Friday, April 30, 2010

When libertarians meet racists

You have to wonder what will happen when the fans of the least gummint possible face their xenophobia and racism.

Which will win: The demand for a weak federal gummint and for individual freedom (not to mention a congenital aversion to the requirements for such as carrying ID cards), or the demand that we lock down the borders and keep people (of a certain colour) from going where they want to go (and where these people don't want them to go).

Actually, no contest. Unfortunately, cognitive dissonance doesn't make these people's heads explode, and the racism and xenophobia win out, hands down.

What's truly absurd is the demand that Latinos show they're entitled to be in the good ol' Yoo Ess of Aye ... when they've been here far longer than the white Europeans, and no one demanded IDs of the whites as they came over and took all the land....

2 Comments:

At 5:38 PM, Blogger Ben017 said...

Isn't there a fair amount of evidence that low skill immigration from Mexico is a net drain on the economy. Another factor argued here by Jason Richwine is that subsequent generations have low levels of academic achievement. So require affirmative action, and are more likely to be overrepresented in the underclass.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=

Alex Aleviev makes a similar point here in the context of California:

"One myth is that because America is a country of immigrants and has successfully absorbed waves of immigration in the past, it can absorb this wave. But the argument neglects two key differences between past waves and the current influx. First, the immigrant population is more than double today what it was following the most massive previous immigration wave (that of the late 19th century). Second, and much more important, as scholars from the Manhattan Institute have shown, earlier immigrants were much more likely to bring with them useful skills. Some Hispanic immigrants certainly do integrate, but most do not. Research has shown that even after 20 years in the country, most illegal aliens (the overwhelming majority of whom are Hispanic) and their children remain poor, unskilled, and culturally isolated they constitute a new permanent underclass.

Perhaps the most disingenuous myth about illegal immigrants is that they do not impose any cost on society. The reality is that even those who work and half do not, according to the Pew Hispanic Center cannot subsist on the wages they receive and depend on public assistance to a large degree. Research on Los Angeles immigrants by Harvard University scholar George J. Borjas shows that 40.1 percent of immigrant families with non-citizen heads of household receive welfare, compared with 12.7 percent of households with native-born heads. Illegal immigrants also increase public expenditures on health care, education, and prisons. In California today, illegal immigrants’ cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be $13 billion half the state’s budget deficit.

The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens as existing statutes demand and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants. This would immediately remove powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, and millions of illegal aliens would return to their countries. Instead, with President Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, an amnesty for the country’s 13 million illegal immigrants may be soon to come.

Milton Friedman once said that unrestrained immigration and the welfare state do not mix. Must we wait until California catches up with Mexico to realize how right he was?”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023

 
At 10:01 AM, Blogger Arne Langsetmo said...

Ben017:

Isn't there a fair amount of evidence that low skill immigration from Mexico is a net drain on the economy.

If you have it, you ought to produce it. I've heard otherwise, but don't have competent studies to back such up. But this is your assertion and thus your burden of production.

That being said, even if true, what does thathave to do with what I said?

Another factor argued here by Jason Richwine is that subsequent generations have low levels of academic achievement.

Do you think that perhaps their schools (if they manage to get their kids in school; something the RWers would like to deny them) might have something to do with it?

Cheers,

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home