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.
This week on the podcast, James and Peter talk Egyptian politics and culture with Hoover’s Fouad Ajami (read his WSJ Op-Ed piece here) and later, the Zimmerman trial and immigration reform with the WSJLive’s (and Ricochet’s newest contributor) Mary Kissel. What does the Zimmerman trial say about the current state of race relations? And what of the immigration bill currently before the House — do you share the views expressed on the show? Let us know in the comments.
Happy Fourth, everyone!
Music from this week’s show:
This Land Is Your Land by Woody Guthrie
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
EJHill is a true American.
Help Ricochet by supporting our advertisers!
Get a free audio book and 30 free days of Audible on us! Go to audiblepodcast.com/ricochet today!
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
What breathtaking talent Mary Kissel is! She can bemoan the use of racial animosity as a political weapon in the George Zimmerman case, and then, amazingly, denounce opponents of open borders as hopeless bigots who are permanently tarnishing the Republican brand!
True journalistic talent to behold!
Isn’t personal property also just a convenient fiction – a projection of power beyond our corporeal self? It seems odd to me that people have no right to alleviate their poverty by taking (a corporation’s) private property but apparently have the right to alleviate their poverty by taking what is collectively owned by others. ·5 hours ago
If an immigrant arrives, moves in with a relative, gets a job, and uses his wages to buy food and other necessities, what precisely has he stolen from anyone? What “collectively owned” property has he taken?
And you think we’ll fall for it every time? Yes, a couple bad eggs will get in. But we are doing far far more harm with restrictionist policies then the very low proportion of bad people would do. I believe it’s been shown that immigrants tend to break the law somewhat less than citizens. This is the guilt by association I was talking about. ·4 hours ago
However well meaning you may be, you’re simply wrong. they break it more. i live in California, where the prisons are stocked up with foreign criminals, something like a third. children of illegal aliens make up some of the nation’s worst gangs.
example: when I was a kid Compton, CA was notorious for it’s black gang crime. It is now more Mexican, and there have been recent reports of the new Mexican gangs threatening the blacks who have lived there for years.
the wonders of diversity.
Meanwhile mostly-white areas (which are made up of middle-class American citizens) have low crime rates, all across the country. 45 minutes away from Compton is Irvine, one of those areas, a city that has been previously listed as the safest city in the nation.
But is isn’t just about white people. It’s actually tragic the damage illegal immigration has done to the neighborhoods where previous generations of Mexican-Americans (legal residents/citizens) have lived productive lives. Santa Ana, a town in the same county as Irvine, is a perfect example of this.
Isn’t personal property also just a convenient fiction – a projection of power beyond our corporeal self? It seems odd to me that people have no right to alleviate their poverty by taking (a corporation’s) private property but apparently have the right to alleviate their poverty by taking what is collectively owned by others. ·12 minutes ago
If you want to pool the resources with your neighbors to keep curtain people out, you have that right because it’s an agreement between personal property owners. Once you say, oh we also kind of own anything between these lines even though no one really owns it or we had a vote to to limit the rights of a minority of property owners.
You have no right to tell others who they can and cannot peacefully interact with. You have the ability, but not the right. Migration is a fundamental human right. The right of self determination; the right to take your personally owned body where you wish as long as you are not violating the personal property rights of others. ·8 hours ago
since when, Mike, is migration a “fundamental human right?”
However, foreign nationals do not have a right to “migrate” and squat and then claim they are being oppressed when the laws of the land they entered hold them to account.
I didn’t say they had this right. What I’m basically saying is one should not be able to tell another who they may hire. There should be a very good reason to limit the rights of others and “people voted on it” is far from sufficient. We should treat foreigners like strangers but currently we are treating them far worse. ·7 hours ago
We are treating foreigners like princes, have you not noticed that? It is increasingly becoming the case that foreigners, especially illegal ones, have more rights than American citizens.
However, foreign nationals do not have a right to “migrate” and squat and then claim they are being oppressed when the laws of the land they entered hold them to account.
I didn’t say they had this right. What I’m basically saying is one should not be able to tell another who they may hire. There should be a very good reason to limit the rights of others and “people voted on it” is far from sufficient. We should treat foreigners like strangers but currently we are treating them far worse. ·7 hours ago
you did say that, in #51 when you declared “migration” a “fundamental human right.”
no offense, but i think this kind of thinking is indicative of the romanticism inherent to the “open borders” position. no clear statement as to what, if anything, should be the state’s role in immigration. just abstract concepts.
sometimes i wish it didn’t say that. it is just used as a rhetorical weapon in our times. just because a giant green statue stands on an isolated tiny island doesn’t mean it has authority over our government and its immigration policies.
also, when you think about it, many of our modern immigrants, especially those from Latin America, don’t even fit that poem’s description anyway. they are not homeless or refugees from across the ocean. and notice Ms. Lazarus did not say “your huddled masses yearning to receive freebies”.
