After the Wall
Fred Kaplan explains the forgotten history of Berlin crises during the Cold War and ends on a familiar note:
Remains of the Berlin Wall (my photo, available under cc license)
The wall was built to bottle up an incipient revolt—a mass emigration that threatened to expose the Soviet system as inferior to the West, as an oppressive dungeon that its most educated young people yearned to escape. The wall not only blocked those yearnings; it also made clear to the brighter young Soviet and Eastern European leaders that the system itself—the ideological basis of their rule—was suspect, that it could not be sustained, much less compete with the West, without the internal imposition of force.
It’s interesting to reflect that it’s very much still the case that millions of people living in Ukraine and Russia and for that matter Mexico and Mozambique would love to engage in mass emigration to the West and expose the systems under which they live as corrupt and uncompetitive. Indeed, according to Gallup 700 million people would like to migrate permanently to a new country:
But of course the voters of the United States and Canada have no intention of letting as many people show up as might like to come, and the voters of Western Europe have even less desire for this, and those of Japan even less.
72 Responses to “After the Wall”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Actually, I’m waiting for the progressive left to come out against immigration to the West on the grounds that it would increase carbon emissions.
Right now, it’s just a matter of cognitive dissonance on the left…
November 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Forgotten history?
The whole first half of the Cold War was essentially one Berlin Crisis after another.
There’s a reason, despite what was said to Brandt and Adenauer, Kennedy and the rest of the non-psychotic US leadership were absolutely thrilled that the Wall was going up.
It meant that the only place where Warsaw Pact and NATO troops were merely a few feet apart from each other would be gaining a physical barrier to their interaction. Meaning, of course, that the world would no longer be facing nuclear war because some nervous private decided to empty his rifle.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I’m definitely in favor of opening immigration to anyone who wants to come, but it’s important to point out that a regime building a wall in order to keep its citizens IN is of a different moral status than a regime that seeks to keep others OUT.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I really do think, however, that in a sane world, the US could support and integrate a lot more immigration than we currently allow. It’s not any pragmatic reason that we don’t, but rather mere nativism.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Actually, I’m waiting for the progressive left to come out against immigration to the West on the grounds that it would increase carbon emissions.
James, I realize that because of your socially and intellectually worthless job and life never puts you in contact with anyone– lefty or righty– doing anything useful in their lives, thus your complete and utter clueless on this matter, but if you actually knew any of these lefties, you’d realize that many of them are applying their ideas to issues in what is called “sustainable development.”
Why someone as socially and intellectually isolated and ignorant as yourself ever things he has anything useful to say is beyond me.
When you crawl out of your hole for a while, you might have a damn clue about how the world works. Until then, you’re just another dumbass Republican.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
What are the essential characteristics of countries from which people want to leave?
1. Insecure property rights. The powerless are not safe in their person, property, contracts or papers from the rampages of the government, economic czars and (other) criminals.
2. Fiat money (a.k.a. a lack of long-term sound money), which makes all contracts, especially long term contracts insecure, inhibits and destroys capital formation, causes the boom and bust cycle and which amounts to a constant regime of theft, graft and fraud.
Basically, the Yglesias formula for perpetual despair.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
’s very much still the case that millions of people living in Ukraine and Russia and for that matter Mexico and Mozambique would love to engage in mass emigration to the West and expose the systems under which they live as corrupt and uncompetitive
But there isn’t a strategic reason to allow it, as there was for the Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
Which isn’t to say we shouldn’t allow more immigration. We should.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Tyro, you are terribly amusing. I almost certainly travel more widely than you (or most people on this blog), both domestically and internationally. I’m nominally Republican, but that’s so I can vote in primaries – I dislike the Republican party somewhat less than the Democrat party, but it’s a matter of degree.
I may work out of my home office, but that doesn’t mean I’m always here – far from it. I mostly don’t talk politics with people I meet while I travel, because it wouldn’t be appropriate – when I’m visiting a customer, they aren’t interested in my politics (nor I in theirs) – we are there to talk about business.
The problem most of the people here have is that politics not only consumes your lives, it over-consumes them to the point that you forget that there’s anything else out there.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
An interesting thing about the map that isn’t explained by the graphics is where said people would like to go. Most Africans would like to end up in the US, while Eastern Europeans would like to go West, if I recall correctly.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Imagine 2 countries: country A and country B.
In country A you can get higher education for free; in fact better than free: the government will even pay you a stipend.
In country B, on the other hand, education is very expensive, but a country-A-educated professional can easily make a shitload of money there.
Wouldn’t you like to be educated in A and then go work to B?
And what should the government of A do, in your opinion?
November 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
BobR, fiat money is universal. No country — not one — is on the gold standard anymore. So it’s hardly what distinguishes the sub-Saharan and Middle-Eastern nations from the others.
Folks want to leave poor, lawless places and go to safe, rich ones. You’d have to be willfully blind not to see that.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Actually, Bob is wronger than you think on the fiat money thing. Countries that really have a fiat currency – one that isn’t backed by anything – are almost always more stable, wealthier, and more prosperous than countries where the currency is backed by foreign reserves.
