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.
Difficult? Ambivalence? I’m truly not sure if this is sarcasm or not. It must be. ·18 hours ago
Not a bit of sarcasm, Mary. Peter did a pretty decent job, I thought, of explaining why the issue is complex and why reasonable people of good will on each side can differ. Both politically and policy-wise I’m truly ambivalent as to the least bad way forward (and, yes, all options appear bad). I suspect — no, I know — I’m not alone.
Heather McDonald and Betsy McCaughey would be fantastic guests to speak about immigration and the Go8 bill.
In a truly free market system, sure, we should welcome competition in the labor force and reject protectionism. But the problems I see with open borders are:
1) Our welfare state. Even Milton Friedman said you can’t have limitless immigration in a welfare state. It puts an unsustainable strain on the country’s resources.
2) The immigrants we allow in may not believe in free markets or pluralism or property rights or individual liberty. We see this in Europe with uncontrolled immigration from muslim countries and the rise of Sharia, and in California which is now permanently blue thanks to the 1986 amnesty.
3) easy access for criminals and terrorists from foreign countries
These are all legitimate concerns, but allow me to counterpoint.
1.) More diversity make people skeptical of welfare, since people are concerned “those people” are abusing it. Also, a better position then insisting we keep them out would be to insist on limiting their access.
2.) The vast majority of people in the world fall somewhere on the Social Democratic spectrum. Immigrants are at worse slightly more Democratic than the population. Also, a better position would be to limit their access to the vote. Immigrants tend not to care about voting because they are not familiar with the politics and they are more concerned with taking advantage of the opportunity of America.
3.) At some point it’s proper to do a cost/benefit analysis. How many people are we willing to relegate to their awful home countries because we are afraid of X people dying every couple years? Driving is a lot more likely to kill you. Someone who is pro open borders believes you need a very good reason for restricting people’s freedom. So you need to make the case for how terrible letting in the occasional bad guy is compared to how much you_are_limiting_other’s_freedom.
Oh, Lord, Yeti has been Obamanized! The American communist Woody Guthrie’s “answer” to Irving Berlin’sGod Bless America…
Should have stayed asleep like Mr. Long.
And if Peter and James lived in Venice with Rob, I imagined them running over to the Long Plantation to try to rouse him for his podcasting duties: ·16 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
God help you if you like this song – I mean musically. However, not to beat a dead horse, but it’s not the political affiliation that is the offence (although being an active and avowed communist is pushing it – he makes Bruce Springsteen look like a country-club Republican) the intent of the song is political and remains a left-wing anthem.
You didn’t know that. Now you do. ·July 3, 2013 at 2:40pm
Simplistic 3 chord melody endlessly repeated with only 6 notes!
1) Our welfare state. Even Milton Friedman said you can’t have limitless immigration in a welfare state. It puts an unsustainable strain on the country’s resources.
2) The immigrants we allow in may not believe in free markets or pluralism or property rights or individual liberty.
The solution to both is a system that allows people to enter legally on work visas but they are not eligible for welfare or to vote. You can also give them a process to apply for citizenship, but only after they’ve been here and paid into the system for a certain number of years first. Hopefully that’s long enough to begin to assimilate them into American culture and values as well. Meanwhile if they commit a felony you can revoke their visa and deport them.
1) Our welfare state. Even Milton Friedman said you can’t have limitless immigration in a welfare state. It puts an unsustainable strain on the country’s resources.
2) The immigrants we allow in may not believe in free markets or pluralism or property rights or individual liberty.
The solution to both is a system that allows people to enter legally on work visas but they are not eligible for welfare or to vote. You can also give them a process to apply for citizenship, but only after they’ve been here and paid into the system for a certain number of years first. Hopefully that’s long enough to begin to assimilate them into American culture and values as well. Meanwhile if they commit a felony you can revoke their visa and deport them. ·1 minute ago
Another thing is, I wouldn’t concern myself terribly about the 1st generation immigrants Their children tend to assimilate very well. By two generations out, you can no longer distinguish them from any other American.
Kissel approached Mike Murphy-levels of insult and arrogance. That takes some doing. That nonsense… call it what it is… is one of the reasons I dropped my subscription to the journal. I’ll never understand this Utopian madness that the open borders people believe in.
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. ·July 5, 2013 at 6:42am
Does poverty cause crime? Or does crime cause poverty? I vote the latter.
Just got back from a week in WY so am late to the party. I apologize if this issue has already been addressed.
Not only are we not assimilating immigrants (legal and illegal), we are teaching them to be aggrieved. Just in case you miss it when you are being insulted or maltreated because of your race, there are now public school workbooks being used in education (Common Core Approved!) which helpfully point instances out to you.
Scroll down to the picture of the workbook in the attached link.
http://politichicks.tv/column/just-what-is-being-taught-here/
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.
Does poverty cause crime? Or does crime cause poverty? I vote the latter.
I think it’s correlation, not causation. The same qualities that makes one more likely to be poor also make one more likely to commit crime. Namely, low IQ makes one see the future as abstract and “far.” This means one is more likely to act in the moment and not assess the medium or long term consequences. For example: They want to break into that house because that’s the only way they are going to be able to get their next high, while not really understanding the likelihood of going to prison.
The thing is, many of the people in 3rd world countries are hard working good people without skills or education that would allow them to easily signal their value. They are basically Americans who were born in the wrong country and can’t get out.
