A libertarian returns to Scotland
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
Many (but not all) libertarians favour freedom to immigrate and emigrate but I do find it rather odd for the Mexican government to be giving out this sort of information.
Comments made on previous template:markm The real problem isn't immigration, legal or illegal. It's people that want to live in the USA indefinitely without truly becoming Americans. Some of them just crossed the border illegally. Many came in legally. And quite a few were here all along - that is, their ancestors settled in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California when these were still part of Mexico. But they don't want to speak English and they remain culturally Mexicans (or whatever). It's not universal. When I served in the Air Force in New Mexico, I met plenty of people with Spanish surnames and a definite "Mexican" look who spoke flawless English and were in all ways American. Some of them were giving four years of service to their (and my) country, even though they had families rich enough to send them to college and set them up in good jobs afterwards. (That's better than American mainstream culture anymore.) But then there are the others - and if they are allowed to keep pouring in and never assimilate, they'll eventually turn the American Southwest into a hell-hole just like the ones they escaped from.14 January 2005, 02:36:11 GMT– Like – ReplySandy P Stuart - cite, please. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, not net claimants of welfare. And they sent $13 billion home. I have no problem w/legal immigrants, but the million that comes across the border a year illegally, I do. Now, middle and upper-class Mexicans will mark their box "White." Lower-class who adopt the black hip-hop/ghetto culture mark their box as "other." And as Mexicans start moving up economically, they become conservative. Breakpoint in CA was about $60K a year AND the majority don't want illegal immigration, either - CA stats.12 January 2005, 17:18:49 GMT– Like – ReplySandy P --The "ill-effects" of immigration are largely in the heads of xenophobes - the rest of us have enough self-esteem not to regard strangers as automatic enemies.-- As long as you're the big majority....but tides do turn and so do politicians. Assimilation is a very tricky business. America is good at it, BUT this group can be "home" in a couple of hours. They are not my ancestors' immigrant experience. Mine couldn't go home quickly. Old ties had to be cut and new ties formed.12 January 2005, 17:12:46 GMT– Like – Reply
William I wasn't aiming the socialist comment at anyone in particular. Merely observing that all socialist parties seem to be anti-business, anti-globalisation and pro-immigration - policies which seem to me to be in direct conflict with one another. I fail to see anything noble or positive in a 'strong restraint on wage inflation'. As I understand it, the living standards of the unskilled 'local' labour base will decline as their wages continually fail to match the cost of living. And that's for those who do actually get jobs against immigrant workers willing to accept any sort of wage that appears comparably generous but soon becomes clearly incapable of providing any kind of quality of life in their new home. So both sets of workers lose out. Brilliant. "Excellent! I expect many employers would be delighted to find workers willing and able to do the same (or better) job for less pay/benefits." Yes, and we thought we abolished exploitation years ago, too. It's not a 'free' market of labour - at least as I understand freedom. The immigrants are seeking work here because there is appalling poverty in their own countries. As they're willing to accept anything going, the immigrant poor are drawn into an ugly dogfight with the unskilled native poor, each of them seeking to drive *down* their own worth in order to drive *up* the wealth of an elite few. Who precisely is free in this unholy mess? Certainly not the immigrants or the working class - the actual labour itself, in other words. Their only freedom, it seems, is to cut each other's throats. Hey, it's reality. But that doesn't mean we have to be pleased about it.12 January 2005, 16:24:27 GMT– Like – ReplyStuart William What makes you think I am a socialist? I am very much pro-market. Many people like myself on the centre-right are attracted to free human migration policies not simply out of the kindness of our hearts (although this is a factor), but mainly for a very good, old-fashioned, hard-headed capitalist reason: higher economic growth. Most of that growth comes from productivity gains, and as you indicate this comes mainly from a strong restraint on wage inflation. As you say: "Particularly when much of said Mexicans will be doing the same job as an American but for less money." Excellent! I expect many employers would be delighted to find workers willing and able to do the same (or better) job for less pay/benefits. I am neither anti-business nor pro-business. I am pro market-forces, and that includes a free labour market. -"...the working class, who suffer most from its ill effects." Wrong. It is the so-called working class who have the most to gain from countering xenophobia and the establishment, and by far the most to gain from free labour markets and higher economic growth. The "ill-effects" of immigration are largely in the heads of xenophobes - the rest of us have enough self-esteem not to regard strangers as automatic enemies.12 January 2005, 12:30:05 GMT– Like – ReplyWilliam "America cannot afford the education and health care for 100 million Mexicans." Particularly when much of said Mexicans will be doing the same job as an American but for less money. It's peculiar that socialists, who are instinctively anti-business, should be pro-immigration, ensuring low wages and cheap labour for business. It's very odd that the SSP, for example, are such cheerleaders for unchecked immigration when it's their own claimed constituency, the working class, who suffer most from its ill effects. Lower wages, lower tax revenue, more government health spending, higher welfare payments - it's all good news.12 January 2005, 10:19:07 GMT– Like – Reply