But people like Bob don’t really know anything about currency, foreign or domestic. So it’s fairly useless to engage their arguments…
November 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
fiat money is universal. No country — not one — is on the gold standard anymore
True enough, but in some countries the bullshit pieces of paper the regime throws out there in order to dupe someone into providing goods and services to the regime’s leading members are not accepted and instead there’s barter. Not quite the gold standard, but at least the bubble of fiat money has popped. Those countries are Somalia, Zimbabwe, and so on. In other words, the right’s free market utopias.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
To be clear, I’m not arguing that adopting a floating currency necessarily makes your country more stable and more prosperous. For the most part the causation runs in the other direction – only stable, productive societies can use a floating currency.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Well, there’s oil; it comes close. Based on Bob’s criteria, Saudi Arabis is the most attractive country on Earth.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Jim-Bob, none of your statement in any way contradicted the simple fact that your statement was completely clueless. While you go on with your worthless life exhibiting the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about, the same people you mock as actually pursuing something useful are actually doing something.
but hey, people securing property rights in the 3rd world and focusing on sustainable development are just “hypocrite lefties,” right, you torture loving loser? It’s fascinating how a love for the Republican can make you such a cluess little idiot in order to justify the worthlessness of your life. Just because your life is a worthless cesspool of ignorance doesn’t mean everyone’s is. But I guess it’s easier for you to feel that your failure in life is justified by “calling the left on its hypocrisy” here and with your worthless loser friends at the rotary club.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Folks want to leave poor, lawless places and go to safe, rich ones. You’d have to be willfully blind not to see that.
I think that’s what I said. I would like to reemphasize that what makes these places “lawless” are insecure property rights and unsound fiat money. And that is because the “progressives” are always railing against both and they’ve pretty much won the debate through control of the media and academia. Let’s thank “progressives” for the intellectual foundation of The Congo and Zimbabwe.
Countries that really have a fiat currency – one that isn’t backed by anything – are almost always more stable, wealthier, and more prosperous than countries where the currency is “backed” by foreign reserves.
Don’t those foreign reserves consist of someone else’s fiat money?
But people like Bob don’t really know anything about currency, foreign or domestic. So it’s fairly useless to engage their arguments…
You don’t want to engage in debate because you have no argument and therefore cannot engage in debate. Better to use name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
i think I get the Jim-Bob mindset: his life is worthless, doing something of no intellectual or social value, and never moves beyond his isolated life, but then goes on to think that everyone else’s life is as worthless as his own. so he thinks that everyone is a hypocrite but him, by dint of the fact that he supports being a worthless loser and simply adopts right-wing beliefs to feel better about himself and socially ingratiate himself with the shitheads he depends on to paid and pretend he has friends.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Better to use name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
Saying that you don’t know anything about currency, foreign or domestic, is not name-calling or an “ad hominem.” It is a statement of fact that goes directly to the cluelessness of your arguments.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Well, it’s pretty hyperbolic, and it’s certainly not very… irenic, even granting it is accurate.
That said, there is simply not enough gold on earth to provide the necessary liquidity the world requires to do business on a daily basis. Fiat money is a very effective solution to this problem, the thing you have to keep in mind is that fiat money is designed to facilitate transactions, and absloutely nothing more or less. It is absolutely not a medium for retaining value; if you want to be a long-term saver, don’t be long dollars, whatever the hell you do.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
There’s a fundamental confusion here: American immigration is not about foreigners who want to come live here.
It’s about individual Americans who invite individual foreigners — US citizen’s husbands, wives, parents, kids and siblings; legal permanent resident’s husbands, wives and kids, and employers who sponsor workers for green cards — to become Americans.
I dunno why it’s so hard for progressives to understand that.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Tyro, I guess you’ve skated over into anonymous coward territory – the place where name calling, swearing, and using proof by assertion substitute for actual engagement. That’s fine; if it makes you feel better about yourself, there may even be value in it.
Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that it takes the place of reasoned discussion.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
HAVE YOUR SAY
[Is Economic Recovery On Its Way?]
Now, you have got to get in on this one, on the site [www.bbc.co.Uk];
Debate Status: [709] Over Seven-Hundred Submissions
Published Comments: [347] Over Three-Hundred
Rejected: [35] Would like to have seen those, they had to have been hot!
Moderation queue: [327] Over three-hundred still being read, for posting they need to hire some more help.
FROST-FIRE SAYS: I note that the UK National Debt is £13,613 for every man, woman and child in our country. And it’s rising, soon it seems we may be spending more on debt interest than on our Armed Forces.
(Source Debtbombshell .com. )
How this can be called “recovery” beats me.