Lack of values and morals can be substituted for your example of “low IQ”. And it’s not only low IQ that prevents people from evaluating long-term consequences. My daughter is as clever as the devil and has suffered from that all her life. She’s someone who I think has had too-high an opinion of herself; just thought the rules didn’t apply to her. So if I were to list the top four things that cause crime and therefore result in poverty:
1) low morals; 2) no values; 3) inability to evaluate long-term consequences; 4) the total disregard of long-term consequences.
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. ·July 5, 2013 at 3:59pm
Edited on July 5, 2013 at 4:18pm
perhaps i would be fine with them coming here, if they were legal, that’s not the issue.
i don’t understand the confusion between legal and illegal.
we are not “defining certain immigrants as lawbreakers”. the law does.
1) low morals; 2) no values; 3) inability to evaluate long-term consequences; 4) the total disregard of long-term consequences. ·4 minutes ago
broken families and lack of fatherly discipline is one of the big ones of our time. also poor impulse control.
funny how your 4 things also fit so many wealthy politicians so well.
i really liked your article in your link.
1) low morals; 2) no values; 3) inability to evaluate long-term consequences; 4) the total disregard of long-term consequences. ·4 minutes ago
broken families and lack of fatherly discipline is one of the big ones of our time. also poor impulse control.
funny how your 4 things also fit so many wealthy politicians so well.
i really liked your article in your link. ·58 minutes ago
Agreed! Can’t exaggerate the importance of fathers in teaching values, morals and handing out consequences.
I think I read somewhere how similar personality types are at the two ends of the wealth spectrum are; which makes sense.
Thank you for the compliment.
Well, if you insist on looking at things through the prism of morality, there’s little I can do to change your mind. But bad morals does not explain poverty. Poor morals exist in non-trivial quantities throughout the socioeconomic spectrum, but if you have a higher IQ, you are probably more likely to get away with it. Using morality as the explanation seems a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc.
How old is your daughter? I’d be willing to alter my definition to low IQ and/or youth, where youth is < 25 years old.
This is interesting. I was specifically replying to your comment that impoverished people commit more crimes. Maybe I’m not being clear here, but the point I’m trying to make is that the fact they commit more crimes to some (varying) degree contributes to their poverty, as opposed to their poverty inspiring criminal behavior.
An example: my daughter didn’t have the money for the train, got on the train anyway and got caught. Don’t have the money to pay the ticket for jumping the train, so it went to warrant. Gets pulled over on a traffic violation, the cop ran her info and arrested her on the warrant. Searched her purse, found marijuana. So a $2.50 train ticket turned into a felony with $40,000 bail and two nights in jail. And it’s just luck she didn’t lose her job.
Once again, she’s not stupid. But bad values? low morals? caused a string of decisions that were VERY costly.
And while she was young, and still is, there was a pattern that could not be written off to just the stupidity of youth. … continued
… During the darkest days there was one comment that people would make: they’d pat my hand and say: don’t worry. She’ll figure it out.
And I’d reply: Really? Who do you think homeless people are? Who do you think all the people in prison are? Who do you think all the addicts are? There’s a LOT of people who never figure it out.
So now that I’ve trashed the poor girl’s reputation, let me say we seemed to have arrived at the light at the end of the tunnel, and I do think she’s figured it out. She is talking about getting married soon and when people tell me she’s way too young I say: she’s crammed a LOT of life into 23 years. And I’m thrilled to bits to see the positive influence her intended has had on her. Peer influence isn’t always bad.
And we’ve come to the part of life when I hear her say things to her friends that I said to her years ago, which is the sweetest thing EVER.
…but the point I’m trying to make is that the fact they commit more crimes to some (varying) degree contributes to their poverty, as opposed to their poverty inspiring criminal behavior.
Once again, she’s not stupid. But bad values? low morals? caused a string of decisions that were VERY costly.
OK. It’s all a very complex issue, so yes committing of crimes can definitely contribute to poverty. I guess I’m saying low IQ and nieve youthfulness can both be risk factors for committing crimes/acting stupid.
There is another possibility that hasn’t been mentioned, mental illness. I’m not saying your daughter has mental issues, but when people say things like “she will figure it out,” I think they mean “start acting like we do.” Mental issues can play a roll that can be tangential to IQ or youth. This might be a reason some people never “figure it out.” Metal illness still has quite a stigma since those without it wonder, “well, why don’t they just try harder to think right?” And then concoct incorrect rationals like blaming it on their upbringing.
So I hope no one blames you for her mistakes.
I also hope no one does! (I think a few do, and God knows I’m not a perfect mom) I think the arrest was truly a turning point – at our darkest hour I have admiration that she never asked us to bail her out. And while I contacted a lawyer-friend to represent her, my daughter took responsibility for the cost (which wasn’t much). But man, was it an eye opener on many levels. But without the support – a lawyer, a bed and a roof, money to pay fines, I can see how someone can get on a downward trajectory that is almost impossible to get out of. I will have to find a reason to write about some of her extraordinary qualities, one of which is that she wouldn’t mind one bit me being so open.
And don’t forget that government is the one thing we all belong to, so if this land is our land, then the land belongs to the government, just like when King George was the government. One reason Progressives are so neurotic is they are in denial about how reactionary they really are. That and the fact that being evil rots the soul.
One thing Guthrie did when he wanted to rally the masses to fight non-Soviet Socialism was forget about how we stole the land that is ours from the Indians.