Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Part of ‘Illegal’ Does WSJ Not Understand?
In this weekend’s WSJ, there is an article entitled “Migrant Buses Test Nonprofits, Cities.” The so-called “migrant buses” are the ones leaving the border states of Texas and Arizona, filled with illegals, bound for the nation’s capital. It seems that the many non-profit “immigrant-rights” organizations which advocate for and assist those who cross our newly-opened southern border are overwhelmed by the large volume of people now on their doorstep.
In the WSJ article, the word “migrant” appears 20 times. In the same article, the word “illegal” appears exactly once, at the bottom of Paragraph Five. I think that headline might just be a bit misleading. The writers of the article write with a decidedly sympathetic slant, feeling bad for all those unfortunate migrants who are forced onto buses and transported to Washington, when they really wanted to go to Miami or New York. No mention is made of the fact that those migrants are breaking our laws by crossing our southern border, and the non-profit organizations are accessories to the crimes of illegal entry and illegal residence in our country, being committed by the migrants.
Somehow, I just cannot feel too sorry for all the illegal migrants who are not supposed to be here, regardless of their poverty and wanting a better life in the United States. And I think it’s criminal for those non-profits to be helping them at all. Unfortunately, those at the top of our government have invited them here, and I think it’s justice for them to be confronted with the results of their policies. More power to Ducey of Arizona and Abbott of Texas for sending the illegals to the source of their invitations. I think Muriel Bowser needs to set up a shelter for them in her backyard, and Biden needs to set up a shelter and processing center on the White House lawn.
And the editors of the Wall Street Journal need to recognize that we Conservatives are not “anti-immigration” but anti-Illegal Immigration! Will that ever happen? Probably not.
Published in Immigration
You are wrong. You should acknowledge that and withdraw that statement.
Yes, I’ve read Mexifornia. My problem with VDH is he talks a great game. He’s a regular Paul Revere when it comes to sounding the alarm about cultural and political change.
But in practice he does what everyone else in the California mainstream does: he tolerates illegal immigration as long as (in the words of the cliche) “they’re only here to work”. Or in the words of George W. Bush, they’re here doing jobs that “Americans aren’t doing”.
Problem is, it’s a fantasy about human nature. When my family came to America, we didn’t make some money and then humbly get back on the boat to the British Isles. We stayed; America changed us, and people like us changed it. That’s the way it happens in real life. The California agricultural sector pulls in all the workers it needs and then…the rest of us deal with their kids, their grandkids, their dental insurance, etc etc. I don’t see VDH out there telling the others to either automate their harvests, employ Americans, or (gasp! the unthinkable!) grow the damn lettuce over the border, where the workers live.
I like Latino culture; in some ways, it’s better than American mainstream culture. But I’m not sentimental, and I’m not unrealistic. Too many dollar-first conservatives square what they want (cheap wages) with what they don’t want (a greatly changed political situation) with an idealized but condescending view of Latinos, as if they’re simple people of the soil who’ll stick to picking fruit and won’t eventually demand the full rights of citizenship.
If it’s illegal, it’s not immigration. However, the left has made it so we have to use the distinction because they’ve taken control of our language.
But yes, I believe most people are okay with immigration, which is legal . . .
I think that you’re right, even among conservatives. This is unfortunate.
Among other problems that immigration creates, it appears that naturalized legal immigrants vote heavily for the Democrats. Exit poll data on this was surprisingly difficult for me to find, but it seems to be correct. One would think that conservatives would decline to support a law allowing millions of people into our country when doing so will tilt the politics of the country to the Left. This has already happened. A quick internet search indicates that naturalized citizens are about 10% of eligible voters.
Ditto. It’s time for an immigration timeout. Maybe we can relax it in a few years, but we have to stabilize our own house first.
Legal immigration is desirable to the point that it is a net gain.
A lot of legal immigration is nothing of the sort.
A net gain to which individuals?
Are the legal immigrants and their descendants included in that group?
What happens if a crowd of migrants enter the U.S.Capitol building and wander around wherever they please? Will they become known as illegal immigrants?
Because he could come back in 2024. He’s eligible for another term so he must be defeated at all costs. Also why the January 6 investigation is trying to tar him with insurrection. The 14th (?) amendment says insurrectionists can’t hold federal office.
Maybe too, they saw how Nixon rehabilitated his image as he left the limelight. They don’t want to make that mistake, as they see it, again.
A country like ours with a birth rate below replacement must have some sort of immigration to ensure that the old folks on the government dole will have younger workers to support them. I read somewhere that the US birth rate is about 1.85, well below replacement level of 2.2. All the wealthy Western countries, plus Australia and Japan, have below-replacement birth rates. Japan discourages all immigration, and their population is shrinking. Even Communist China has a below-replacement birth rate, and their one-child policy has been too successful in limiting births. No one, however, wants IN to China, so they have little recourse.
I am in favor of legal immigration, allowing only literate, productive people in, with no “chain migration” or special conditions allowed for “favored” countries. I can also see need for a robust “guest worker” program, where agricultural workers are allowed in for limited times, then required to return home.
I heard that India is going to pass them in five to ten years. Anyone else see that to confirm?
That is my understanding of the population trends.
Does sheer population matter that much, when both India and China have large portions of their populations living in squalor?
I don’t think China has a large portion of its population living in squalor. Many are poor, but that’s not the same as the squalor that exists in India. And it matters to the extent that they can be incorporated into a thriving and growing economy as both producers and consumers. China has enormous structural problems not only with debt but that 25-33% or so of their gdp comes from building housing and housing is one of the few ways that middle-class Chinese can invest money. There are those who aren’t paying their mortgages and the number has been increasing. The bubble is bursting.
And China’s latest census was cooked by about 100 million, i.e., they have about 100 million less than was reported. So India may have already passed them. The 2030s will be crucial for China as workers will be retiring who were born when the 1-child policy started and there will not be workers to replace them. While productivity in China has grown about 3-fold since the growth period started, wages have grown over 20-fold. So manufacturing is moving away.
There is an automatic system to deploy fawning NGOs from secret doors in the corridors to provide fillet mignon and baby formula and plane tickets good for any destination on any airline,
China’s poor peasants are amenable to improvements in their economic situation. Many of India’s poor peasants resist the cultural changes needed to improve their prosperity. And they are a very powerful voting bloc so the politicians cater to them.
In his 2021 essay A Quiet Destruction, Hanson describe the way of life he grew up in:
Then he describes the same area now:
And further:
These are not the words of a man who is enjoying the wealth of exploiting illegal immigrants.
It is child’s play to operate a farm such as VDH’s and make a small fortune.
Step 1: Obtain a large fortune …
Quoting that font of wisdom and probity Cuomo?
Nah. It’s a joke older than the jokes known as the brothers Cuomo.
My impression is that VDH wants legal immigration to be controlled and limited: It should not harm the domestic labor force, it should be low enough to permit assimilation, and so on. And based on VDH’s descriptions of life on the farm, everyone in the family worked their [censoreds] off, which was also the case with all their neighbors.