TRIATHLON REPLYS: The [UK] Nataional debt is only, [£13,613] Thirteen-Point-Six Thousand Pounds Sterling, per every man, woman, and child in the [UK], try [£48.2] Forty-Eight-Point Two Thousand per every man, woman, and child in the American-Israeli Empire, with a new Trillion Dollar Healthcare plan with a [17%] Seventeen Percent ACTUAL unemployment rate, a Second Stimulus Plan on the way, with a [MIC] Military Industrial Complex with [700] Seven hundred bases in [300] three hundred countries, and the War goes on. And, you got problems, get in line, the unemployment line it starts somewhere back there.
That beats the both of us.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
November 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that it takes the place of reasoned discussion.
You were the one spewing your clueless bullshit under the guise of political sophistication. My life extends far beyond the narrow, ignorant cluelessness that you are limited to, which is what causes you to make the rank-idiotic statements that you repeat up in comment #1, there, along with your slavish devotion to right-wing talking points. Defending yourself with, “I only talk to customers and no one else” is not a defense. It’s an indictment of your worthless, clueless life. Which is fine. But don’t pretend that this is reflective of some greater wisdom you hold. Everytime you open your mouth, it is another sign of your political ignorance. Which you chose for yourself. Simply refrain from believing that everyone decided to waste themselves morally and intellectually in the same way that you have.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Re: I would like to reemphasize that what makes these places “lawless” are insecure property rights and unsound fiat money.
Unsound money, maybe. But you said “fiat money” with no qualifier. Every country on Earth has fiat money.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I would like to reemphasize that what makes these places “lawless” are insecure property rights and unsound fiat money.
No, because property rights are insecure and their currencies untrusted, their economy depends on things like barter. If you firm up property rights and if the government handles its currency responsibly, then the economy will trade using fiat money.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Sheesh tyro, you can’t even be bothered to read what I write. What I said was, I don’t talk politics with people I’m seeing in a business context – it’s a bad idea all the way around. People I meet in a business context may have any political opinion across the spectrum, but it’s none of my concern. Politics simply does not – and should not, IMHO, any more than religion – intrude into professional talk.
It seems clear to me from this discussion that you carry yourself quite differently, and I have to wonder how well that works out for you.
Also, you might do well to listen to this episode of skeptoid:
skeptoid. It makes it pretty clear how many people you’re going to convince via the “anyone who disagrees with me is stupid” tactic. It’s how the Republicans lost touch in the mid 2000’s, and how Democrats and Progressives are losing touch now, even more rapidly.
Amazingly, political opponents aren’t swayed by attempts to rule them out of the conversation…
November 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Unsound money, maybe. But you said “fiat money” with no qualifier.
I don’t like fiat money period. But you are right that some fiat money regimes are sounder than others.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Benny at 9 makes a great point: *to* where is just as important as *from* where. (Wohin vs. woher, auf Deutsch)
That said, I would like to see these results broken down by country, not aggregated according to continent. If the same survey also addressed where the emigrants were heading, that would be even better (though that might necessarily have to be less specific, perhaps along the continental lines in the current map). Does Gallup have the raw data available anywhere?
November 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
It really should be about people who want to come live here. Your casting of the issue makes the United States look like some kind of social club, where citizenship is about who your parents are and who you know, instead of what you can offer.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
The conversation no one really wants to have about immigration is how we could set it up in a way that would be good for the US and good for the people who really want to come here. What we don’t need is more people with few skills – we have a large number of low skilled people who have difficulty finding work now – allowing more in to heighten the competition for those jobs is just obnoxious.
What we do want is high skill people who also want to move here – without regard to what part of the world they come from.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Oh what a great world we life in where we get answers from well informed rational homo oeconomicus on every survey even from people that largely deal with getting enough food the next day
.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Well, immigration is way down as of late, on account of the economy, so it appears that your memo is getting to Guadalajara, even if the message isn’t coming in loudly enough.
The challenge is making employers play by immigration rules without turning California, Nevada and Mexico into police states. The “Joe Arpaio approach” is definitely one solution to the problem, but it’s pretty clear that he went mad with power years ago, and now essentially runs his county like a reality TV show. The progressive approach would be to give illegal immigrants so many entitlements as workers that there would be little incentive for businesses to attract them; if you give illegal immigrants a working wage, the right to sue for breach of contract and for failing to meet occupational safety regulations, all of the sudden employers aren’t so crazy about hiring them. Of course this just tempts employers to move over the border, but then again, it’s pretty hard to move a nail salon to Ho Chi Minh City or a yardwork service to Matamoros.
A big part of the appeal of hiring illegals is that they cannot appeal to the law, if you allow them to appeal to the law, they suddenly lose a big part of their appeal. Employers of illegals prey on the desperation of people to have an income, any income, and to trade their rights as human beings in order to get it.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“Your casting of the issue makes the United States look like some kind of social club…”
On the contrary: I just stated the law. It makes America sound like what it IS — a sovereign country, where “We, the People” get to decide who gets to come live here. That you reject this not only marks you as a knucklehead, it denotes your ignorance, as well.
