradually eroding national borders, which is part of why I am for increased tolerance of immigration.
To oversimplify for the purpose of illustration...if all the firms in Texas move to Oklahoma and I can't find employment in Texas, I'm free to move to Oklahoma to get a job there.
But if I'm living in Mexico and all the firms move to the U.S. (or to Guatemala for that matter) I am hindered from moving to where the jobs are.
In a global economy, people have to be free to cross borders. And as illegal immigration has shown, and not just in the U.S., people are going to cross borders to seek employment. It's not something you can really stop.

Of course, I'm not advocating immediately getting rid of national borders. That's completely impractical and difficult to imagine in the homseland sexurity age. But the way I see it we're headed that way, it can't be stopped, and it can have a lot of positive consequences.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

allright, I see where you are coming from, then, as far as the "cultural invasion". And I agree on a large scale that change is unavoidable. It's a crappy, crappy, thing, though, for a community to just move into a neighborhood and boot out a bunch of families that have been there for generations. And if, in advocating the position that you have in this thread, you don't empathize with those people whose culture you would so willingly allow destroyed, then you are a crappy, crappy person. Pride in community and pride in culture is not necessarily rooted in hatred of anything.
...

I think we might have the cart before the horse a little on this issue. Illegal immigrants are poor, and basically HAVE to move to areas that are cheap. THey don't descend on a healthy community like a swarm of locusts and chase all of the old inhabinants out, do they? Instead, a community starts to decline (get old and care worn) and rents start to fall, and THEN it becomes a beacon for illegals.

People that lived there before see two things, their neighborhood starting to get worse, and an influx of poor undocumented workers... and I think it might be somewhat natural for them t feel like blaming the former on the latter. BUT poor undocuments moving into a neighborhood is more a SIGN of the problem, than a CAUSE, no?

<<<of course, if the start of this leads to alot of flight OUT of the area by its previous residents, then the two FEED on each other in a sort of vicious circle, becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy by the people that move out. >>>


But in any case, I think this does kinda highlight an issue that is kinda at the base of the whole debate.... HOW MUCH immigration is acceptable. I think most would welcome SOME immigration... the problem seems to come from a flow that is large enough that it impedes the absorption of the immigrants into a greater US community on the whole. If the flow is high enough and sustained enough, there is a danger of creating a more permant rift in our society, as the newcomers settle into mostly self contained areas (both because they are more comfortable in that culture, and because the other culture keeps them out somewhat). This can create a bi-frcted society with a semi-permanent underclass... and that ain't good for ANYBODY.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

mcsluggo,

While we're on the topic of the intersection of immigration politics and capitalism...

From what I remember from reading Smith's Wealth of Nations, he seemed to think that part of the reason markets work is because when people are unsatisfied with the wages they get, they can go somewhere else. And that was true in England when he was writing. If you wanted something better, you could go somewhere else legally to seek it.

But since then we have moved toward a much more global economy in which capital crosses national borders every day in massive amounts. There used to be a lot more restrictions on capital crossing borders. Take southeast asis for example where there were some severe criminal penalties assessed for investing capital outside your own nation. Today, capital has far surpassed labor in mobility. National borders are a barrier to labor, but not to capital. I'm generally in favor of bringing that back in to balance by gradually eroding national borders, which is part of why I am for increased tolerance of immigration.
To oversimplify for the purpose of illustration...if all the firms in Texas move to Oklahoma and I can't find employment in Texas, I'm free to move to Oklahoma to get a job there.
But if I'm living in Mexico and all the firms move to the U.S. (or to Guatemala for that matter) I am hindered from moving to where the jobs are.
In a global economy, people have to be free to cross borders. And as illegal immigration has shown, and not just in the U.S., people are going to cross borders to seek employment. It's not something you can really stop.

Of course, I'm not advocating immediately getting rid of national borders. That's completely impractical and difficult to imagine in the homseland sexurity age. But the way I see it we're headed that way, it can't be stopped, and it can have a lot of positive consequences.

perhaps in the long run... but for now the differences across borders are just too great. It is not a sustainable solution where things suck just to move everyone to finland, where things are nice. Thngs have to be improved where they suck, as well.