Isn’t personal property also just a convenient fiction – a projection of power beyond our corporeal self? It seems odd to me that people have no right to alleviate their poverty by taking (a corporation’s) private property but apparently have the right to alleviate their poverty by taking what is collectively owned by others. ·5 hours ago
If an immigrant arrives, moves in with a relative, gets a job, and uses his wages to buy food and other necessities, what precisely has he stolenfrom anyone? What “collectively owned” property has he taken? ·5 hours ago
if he is here legally, and does what you said, he has stolen nothing. if he is illegal, he has taken a job that could have gone to an American citizen or a legal immigrant. if he is collecting welfare benefits he is taking from the American taxpayer.
However well meaning you may be, you’re simply wrong. they break it more. i live in California, where the prisons are stocked up with foreign criminals, something like a third. children of illegal aliens make up some of the nation’s worst gangs.
example: when I was a kid Compton, CA was notorious for it’s black gang crime. It is now more Mexican, and there have been recent reports of the new Mexican gangs threatening the blacks who have lived there for years.
the wonders of diversity.
Let’s assume I’m wrong. Even if immigrant are somewhat more likely to commit crimes, that is still not sufficient to issue blanket moratoriums which will catch all the good people.
But is isn’t just about white people. It’s actually tragic the damage illegal immigration has done to the neighborhoods where previous generations of Mexican-Americans (legal residents/citizens) have lived productive lives. Santa Ana, a town in the same county as Irvine, is a perfect example of this.
Of course this isn’t about race. It’s about poverty. Impoverished people tend to commit more crimes. Once families are able to become more wealthy, their crime rate drops appreciably. And again, poverty is an insufficient reason to deny the migration of innocent people.
Repost.
example: when I was a kid Compton, CA was notorious for it’s black gang crime. It is now more Mexican, and there have been recent reports of the new Mexican gangs threatening the blacks who have lived there for years.
the wonders of diversity. ·3 hours ago
I love how the natural interpretation of this is that the problem is the Mexicans rather than Compton, CA.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The problem with California is not illegal immigration (Texas has plenty of that, and no race problems to speak of). The problem is Californians. They vote for liberal crap and they get the problems associated with liberalism.
Isn’t personal property also just a convenient fiction – a projection of power beyond our corporeal self? It seems odd to me that people have no right to alleviate their poverty by taking (a corporation’s) private property but apparently have the right to alleviate their poverty by taking what is collectively owned by others. ·5 hours ago
If an immigrant arrives, moves in with a relative, gets a job, and uses his wages to buy food and other necessities, what precisely has he stolenfrom anyone? What “collectively owned” property has he taken? ·6 hours ago
kylez has given you the answer. If he’s an illegal immigrant, he’s stolen all the benefits of citizenship to which he is not entitled. You know, like free education, health care, earned income tax credit, housing subsidy, food stamps, etc. If he’s a legal immigrant, he’s stolen nothing. Why is that distinction so difficult to understand?
since when, Mike, is migration a “fundamental human right?”
When does anything become a fundamental human right? When the Constitution was written? When a majority of the population says others can have it? When you are personally convinced others have it?
We are treating foreigners like princes, have you not noticed that? It is increasingly becoming the case that foreigners, especially illegal ones, have more rights than American citizens.
So, we treat illegals like princes? Then why don’t we really stick it to them and give them citizenship? Is citizenship a great honor to be carefully rationed out or a burden? You can’t have it both ways, depending on what is convenient for your argument at the time.
I didn’t say they had this right. What I’m basically saying is one should not be able to tell another who they may hire.
you did say that, in #51 when you declared “migration” a “fundamental human right.”
Did I, or did you read what you wanted into my statement? Is it possible you extended the word ‘migration’ to encompass something I didn’t intend, and then pretend that’s what I meant?
no offense, but i think this kind of thinking is indicative of the romanticism inherent to the “open borders” position. no clear statement as to what, if anything, should be the state’s role in immigration. just abstract concepts.
The state’s role, if it must have one, would be to give immigrants the benefit of the doubt. Do a quick background check, and if nothing can be found to warrant great worry, the assumption should be to let them in.
kylez has given you the answer. If he’s an illegal immigrant, he’s stolen all the benefits of citizenship to which he is not entitled. … If he’s a legal immigrant, he’s stolen nothing. Why is that distinction so difficult to understand?
The distinction is clear. The problem is it is legal and legitimized bullying. It’s keeping people away who want to work, and have a better life, because of some vague “they are icky,” guilt-by-association type of fear. Just because you have the ability to block them, and the vast majority of people think it’s OK, and even expect it, doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
I refer you back to comment #10. Anything that you fear about immigrants, there is a better solution than keeping them out by force.