Cuz (allowing for some oversimplification) that has BEEN the law since 1965, when the per-country limits were abolished.
Face it, “iluvcapr”, you’ve never actually had a thought on the subj., cuz you never bothered to learn what it’s actually about.
In simplest terms: what makes American immigration IS citizenship — which depends on the rule of law.
American immigration law is based on a very clear premise: American immigrants are INVITED — by Americans.
Your bizarre (but typical of shallow progressive thinking) characterization that American immigration “really should be about people who want to come live here…” is simply contemptible: you do NOT like the idea of a democracy, where “We, the People” get to write laws about what WE want.
You figure that foreigners should decide who gets to be Americans. You’re wrong.
And before you launch into the dumbass “Americans are xenophobic” rap, get a grip: I played a small role in passing the last permanent increase in legal immigration, nearly 20 years ago.
The fact is, Americans are far more practically generous about LEGAL immigration than the likes of “iluvcapra” knows, PROVIDED our sovereignty is respected. So it’s damnably counterproductive to try to get us to be generous while insulting our right to self-government.
Cuz that’s the difference between legal immigrants, and foreigners living (and working) here illegally: legal immigrants are INVITED — individually, by name, by Americans.
Foreigners living here illegally are not. That’s what’s wrong with thinking of immigration as if it is about all those folks who want to come here. It blurs the difference between legal and illegal, which does not exalt legal immigration and flat-out degrades American citizenship.
Cuz it’s not about THEM. This is a democracy, where We, the People rule.
It’s about US.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The interesting group here is Asia. While Japan, South Korea, and a few other Asian countries are fairly rich, as a matter of population India and China are most of Asia: India is a fairly free (albeit fairly corrupt) but very poor country. China is an authoritarian one-party state which is fairly poor (albeit not as poor as India). Yet Asians have the least desire to leave home of any grouping.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
The statement “I just stated the law” is not contrary to “the US is a social club.” They are complimentary– the US has immoral immigration laws. You can disagree with this position, but if you’re going to encounter it on the same grounding, you’ve got to at least (1) concede that US law is immoral and that this is irrelevant, or (2) assert that US law is moral.
The United States is a Presidential Republic. The Framers did everything they could to demolish the power of citizens to shape laws, and, here’s where you’re right: I agree with founders whole-heartedly on their approach.
Setting that aside, I must concede that I do see everyone as a human being, and I think people should be valued on the basis of what they can do and what they can make of themselves, and not on the basis of who’s palm they can grease in a Human Resources department or a university development office, which seems to be an apt description of what we have today.
I do have a problem with a law appearing to be immoral, because it is liable to cause people to loose respect for the law. If a mexican laborer comes to this country and puts in years of honest work, I am very troubled by the idea that he can get picked up by some TV celebrity who happens to be a sheriff and wisked away without any concern for his rights and obligations in his home, the United States of America. And the idea that you can deny someone work based on their citizenship makes the institution of citizenship look like nothing more than a mobbed-up labor union.
Rights and obligations must apply to ALL the people. The Constitution does not say “We the citizens of the United States of America,” and the Bill of Rights does not even mention the word. They are statements of fundamental dignity incumbant upon all human beings, not just those who walk around with a blue passport. To degrade the rights of some will end only in the degradation of the rights of all, because in the end “citizenship” is just an abstract concept that can easily be winnowed and bended, to suit the needs of petty dictators and populist demagogues.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
My goodness, iluvcapra, but you’re full of shit, to a degree that is impressive even by Internet standards.
Translated into English, you’re saying that you like the idea that anybody, from anywhere, can simply break the law by sneaking into America (often by paying cash to the modern equivalent of the slave trade, human smuggling), and then demand the same rights as those who actually OBEY the law.
Which is why I noted that you despise democracy. (No, this has nothing to do with Sheriff Arpaio).
If you knew a single goddam thing about the subject on which you are pleased to express your opinion, you would understand this question: why should the wife of a LEGAL immigrant have to wait 8 years for permission to enter the United States legally, while you preen in front of your “moral” mirror?
November 8th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I think you’re wrong, theAmericanst. So called “illegals” are invited to the U.S. and in fact are highly valued for their docility and willingness to work for low wages. Yes, their presence here is “illegal.” But those responsible for bringing them to this country, the people who run the businesses that hire them, are equally criminals under the same laws that make their workers criminals. Thing is, they’ll just get fined — simply a cost of doing business — while the workers are taken from their homes and shipped back across the border. When managers at these businesses start getting taken from their homes and put in prisons perhaps I’ll believe you when you say illegal immigrants are unwanted. But at present it’s all for show — they are very much wanted, and the way the laws are enforced shows this vividly.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Cuz it’s not about THEM. This is a democracy, where We, the People rule.
Problem is that most Americans — unless they’re doing the petitioning — really don’t have a clue what’s on the statute books, or how it’s implemented. They’ll talk about “enforcing the laws on the book”, but they still like their cheap ground beef and cut-price construction jobs.