Outsourcing is a good partial solution.... It proxies for the free flow of labor by shipping out some of the DEMAND for that low-skill labor. In addition, it improves the conditions in the local (foreign) country by providing jobbs and know-how (people who complain about sweat shops in poor countries just haven't looked at the alternatives--- NO shops in poor countries)

[DevinFuture]

Thngs have to be improved where they suck, as well.

No doubt.

Outsourcing is a good partial solution.... It proxies for the free flow of labor by shipping out some of the DEMAND for that low-skill labor. In addition, it improves the conditions in the local (foreign) country by providing jobbs and know-how (people who complain about sweat shops in poor countries just haven't looked at the alternatives--- NO shops in poor countries)

That makes some sense. But the probem is creates, on the sweatshop front, is that there is little incentive for businesses to appeal to the societies in which they operate. So businesses in a poor country are less likely to provide high wages or invest in the community, and are more likely to pollute. Basically they can take advantage of capitve populations. If people could move more freely, I think it work in reverse to some degree. Businesses would have more incentive to try to attract people to live where they operate, and that could have a lot of great social consequences.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I think we might have the cart before the horse a little on this issue. Illegal immigrants are poor, and basically HAVE to move to areas that are cheap.

while it may be fair to say that CHEAP and UNHEALTHY go hand in hand in the big city, I don't think this is necessarily a fair assumption when we talk about more rural areas....

....case in point, I moved from Big D to the hinterlands and got a bigger house, a nicer neighborhood and a lower mortgage all at once.

so while you're absolutely right that illegal aliens seek out cheaper places to live, it's not so fair to say that the cheapness of an area is an indication that the area is in decline.

also.....we should keep in mind that the distance between Really Nice and Not Nice neighborhoods in big cities can often be considerable, and also that the people in Nice neighborhoods are sending their kids to one set of schools and doing their shopping at one set of stores while the folks in Not Nice neighborhoods have their own schools and shops. This isn't the situation in rural communities, where everybody shops at the same stores and attends the same schools.

so.....rural communties are often cheap and healthy communities that attract illegal aliens on one hand, and on the other hand the impact of illegal aliens is most noticeable in rural communities.

cheers

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

BUT poor undocuments moving into a neighborhood is more a SIGN of the problem, than a CAUSE, no? .

not when the problem is the disappearance of a particular culture from a region. The change from middle class Texan farming community to lower class Texan farming community is not so great. There are still football games, sadie hawkins, square dancing, and yodelling at the town stoplight. A change from Texan farming community to Mexican farming community is much larger. The immediate importation of a culture developed elsewhere is an issue for a lot of people. It's the same when poor people move into an area by the mechanisms you describe, and when rich people move into an area by fixing up a neighborhood so much that property costs drive out a bunch of people that have developed the place. Whatever the mechanism, that kind of cultural invasion is something I think any community has the right to fight against.

[Mavdog]

rural communities don't attract immigrant populations because they are "cheaper", immigrant populations tend to migrate where they can find a place to work.

that's the primary reason for their entering america. if they wanted a cheap place to live they would have stayed where the came from.

UL, as for the "gentrification" of neighborhoods and the in-migration of new cultures, that is the history of america. it began with the irish, continued with the germans and italians, saw the jewish and the asian, and now we see the hispanic. it's the american stew, and our country has benefitted. the "community" does NOT have the "right to fight against it" if that fight is using discriminating laws and the use of force.

[Usually Lurkin]

If by "discrimination" and "use of force" you really mean "less rights for lawbreakers" and "enforcement of the law" then they do. And they absolutely do have the right to fight by every legal means.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

while it may be fair to say that CHEAP and UNHEALTHY go hand in hand in the big city, I don't think this is necessarily a fair assumption when we talk about more rural areas....

....case in point, I moved from Big D to the hinterlands and got a bigger house, a nicer neighborhood and a lower mortgage all at once.

so while you're absolutely right that illegal aliens seek out cheaper places to live, it's not so fair to say that the cheapness of an area is an indication that the area is in decline.

also.....we should keep in mind that the distance between Really Nice and Not Nice neighborhoods in big cities can often be considerable, and also that the people in Nice neighborhoods are sending their kids to one set of schools and doing their shopping at one set of stores while the folks in Not Nice neighborhoods have their own schools and shops. This isn't the situation in rural communities, where everybody shops at the same stores and attends the same schools.

so.....rural communties are often cheap and healthy communities that attract illegal aliens on one hand, and on the other hand the impact of illegal aliens is most noticeable in rural communities.

cheers

YOu got a bigger house, nicer neighborhood, and a smaller mortgage... and I imagine a smaller pay check as well, no? Yes you were able to arbitrage the equity from your other house for a one time upgrade... but relative to incomes, is your new house cheaper or more expensive?