Stuart -"America cannot afford the education and health care for 100 million Mexicans." Bollocks! Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, not net claimants of welfare. Seriously hindering migration would knock at least one percentage point of growth from US GNP. Immigrants are far more likely to be young and to work and to be healthy, than your average grey-haired lazy fat American begging the state for protectionism. It is typical of right-wing anti-immigrants to perpetuate the welfare-pull myth. The US attracts immigrants for one reason alone: work. -"...we the government are going to do nothing about it so if you cant get a job f off." I agree: this is damning evidence of the poor state of the Mexican economy and the pathetic lack of vision by its government.11 January 2005, 21:43:23 GMT– Like – ReplyGiles This article reminds me of the Philipine government objecting to the Japanesse cutting the number of "entertainment (aka prostitution) visas" offered. I think the signal it sends out is that a) things are bad at home b) we the government are going to do nothing about it so if you cant get a job f off.11 January 2005, 18:58:18 GMT– Like – ReplySandy P Hi, Verity! Stuart - it's true. America cannot afford the education and health care for 100 million Mexicans. End of Story. Via Dailypundit: September 7, 2004 California legislators ask Mexican Senate to intervene (EDITED TRANSLATION: FROM NOTIMEX, SEPTEMBER 6, 2004) ...“However it is now September and he has not responded whatsoever, although we will insist on approval of the bill, basically so that illegal migrants can have access to education and health services in the U.S.,” Firebaugh added. Assemblywoman Cindy Montañez, from the San Fernando Valley, said that it is vital for Mexico to ask Schwarzenegger to approve this legislation “so that he would know that not only people of California, but an entire country is asking that he sign the bill.” --- They want drivers licenses. No way, Jose.11 January 2005, 18:41:49 GMT– Like – Reply
Stuart Andrew I can understand why your company thus classifies the site David guided us to. They themselves put forward the following, classically racist, agenda: -"What We Believe Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society—language, religion, class, ideology—it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century. The problems of race cannot be solved without adequate understanding. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. Progress requires the study of all aspects of race, whether historical, cultural, or biological." http://www.amren.com/Intro/information.htm According to dictionary.com racism is: -"rac·ism n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race." I think that we can safely say that the American Renaissance site fully conforms to at least definition 1, and probably definition 2 also. David, where did you get this link from? Incidentally, "Latin America" also has French- and English-speaking bits, plus a multitude of languages not artificially enforced by the state: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=20798&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html11 January 2005, 12:55:37 GMT– Like – ReplyAndrew Duffin It gets even more interesting. I cannot view the link posted, from the office. Our nanny system tells me it comes under the heading of "Hate and Discrimination". Well I never. And there was me thinking I was exercising discrimination every time I went to the Valvona & Crolla Caffe Bar...11 January 2005, 12:17:49 GMT– Like – ReplyAndrew Duffin David - superb comment. Thank you!11 January 2005, 12:16:11 GMT– Like – ReplyAndrew Duffin Verity - monolingual? As in, the Spanish-speaking part, I suppose you mean. What about the Portuguese-speaking part?11 January 2005, 12:15:33 GMT– Like – ReplyVerity This is totally fascinating. Especially given that Mexico is having its own problems with large numbers of illegals sneaking in from Guatamala. To them, Mexico is a paradise. When I was at the immigration department to get my permission to stay, there were Guatamalans trying to do it the legal way and looking very nervous. There are signs up in the immigration department - obviously in Spanish - saying things like: Did you come in illegally? Did you fail to regularise your status? Are you afraid to declare yourself now that you are here and have a job? Don't be afraid to tell us your cirumstances, and we will try to help you. So, as Mexico inches its way forward, thanks in part to NAFTA, in its turn it becomes a promising destination to poor third worlders. And as they're all Spanish speakers, it is easy for them to blend in. But the Mexican government maintains, by and large, a kindly attitude to them and does regularise their situations if they come forward and there are no other problems (like fleeing their own country for criminal reasons). I personally don't believe in open immigration, but Latin America is a giganic continent and it's monolingual and I don't know how they would stop it.11 January 2005, 04:50:28 GMT– Like – ReplyDavid Farrer Surely all Scottish Government brochures are illustrated with a pale-looking ex-smoker in a pin striped mini-kilt. For an exotic touch, he may be shown on holiday (under £250) in Majorca.10 January 2005, 15:07:55 GMT
Post a Comment