The conversation no one really wants to have about immigration is how we could set it up in a way that would be good for the US and good for the people who really want to come here.
Oh, it’s a conversation lots of people want to have, but it’s one that’s very difficult to sustain when you have loud voices that insist upon other conversations — ones that go down much better in a political climate when all legislating is electioneering.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Cuz it’s not about THEM. This is a democracy, where We, the People rule.
If you think finding a way to work “we the people” into your sentences is smart, interesting or convincing, you are an idiot.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Bob Roddis has proven himself time and time again unable to refute our arguments, so he resorts to the ad hominem of accusing us of ad-hominem attacks.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
abb1:
I’ll guess that pay for educated workers is lower in country A than in country B. Furthermore, I’m guessing we want to preserve stipulated conditions of at least country A (free education, low wages) and say we have no control over country B’s conditions.
Anyway, I haven’t thought too carefully about this, but as a five-minute idea, how ’bout this:
1. Nominally, convert the free-education-and-stipend system of country A to one based on student loans, with education, room, and board fees enough to cover the costs of education, or even make the education system turn a small profit on a given student if a loan is repaid. Loans are automatically approved under the normal circumstances when a student would be admitted into the education system in the first place.
2. So long as country A student graduates continue to work in country A, their repayments on interest and principal are waived. If they die, never having worked outside country A, then their loans are waived entirely and make no claim on their estates.
3. If country A graduates work in country B, then the previously waived loans repayments are no longer waived, and accumulated interest and principal must be repaid. Whether the full loan is due as soon as the country A graduate works in country B, or whether the loan can be amortized by working for a time in country A (i.e., if you work in country A for 20 years, then go to country B to work, should your time working in country A count to cut down your loan repayments after you go to B?) is a matter of discretion.
So, for people who graduate in country A and work there all their lives, education effectively remains free. Nominal loans are, in practice, never repaid. For people who graduate in country A and work in country B, they pay off the cost of their education in country B currency — and if they still come out ahead, then country A, country B, and migrant workers from A working in B come out ahead.
Reasonable? Any holes I missed?
November 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Idlemind brags about being dumb, viz: “So called “illegals” are invited to the U.S. …. Yes, their presence here is “illegal.”
Oddly enough, both of those can NOT be true.
Actual LEGAL immigrants are actually invited — by name. The rest of the aptly named’s opinion is bullshit based on ignorance and sophistry of the true ‘up is down’ sort.
Here is the law, in a nutshell: US citizens invite spouses, kids, parents and siblings. Legal permanent residents (who are not citizens, but can naturalize) invite spouses and kids. Employers sponsor workers for green cards.
That’s it — with a couple narrow exceptions (refugees, asylees, a lottery), that’s ALL of legal immigration.
Note that in each case, there is an American — a US citizen, a guy with a green card, an employer — who says: “I am personally inviting X to get a green card.”
Idle’s idea is that when somebody pays a shitload of money (the going rate for a snakehead to stuff you in a shipping container from China is 70 grand, paid off over ten years — or in body parts) to sneak into the US, where you can get a job by stealing some American’s identity, is proof “you” are wanted…. by name.
Bullshit.
Honest, folks: strive to make a distinction between laws that don’t work… and the rule of law.
The thing is, LEGAL immigration is currently based on making promises that Congress won’t deliver: and folks like iluvcapra and idlemind want Congress to deal with that, by making MORE promises, rather than delivering on ‘em, or on abandoning the idea of Congress altogether.
Anthony: fuck you. (Thus, you are refuted.)
Folks who are serious about fixing America’s immigration laws BEGIN with “We, the People”.
Folks who aren’t — don’t.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Idlemind brags about being dumb, viz: “So called “illegals” are invited to the U.S. …. Yes, their presence here is “illegal.”
Oddly enough, both of those can NOT be true.
We the people know that you are wrong.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Folks who are serious about fixing America’s immigration laws BEGIN with “We, the People”.
Folks who aren’t — don’t.
In all seriousness, if there’s a non-idiot who goes around working “we the people” (or “We, the People”) into his conversation, I haven’t met him.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
People’s desire to immigrate/emigrate doesn’t ‘prove’ the superiority of any one economic or social system over another. Perhaps we should read this as a lesson in why the US should be spending more, as a percentage of GDP, on foreign development aid than it is currently doing. Everyone cannot/will not be able to come to the West, nor should they have to to live full, relatively comfortable lives. The American ideology isn’t necessarily any better, or worse, than any other: people want to come here because the US is thought of as the land where everyone is rich or able to become so (despite what studies about social mobility and actual human development tell us). When you’re living in poverty, that’s a pretty powerful draw.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Let’s not call people names.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Julian, 42: Nominally, convert the free-education-and-stipend system of country A to one based on student loans
They didn’t have this kind of accounting in their system; the idea was that anyone has the right to get education, that’s all. It’s a different concept of property: people get what they need (on some basic level, at least), and there are no loans.