Yes, "cheap" is relative, and very dependent upon location. But REALTIVE cheap still matters alot.

I admit to not knowing a damn thing about rural Texas (other than what I've read in sources like "Friday Night Lights"... which I'm fairly certain most of you wouldn't put forth as the best true indicator), but in rural Virginia and rural California I see communities that have simultaneuosly seen their largest sources of jobs evaorating. Smaller farms are either being combined into larger ones that employ far fewer people or are becoming so marginal that the small farmer barely hangs on (and the NEXT generation, the HEIRS sell to a larger conglomerate). At the same time textile mills, foundries, etc... (all medium intensive industries that flourished in small towns for generations) have all started to disappear and move abroad. For the country on the whole, this is a fairly good thing, and eventually we are seeing more productive farms and workers shifted to more productive industies... in the LONG term... and on a NATIONAL scale.

In the short term, and on a regional scale, the adjustment process is much more difficult.

My wife's family comes from Appalachia. They were small scale dairy farmers outside of a town that had 3 large plants that supplied most of the good jobs (one was a foundry, one was a paper mill, and I don't remember what the third was). There were two rival public high schools, and a fairly vibrant small town economy. THis was 40ish years ago. Now there isn't much. The three factories have shuttered. The two schools were combined 30ish years ago, and then about 4 years ago that school closed and now all the kids (that are left) are bussed a couple of towns over to a "county level" high school. You drive by houses and farms that people basically just abandoned, because there wasn't anyone to sell to... you can EASILY buy a house for far less than its replacement cost.

Anyway, I digress... my point is that small communities everywhere are under strain. THe standard model for economic efficiency in those towns has broken down a bit. Places like Wyoming (mining and Gas) still see some small towns that are booming around very specific fonts. But most small towns don't have a specific local font, and are declining. They aren't just cheaper in absolute terms, they are getting cheaper in relative terms as well, as the prospects for growth fade....

but back to the immigration angle. What are the sources for employment for the immigrants? are they competing directly with the "locals"? or is there some sort of a two-tier labor market? (with LOcals looking for one sort of job, that is disappearing, and the immigrants filling a new type of job that is replacing the old standards -- worse jobs, I imagine) THis, of course, IS the weak point of my theory... if jobs are drying up... why is a community attractive to immigrants? THey are arguably MORE driven by jobs, since they have fewer ties and established assets in the community.

anyway, just curious. Willing to learn.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If by "discrimination" and "use of force" you really mean "less rights for lawbreakers" and "enforcement of the law" then they do.

your applied meanings to no discrimination or use of force are interesting. but they are not what I normally think of.

no discrimination means to apply the law equally, without it's unjust use to the advantage of one group over another.

do you feel one group can discriminate against an otherwise lawabiding group by using control over police resources and law?

And they absolutely do have the right to fight by every legal means.

absolutely, unless those laws say yes to the question posed above.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

YOu got a bigger house, nicer neighborhood, and a smaller mortgage... and I imagine a smaller pay check as well, no? Yes you were able to arbitrage the equity from your other house for a one time upgrade... but relative to incomes, is your new house cheaper or more expensive?

same income, bigger house, cheaper & better house....

tho your point may not apply to my particular case, you certainly have a point in general.

oddly enough, I'm in Wyoming right now and you're correct that things are booming here (and have been for the last several years). Not too long ago I saw a Help Wanted sign offering a $1000 sign on bonus for a checker at a convenience store.

but back to the immigration angle. What are the sources for employment for the immigrants? are they competing directly with the "locals"? or is there some sort of a two-tier labor market? (with LOcals looking for one sort of job, that is disappearing, and the immigrants filling a new type of job that is replacing the old standards -- worse jobs, I imagine)

i'm really not sure -- mostly I see the effect (my sister works at the school, my dad is involved in all things local)...... there is no dominant industry or source of employment in town, for *locals* or immigrants (legal or otherwise) and I can't really say what the competition is like (haven't applied for a minimum wage job in a couple of years, you understand....) interesting questions and i'll have to give it a closer study.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

No doubt.