If you fear their vote, don’t give them one.
If you fear use of the welfare system, deny them, and their children, and their children’s children.
If you are afraid of the low wage jobs they will displace, charge them a large entry fee, or higher overall taxes, and compensate current workers who would be harmed.
Many many of them would take any and all of the above deal in a heartbeat. All would be more humane than our current system.
And no, saying the left wouldn’t let us do these things is not a sufficient excuse to fight for the status quo or making enforcement even harsher.
Edited 22 hours ago
But, the 3rd (omitted) verse is clearly pro-Islamist, so maybe not. :-)
Has there ever been a Ricochet podcast when a James/Peter crosstalk incident results in James winning?
Mike H. – Background checks on immigrants? Foreign nations have always been happy to deport their worst. I’m sure Mexican law authorities will be glad to assure us that every last one of them is clean.
And you think we’ll fall for it every time? Yes, a couple bad eggs will get in. But we are doing far far more harm with restrictionist policies then the very low proportion of bad people would do. I believe it’s been shown that immigrants tend to break the law somewhat less than citizens. This is the guilt by association I was talking about.
Shame on Mary Kissel for speaking in such absolutes on immigration reform and for impugning the motives of those who don’t share her opinion on that difficult issue (and I say this as someone who’s riddled with ambivalence). Likewise, shame on Levin and Rush and others who do the very same thing from the other side.
Scott, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Difficult? Ambivalence? I’m truly not sure if this is sarcasm or not. It must be.
Exactly who in the Republican establishment decided immigration was an issue that needed to be addressed now.
What an enormous waste of time and resources and all to kick a can down the road with 1000 page bill. Just to get this behind us?
Depends on the show. Sometimes the choice is obvious, other times it requires some research.
Side note: on Jay and Mona’s show, all the music is handpicked by Jay himself.
However well meaning you may be, you’re simply wrong. they break it more. i live in California, where the prisons are stocked up with foreign criminals, something like a third. children of illegal aliens make up some of the nation’s worst gangs.
example: when I was a kid Compton, CA was notorious for it’s black gang crime. It is now more Mexican, and there have been recent reports of the new Mexican gangs threatening the blacks who have lived there for years.
the wonders of diversity.
Let’s assume I’m wrong. Even if immigrant are somewhat more likely to commit crimes, that is still not sufficient to issue blanket moratoriums which will catch all the good people. ·8 hours ago
We weren’t talking about blanket moratoriums. We were talking about not rewarding millions of lawbreakers, and the fact that those who are opposed to doing so shouldn’t be painted by WSJ types in league with Democrats as being mean to hispanics. It’s yet another example of the condescending attitude towards the concerns of conservatives on the part of liberals. It’s a shame when people on the right do it.
But is isn’t just about white people. It’s actually tragic the damage illegal immigration has done to the neighborhoods where previous generations of Mexican-Americans (legal residents/citizens) have lived productive lives. Santa Ana, a town in the same county as Irvine, is a perfect example of this.
Of course this isn’t about race. It’s about poverty. Impoverished people tend to commit more crimes. Once families are able to become more wealthy, their crime rate drops appreciably. And again, poverty is an insufficient reason to deny the migration of innocent people. ·8 hours ago
they don’t become more wealthy when the money they earn is being sent back to their relatives in another country.
and we are not denying migration. since the 60s we have had chain migration, followed by “birthright citizenship” imposed on us by the Supreme Court.
example: when I was a kid Compton, CA was notorious for it’s black gang crime. It is now more Mexican, and there have been recent reports of the new Mexican gangs threatening the blacks who have lived there for years.
the wonders of diversity. ·3 hours ago
I love how the natural interpretation of this is that the problem is the Mexicans rather than Compton, CA.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The problem with California is not illegal immigration (Texas has plenty of that, and no race problems to speak of). The problem is Californians. They vote for liberal crap and they get the problems associated with liberalism. ·8 hours ago
Edited 8 hours ago
you are right, all that liberal crap compounded by mass immigration legal and illegal. but much of the liberal crap is federal policy too, welfare etc. I do not want it to sound like it is just due to being Mexican, as you interpreted it.
We weren’t talking about blanket moratoriums. We were talking about not rewarding millions of lawbreakers, and the fact that those who are opposed to doing so shouldn’t be painted by WSJ types in league with Democrats as being mean to hispanics. It’s yet another example of the condescending attitude towards the concerns of conservatives on the part of liberals. It’s a shame when people on the right do it. ·16 minutes ago
And my point is defining certain immigrants as lawbreakers allows one to circumvent the moral question in restrictionist laws by pretending that all you really care about is that “laws” are followed.
“I’m not against immigrants, I’m against law breakers.”
As if you would be fine with all those people coming here if it weren’t for that gosh darn law getting in the way.