Nevertheless: there was a period (1970s, I believe) when the Soviets actually demanded from the emigrants (mostly highly educated people emigrating to go to Israel) to re-pay the cost (a rough estimation) of their education. That attempt, of course, was met with overwhelming condemnation in the West, as a terrible violation of human rights, and they soon dropped it.
If country A graduates work in country B, then the previously waived loans repayments are no longer waived, and accumulated interest and principal must be repaid.
In addition to the above, the problem with open border in Berlin was, of course, that one would just cross over to the West and ignore all his/her debts on the East side. How would you collect?
November 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am
It’s telling that when somebody points out what US law is, in a discussion about, um, the rule of law, nobody has anything useful to say in reply.
And it is even more telling when somebody notes WHY America has a rule of law — that whole self-government, “We, the People” democracy thing — Anthony figures it can only be evidence of stupidity.
So, to Anthony: Look, asshole — it is OUR American welcome mat. We get to decide who uses it. American immigration law is an expression of self-government. Unless and until we change the law, by definition, it is the immigration law that we want.
It is remarkably generous by any standard — and it is based, as noted above, on INVITATION. It’s not about some foreigner who decides he wants to come live in the US. Being a foreigner, he has no right to do that. Only “We, the People” get to decide who comes to join us.
Now, a smarter (or more honest) guy than you might say, well — that’s wrong. There are half-wits (whose hearts are nevertheless in the right place) who have a vague idea that the United States had an essentially open immigration policy (that is, if you crossed the Atlantic) from 1790 until 1921, and feel, in their very special extra-progressive way, that we should go back to that.
Those folks are uninformed. For one thing, in all of those years (and for a generation after), CITIZENSHIP in the United States was racial in character — that is, the 1790 naturalization act barred anyone from becoming a citizen who was not a “free, white person”.
So the fond notion of America’s open border history is directly contrary to a genuinely progressive citizenship. This is as true in 2009 as it was in 1859 — there is a direct connection between the slave trade, and Chinese coolies, and braceros, and today’s illegal aliens: the great temptation of American history is to let people in as workers, but refuse to welcome them as fellow Americans.
And THAT depends entirely on “We, the People” — on the rule of law.
So this is American immigration law in a nutshell: US citizens invite their spouses, parents, kids and siblings; legal permanent residents (the only foreigners who can become US citizens) invite their spouses and kids (and have to wait a MINIMUM of 8 years to do it); employers can sponsor workers for green cards. (There is also a lottery, while refugees and asylees get green cards, but they are not, strictly speaking, admitted as immigrants: it’s a different set of laws and policies.)
Only slightly oversimplified, if someone comes some other way, they are not welcome. Period — they weren’t invited. (NB — the typical employment-based immigrant comes first as a student, and then an employer sponsors the green card, so that’s part of the nut graf above.)
It is certainly true that illegal immigration to the United States is our fault, but not because we fucked up foreign countries so badly that they want to come here. It is our fault because, so far, we will not stop foreigners from illegally getting work in the US.
But that’s not the fault of “employers” — sure, there are companies that intentionally hire illegal workers, just like there are companies that intentionally cook the books. But the vast majority of the 7 million American employers would like to be able to reliably comply with immigration law, just as the vast majority reliably comply with the tax code.
Guess what? They can’t. Why? Two words: identity theft.
It’d be a good thing if progressives developed a sort of niche political culture in which they bothered to learn the real choices about immigration, which includes how to fix illegal immigration for jobs (hint: it’s not about fining employers, it’s about illegal workers being REFUSED employment).
But that can NOT happen, when knuckleheads like we’ve seen in this thread piously mumble about increasing foreign aid (yegodsandlittlefishes), etc., much less happily insist that accelerating the erosion of American sovereignty and US citizenship is the way to go.
And, puh-leeze, spare us the half-baked idea that illegal immigration is good for Mexico: it’s been proven beyond any sensible doubt in places like Oaxaca and Jalisco (not to mention El Salvador) that exporting your workforce and trying to import their wages is a catastrophic development strategy.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Bob Roddis @6: What are the essential characteristics of countries from which people want to leave?
1. Insecure property rights. The powerless are not safe in their person, property, contracts or papers from the rampages of the government, economic czars and (other) criminals.
2. Fiat money (a.k.a. a lack of long-term sound money), which makes all contracts, especially long term contracts insecure, inhibits and destroys capital formation, causes the boom and bust cycle and which amounts to a constant regime of theft, graft and fraud.
Shorter Bob Roddis:
1. Dummycrats are teh socalisms!
2. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLD!!!1!!!!!!!
November 9th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Well it’s no fun if everyone KNOWS the governments are corrupt and ineffectual. Immigration as a symbolic weapon only works if you’re showing up some stated ideological superiority — compare Cuba and Haiti.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
But…but….WE THE PEOPLE!