That makes some sense. But the probem is creates, on the sweatshop front, is that there is little incentive for businesses to appeal to the societies in which they operate. So businesses in a poor country are less likely to provide high wages or invest in the community, and are more likely to pollute. Basically they can take advantage of capitve populations. If people could move more freely, I think it work in reverse to some degree. Businesses would have more incentive to try to attract people to live where they operate, and that could have a lot of great social consequences.

But this just isn't borne out empirically. The countries that improve their labor standards are EACTLY the ones that welcome "sweat shop" type factories. There is a heirarchy of needs in dirt dirt poor countries, and SOME sort of employment is almost always better than the alternative, which is usually economic stagnation. Countries have an allocation at any given point in time, and they need to work with what they have... Very poor countries can't offer very much EXCEPT very cheap labor. BUT economic activity is a neat thing, it eventually feeds itself. Countries that start out as sweat shop locations import all sorts of know how and capital, and this eventually allows them to move up the economic food chain.

Just do a comparative analysis of the countries that were sweat shop havens one or two generations ago, compared to those that shunned this sort of foreign investment. Tawan, Hong Kong, Sinagapore, Malaysia, Chile, Thailand, Korea, hell even Japan... its hard to remember, but THOSE were the countries where it seemed like EVERYTHING was being produced inthe 70s, THEY were the low wage alternatives where all the US jobs were fleeing... NOW, they are much richer, AND have much more stringent labor/environment standards AND THEY are the ones outsourcing to cheaper locations. THis generation, it is China, India, Vietnam, Colombia, East Europe welcoming this type of investment... and they are going to benefit much more than Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, et al that are trying to regulate growth before they really HAVE it.


edit... Hell, the best example possible is probably Ireland. The "poor man of Europe" REALLY embraced its comparative position when it first entered the EU, as the the low cost entry point to Europe. Ireland simplified and cleaned up its regualtions and taxes, and fully opened its doors to foreign investment... and has shifted from last to first in ONE GENERATION, now has the HIGHEST income per-capita in the EU (except perhaps for Luxemborg, I cant remember, but Luxemborg shouldn't count as a country anyway!)

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

same income, bigger house, cheaper & better house....

....
cheers

Well, THATS always a good gig, if you can get it!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Well, THATS always a good gig, if you can get it!

Texas baby.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Texas baby.

well, he DID move both FROM somewhere in Texas, and TO somewhere in Texas...

So I guess that translates to:

Screw Texas! / Yeah Texas!

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

but back to the immigration angle. What are the sources for employment for the immigrants? are they competing directly with the "locals"? or is there some sort of a two-tier labor market? (with LOcals looking for one sort of job, that is disappearing, and the immigrants filling a new type of job that is replacing the old standards -- worse jobs, I imagine)

anyway, just curious. Willing to learn.

On this topic more generally, nationwide:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6...mmigration.pdf
Here is an interesting piece from the Congressional Budget Office that I found online. It's called "The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market".

It's 26 pages and it's from 2005, but it can be skimmed and it's quite good. The section on "the impact of foreign-born workers on the U.S. labor market" is relevant. It discusses several attempts to quantify the impact of immigrants on the labor market but it also discusses the different methods of getting calculations and some of their flaws.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

...Screw Texas! / Yeah Texas!

Screw Dallas, Yeah Texas....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

On this topic more generally, nationwide:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6...mmigration.pdf
Here is an interesting piece from the Congressional Budget Office that I found online. It's called "The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market".

It's 26 pages and it's from 2005, but it can be skimmed and it's quite good. The section on "the impact of foreign-born workers on the U.S. labor market" is relevant. It discusses several attempts to quantify the impact of immigrants on the labor market but it also discusses the different methods of getting calculations and some of their flaws.

come on devin, you have to do some work here. no ones going to necessarily read it unless you provide a hook.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

But this just isn't borne out empirically. The countries that improve their labor standards are EACTLY the ones that welcome "sweat shop" type factories. There is a heirarchy of needs in dirt dirt poor countries, and SOME sort of employment is almost always better than the alternative, which is usually economic stagnation. Countries have an allocation at any given point in time, and they need to work with what they have... Very poor countries can't offer very much EXCEPT very cheap labor. BUT economic activity is a neat thing, it eventually feeds itself. Countries that start out as sweat shop locations import all sorts of know how and capital, and this eventually allows them to move up the economic food chain.