November 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
LOL — just to twist my foot up this clown’s butt: tell us, Anthony — are you okay with a minimum wait of 8 years for the wife or husband of a legal permanent resident, who gets their green card first, then marries their high school sweetheart from back home and files the paperwork? That’s kind of a long time for a married couple to sleep in separate countries: tell us what YOU’VE done about this, which has become a permanent feature of US law since the 1986 amnesty.
Congress has had three chances to deal with it: 1990 (when the Republican Senate rejected the Democratic House’s proposal to make this a numerically unlimited category), 1996 (when progressives allied themselves with libertarians and refused to do anything at all, denying that there was even a problem), and 2007, when Hillary Clinton proposed the 1990 solution, only to lose on the Senate floor.
And where were you during those fights?
It’s a live issue today — the 1990 solution is in Menendez’ Senate bill, and Honda’s in the House, it’s a major piece of what Schumer and Lofgren are working on.
And the principal political obstacle is NOT the Republican minorities in either the House or Senate. There are plenty of Democrats to enact good immigration reform.
But there are all these “progressives”, like Anthony, who dis folks who actually believe in “We, the People”, because they figure American immigration ought to be all about accomodating foreigners who want to come to the US, uninvited.
THAT’s the principal political obstacle to immigration reform: progressives who don’t believe in the rule of law.
So, Anthony: the most egregious anti-family, anti-marriage provision of US law, which forces more than a million LEGAL immigrants to be exiled, or outlawed, from their families.
It seems clear from this thread, that along with lots of other “progressives”, you’re okay with that: am I mis-reading you, asshole?
November 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
But there are all these “progressives”, like Anthony, who dis folks who actually believe in “We, the People”, because they figure American immigration ought to be all about accomodating foreigners who want to come to the US, uninvited.
They are most certainly invited. And I know you have a “We, the People” tic, but in this case, grammatically, shouldn’t it be “who actually believe in ‘Us, the People’”?
Also, the most egregious, anti-family provision of immigration law is the one that forbids gay people from sponsoring their spouses. It’s not an 8-year wait, it’s never. And I’ve been pretty active in the fight against that.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
But there are all these “progressives”, like Anthony, who dis folks who actually believe in “We, the People”
To be clear, I’m not disparaging anyone who beieves in the self-determination expressed by “We, the People.” I’m saying that working it into your points as though it proves something is the mark of an idiot, as you’ve demonstrated through your shoddy reading comprehension.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“They are most certainly invited.”
LOL — you really don’t want to make criticisms about reading comprehension when you’re illiterate.
“Invited” denotes either an open door (or border) policy, in which anybody who shows up, is welcome. This is not true (in fact, never has been true) of US immigration policy.
Or it denotes, yanno, an actual invitation: that is, were I to say: “Anthony, please come to my house for dinner”. That way, I am inviting YOU — by name, for a purpose. I might, f’r instance, have an open house for dinner some evening, AND specifically invite you. But if I have even a long list of people I’ve invited, and you’re not on the list: you’re crashing, if you show up uninvited.
Likewise, foreigners who are living (or working) in the United States illegally have NOT been “invited”, if the word has any meaning. (which, for you, I expect it does not)
If we had (which we do not) an open borders policy, it would be fair to argue that foreigners who entered and remained illegally had been “invited”. But we don’t.
There IS a proper way to immigrate legally — and as noted several times, it requires a US citizen or legal permanent resident, or an employer, to INVITE a would-be immigrant, by name.
Going too fast for you, Anthony? This is why a foreigner working illegally has not been invited. (Re-read that for comprehension, since you’ve missed it the first four times.)
On same sex petitioning rights — this gets a bit complex, cuz there are multiple moving parts. Basically, the law for the immigration of a spouse requires a marriage. Since same sex couples are not, as a rule, married in terms of US law, there is no way for a US citizen or LPR to petition for a same sex partner. There ARE some states that recognize various forms of civil unions, even marriage, but none of those confer immigration benefits.
I appreciate that Anthony thinks the lack of same sex marriage is a more egregious abuse than the way American immigration laws treat LPR marriages, but he’s mixing apples and oranges — typical, for an alienated progressive: a WATB thing to do, frankly.
The lack of immigration rights for same-sex couples isn’t an anomaly of immigration law, it’s consistent with the lack of marriage (civil union, etc.) rights that gay couples have in most of the country. THAT is the place to focus your primary efforts, not immigration law. Fix the big problem, the smaller one resolves itself. (There’s other stuff worth knowing in the area; email me if you really want to know more.)
The unconscionable separation of the nuclear families of LEGAL immigrants is NOT consistent with the ostensible value everybody (most particularly the vaunted pro-family GOP) claims to place on marriage. I’ve had this fight with all the so-called “pro-family” groups on the right, and it proves that they are not motivated to “defend marriage”, they just don’t like gay people.
Take the hint, if you want to beat ‘em. Just to focus for a second on political tactics — that gay marriage lost in Maine, probably indicates the word “marriage” is probably a bridge too far just now.
So it might be a good idea to take the “defense of” away from the bad guys: and one way to do THAT, is to embarrass ‘em with their failure to defend the marriages of LEGAL immigrants.