Just do a comparative analysis of the countries that were sweat shop havens one or two generations ago, compared to those that shunned this sort of foreign investment. Tawan, Hong Kong, Sinagapore, Malaysia, Chile, Thailand, Korea, hell even Japan... its hard to remember, but THOSE were the countries where it seemed like EVERYTHING was being produced inthe 70s, THEY were the low wage alternatives where all the US jobs were fleeing... NOW, they are much richer, AND have much more stringent labor/environment standards AND THEY are the ones outsourcing to cheaper locations. THis generation, it is China, India, Vietnam, Colombia, East Europe welcoming this type of investment... and they are going to benefit much more than Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, et al that are trying to regulate growth before they really HAVE it.


edit... Hell, the best example possible is probably Ireland. The "poor man of Europe" REALLY embraced its comparative position when it first entered the EU, as the the low cost entry point to Europe. Ireland simplified and cleaned up its regualtions and taxes, and fully opened its doors to foreign investment... and has shifted from last to first in ONE GENERATION, now has the HIGHEST income per-capita in the EU (except perhaps for Luxemborg, I cant remember, but Luxemborg shouldn't count as a country anyway!)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with developing nations welcoming foreign investments in their economy, but part of the reason that the Asian economies that you mention developed so quickly is that they were able to control domestic capital and have it reinvested into their own economies. And there are plenty of developing nations that have been welcoming foreign investment for decades without the sort of success that those Asian countries have had.
The way I see it, the prescription for how to build up a domestic economy in an age of international markets inolves doing some or all of the following: government subsidies for domestic industry, tariffs on cheaper imported goods, enforcing investment of capital inside the country instead of outside it, and getting investment from other countries. (interesting that all of these except the last are inherently violative of principles of free trade) This is how all great economies have developed. You can't very well develop a national economy just by accepting foreign investment. And it also depends on what type of investment. Sometimes when businesses go into developing countries, they mainly bring their own experts with them, leading to very little transfer of technology or know-how.
This is what bugs me about the free trade crusade.
Free trade is an idea that rich nations preach to poor nations (with the rich nations not even practicing it themselves) once the rich nations have arranged the playing field to their own advantage.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

... It's a crappy, crappy, thing, though, for a community to just move into a neighborhood and boot out a bunch of families that have been there for generations. And if, in advocating the position that you have in this thread, you don't empathize with those people whose culture you would so willingly allow destroyed, then you are a crappy, crappy person. Pride in community and pride in culture is not necessarily rooted in hatred of anything.

As for other aspects of the deportation/amnesty argument, do you just not believe that motives of "political invasion" or "economic invasion" exist in the northward immigration, or do you not respect those motives enough to do anything about them?

To answer your second question first, I think that immigration (at least with respect to Mexico and Central America) happens primarily at the individual level--individual immigrants making individual decisions to migrate looking for better individual economic opportunity and an improved standard of living for themselves and their familes. I think anything that you may (or may not) have heard from Latin American politicians about economic or political invasion is just political hyperbole, appropriated (and twisted) by American politicians and anti-immigration activists for their own political purposes. Is it really likely that a largely corrupt Mexican government could uniformly and systematically concert the immigration of X0 million laborers through any means other than neglect? Talk about herding cats.

The gentrification comparison is actually kind of interesting. I think there are some areas of overlap, some parallels. And as you go on to point out, the effect can cut both ways-- relatively more affluent people moving into poorer neighborhoods to take advantage of depressed property values; and what people think of as 'reverse' gentrification when an influx of relatively less affluent people changes the character of a neighborhood. But gentrification also generally happens at a relatively mirco-level (individuals making individual decisions in response to economic conditions), not 'communities' moving in en masse in systematic, concerted action; and it usually affects specific neighborhoods or relatively smaller areas, so it's not altogether clear how it represents a threat to any larger culture; a change in the way-of-life for some individuals, maybe, but to call that destruction of a culture seems somewhat exaggerated (probably for effect).

Of course it's one thing (and easy) to empathize with affected individuals; quite another thing to support attempts to beat back the invading "forces" with systematic intimidation and harassment and violence, legal or otherwise. It's that ambivalence that feeds what many people are writing about in this thread.

not when the problem is the disappearance of a particular culture from a region. The change from middle class Texan farming community to lower class Texan farming community is not so great. There are still football games, sadie hawkins, square dancing, and yodelling at the town stoplight. A change from Texan farming community to Mexican farming community is much larger. The immediate importation of a culture developed elsewhere is an issue for a lot of people. It's the same when poor people move into an area by the mechanisms you describe, and when rich people move into an area by fixing up a neighborhood so much that property costs drive out a bunch of people that have developed the place. Whatever the mechanism, that kind of cultural invasion is something I think any community has the right to fight against.

Is immigration really 'reverse'-gentrifying rural small-town life in Texas? Does it really represent a threat to Friday-night football games, Sadie Hawkins Day, square dances, and yodeling contests down at the stop light? To chicken-fried steak? Any specific examples in specific areas/towns you can point to?

Frankly, I'm not seeing it. What I DO see is that you can now get chicken-fried steak AND enchiladas (GOOD ones from a family-owned restaurant, not that crap from El Chico's or Pancho's) AND barbecue; that you can listen to country western AND cumbias AND blues; that if you're REAL lucky, you can see the small-town equivalent of a debutante ball AND a quinceañera AND a cotillion; that you can still watch Friday-night football where a soccer-style kicker imported from the soccer team may be a threat from 45 yards, and your own 10-year old can choose to play soccer if he/she wants. In short, I see MORE (lower-case 'c') culture, not less; and more mixing of cultures, more co-existing of cultures, which I don't really view as a problem. Maybe you do. Or at least maybe you can offer some examples of: 1) what rural small-town Texas culture IS (beyond monolingual speakers of Redneck, Friday night football, Sadie Hawkins day, square dancing and yodeling contests) and 2)how rural, small-town Texas culture is being threatened beyond an individual's not liking to hear Spanish or watch brown-skinned kids playing soccer in the park.

Whatever the mechanism, that kind of cultural invasion is something I think any community has the right to fight against. ... ... ...

If by "discrimination" and "use of force" you really mean "less rights for lawbreakers" and "enforcement of the law" then they do. And they absolutely do have the right to fight by every legal means.

I'm glad you nuanced 'fight against it' to 'fight it by every legal means' , because the brick through the window of a minority family moving into an all-white neighborhood, or the vandalism of a Harlem brownstone recently bought by a couple of white gentrifiers probably don't qualify as legitimate legal expressions of frustration at seeing one's neighborhood 'destroyed', one's community threatened, one's very culture imperiled. And it's probably safe to impute some racial motivations to the actions.

But even the motivations (and the constitutionality) behind 'legal' means can be called into question--were Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and literacy tests and poll taxes and anti-miscegenation laws not attempts to beat back a "cultural invasion"; attempts by one culture to defends itself from being 'overrun'? Not only where those embarrassments 'legal' (in the short-term) they were 'the law'.....at least until they were found unconstitutional or superseded by newer laws. (As a parallel to the gentrification question, consider 'restrictive covenants' that contractually prohibited the purchaser of a property from selling the property to a Jew or a person of color.)

So when you look at the kinds of anti-immigrant laws recently passed in Farmer's Branch (similar to ones already found to be unconstitutional elsewhere), and the short-sighted, fear-motivated failure to pass any kind of reasonable immigration reform, it seems more than fair to look at history and question both the morality of the motivations for that type of legislative failure, and the prospects for it succeeding long-term. (Beyond some limited success with zoning laws, lawmaking doesn't seem to work well at all to combat gentrification either.)

Either way, it doesn't look so good for the 'nostaligists', who, in my experience, are crappy, crappy persons.

[mcsluggo]

Jack, a couple of quick notes.

1: I don't think anyone here is stating that there is a vast conspiriacy to take back the SW-USA by Mexican authorities. Just that the defacto result of mass migration may END UP that way. On individual at a time.

Whether THIS is a valid fear is an open question. WHether there is a mexican skull and bones society plotting in the woods of marin county... this is an answered question


2. Your economic arguments, each individual making choices at the individual micro level, is true as far as it goes. But to believe that there aren't spillover effects HAS to wrong. Of course there are. THe first "different" person moving into a community is a daunting tak, even without any explicit intimidation. THere just isn't any familiarity, any "friendly" faces, any institutions that target you specifically... its difficult for the first movers. Once there is an actual community migrations become MUCH more fluid (and rapid). Anyone can see this.

THis leads to "hotspots" of immigration settlement... it isn't evenly distributed across a region. Once a specific locale is establisshed as a pocket for immigrants, immigration will take on different growth characterstics. This likely means that some areas WILL get "swamped" so to speak, with most of the non-immigrant population moved out of the way (this will also be sped up by unsavory "white flight", once the previous inhabitants see their community changing).

interestingly, the "it can't happen because each individual makes decisions on an individual, rational, basis" argument is more often used to argue that there can't be racism. "How can a qualified minority applicant be denied jobs if each individual firm is hiring based on individually rational maximizing criteria...? If only ONE firm is behaving rationally, it will get ALL the qualified minority talent at bargain prices and flourish relative to its peers... demanding immitation"

the presumption, in both cases is wrong.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

come on devin, you have to do some work here. no ones going to necessarily read it unless you provide a hook.

Hey, I just thought it was interesting and relevant to the topic. In my experience, many people assume they know what effects immigration has on the economy, but this paper makes a pretty good case that it's pretty complicated and not very well understood by anyone, by showing how researchers go about assessing the eocnomic impact of immigration.
If you aren't interested in reading it, by all means don't.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your applied meanings to no discrimination or use of force are interesting. but they are not what I normally think of.

no discrimination means to apply the law equally, without it's unjust use to the advantage of one group over another.

do you feel one group can discriminate against an otherwise lawabiding group by using control over police resources and law?



absolutely, unless those laws say yes to the question posed above.

we're talking about illegal immigration here. Gentrification provides for me a useful parallel to understanding potential loss of culture. If it doesn't for everybody, then it doesn't. If you want to tell me how to enforce the law equally among legal residents and illegal immigrants, great. But "otherwise lawabiding" does not get around the fact that one group is not lawabiding.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

we're talking about illegal immigration here....If you want to tell me how to enforce the law equally among legal residents and illegal immigrants, great. But "otherwise lawabiding" does not get around the fact that one group is not lawabiding.

you mentioned "A change from Texan farming community to Mexican farming community". if you meant they were illegal residents, sure use the law to expel them if you want. that's not discrimination.

but if it is americans of mexican heritage, that's something very different.

Gentrification provides for me a useful parallel to understanding potential loss of culture.

I don't see it as a "loss of culture". american culture changes, always has and always will

as for changing neighborhoods, I'm a free market guy. if people want to invest in communities, let them. a successful neighborhood is where you have people living there who invest in it.

and that's what these changing communities are, people who invest in these communities by moving there.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with developing nations welcoming foreign investments in their economy, but part of the reason that the Asian economies that you mention developed so quickly is that they were able to control domestic capital and have it reinvested into their own economies. And there are plenty of developing nations that have been welcoming foreign investment for decades without the sort of success that those Asian countries have had.
The way I see it, the prescription for how to build up a domestic economy in an age of international markets inolves doing some or all of the following: government subsidies for domestic industry, tariffs on cheaper imported goods, enforcing investment of capital inside the country instead of outside it, and getting investment from other countries. (interesting that all of these except the last are inherently violative of principles of free trade) This is how all great economies have developed. You can't very well develop a national economy just by accepting foreign investment. And it also depends on what type of investment. Sometimes when businesses go into developing countries, they mainly bring their own experts with them, leading to very little transfer of technology or know-how.
This is what bugs me about the free trade crusade.
Free trade is an idea that rich nations preach to poor nations (with the rich nations not even practicing it themselves) once the rich nations have arranged the playing field to their own advantage.

Well, all I can say is __ I disagree. ESPECIALLY vis developing countries. THey have much much MUCH more to gain from free trade, and much much MUCH more to lose if trade reform stalls, or worse, regresses. They have much smaller, poorer domestic markets to fall back on, and are much bigger beneficiaries of technological transfers. I would guess that trade and investment do more in one or three years to lift the poor out of poverty than all of the charity/grant transfers in the history of the world (and those are EXTREMELY benificial).