Which depends on all that “We, the People” stuff that you’ve rejected — one thing both the left and the right have AGREED on, to the sorrow of literally millions of people, is that there is no effective distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants.
Which is wrong — and why the good guys have not been able to win this fight.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’m really glad that this jackass doesn’t represent us the people, or else we the people would be a bunch of morons.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Also, calling yourself theAmericanist = no credibility on immigration.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
LOL — new to this, are ya, Anthony?
November 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
abb1:
My suggestion is that they implement this kind of accounting, at least nominally. Your question was “what should the government of A do, in your opinion?” Obviously, if you think there’s a problem, don’t you expect someone answering the question to suggest changes be made? You couldn’t have been asking the “what should the government of A do, in your opinion?” question rhetorically with a preordained answer in mind, could you?
If the students were told that education would be free, then once they left they were told to pay for their education, then that’s wrong. You can’t give me a cookie on Tuesday, telling me it’s a free gift, then knock on my door on Thursday and tell me I owe you $10 for the cookie! However, the loan/waiver for domestic workers/repayment for emigrant workers system isn’t a violation of human rights if established on a forward-going basis, at least in my opinion.
Well, I don’t think most debtors would be deliberately delinquient, but for those who are, I’d recommend selling their loans to banks with effective collection power in the West.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Julian, it’s a different socioeconomic system, competing with the capitalist systems. The whole point of this system is collective responsibility, and so I don’t think your proposition – you, in effect, suggesting that it should become capitalist – is reasonable.
So, this system is vulnerable to free-riding, and, obviously, it has to defend itself if it wants to survive.
These things happen. For example: the US government, unlike any other government in the world, wants you to report and pay US taxes on your world-wide income.
If the students were told that education would be free, then once they left they were told to pay for their education, then that’s wrong.
But they were also told that they couldn’t leave. You take the cookie – you’re a part of the group forever. Just like you – being an American – have to pay US taxes no matter where you are in the world, no matter where you make your living. Hey, life’s a bitch.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The chubby tipsy old feller at right looks familiar. I think he’s a suspect in that recent broad-daylight carjacking in Potsdam.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Well, abb1, I think it’s clear that sealing a border and shooting people who try to leave is wrong. If the loan/waiver system I proposed is also unacceptable for a socialist society, because it’s too much like capitalism, then we can nix that. Do you have some third alternative in mind, for what Country A/the DDR should have done? Shall we leave it as an unsolvable policy question? Or are you actually saying that using lethal violence to keep the serfs from leaving the manor is the best solution available, and, furthermore, a perfectly acceptable solution so that there’s no need to attempt to look for a better one?
November 10th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Well, it’s a difficult situation, of course, but there is another angle here: often the US bribes people to leave communist states, as with the Cuban “refugees”, or “Jewish refugees” from the USSR, creating artificial economic incentives for individuals to leave; I suspect there was some of it in West Berlin (and, perhaps, West Germany in general): artificially high standard of living and significant bribes paid to those who crossed over.
Shouldn’t the US carry some responsibility? If you pay people to jump off a bridge and some of them die, aren’t you responsible?
Also, I think you’re exaggerating the significance of this whole issue, and you only see on side of it. Yes, some people want to emigrate and a few, very few, will take a risk to do it, but it’s a small, very small minority. I don’t think this was the main issue in the Easter block, far from it. It’s just easy to use for propaganda, that’s all.
Look at those West Baltimore guys you see in The Wire – do they have a possibility to leave the country? Of course not, they never even leave West Baltimore. But that’s normal, right?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Why different colors for 18% and 19%?
November 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
abb1, can you sink any lower ?
Could you possibly show yourself to be any dumber than this?
I mean, you’ve posted stupid things all along, but this one from you is a breathtaker.
Do you have any idea why West Baltimore looks so much like a fire swept through? Why it’s so desolate?
BECAUSE PEOPLE LEFT, you moron.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hi Omri,
what? Were trying to make some point there? If you were, it’s not clear what it is, sounds more like a brain fart.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“Trying”? You’re too dumb to understand that the point is made.
You claim people can’t leave West Baltimore.
But the reason the place is so desolate is that people CAN, and DO, leave. Unlike East Germany in the early 80’s.
You really are inane.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Yes, I claim that people who live in West Baltimore can’t leave West Baltimore. And it’s true, they can’t, they don’t enough money. Same in true about people in Detroit, Flint and many other places.
Is this supposed to be controversial or something?
November 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Right, and there no “possibility” of them scraping the money for a greyhound ticket elsewhere, right? Except that’s what they keep doing, which is why those cities are hollowing out.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
They can get a ticket, but they don’t have money for the first-month rent plus two-month security deposit in a nicer place. They can’t go to a job interview outside the area. They have no skills. They are stuck, and in a much worse manner than an East German PhD. If you don’t even understand this, why should I spend any of my time on you?
November 10th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Wow, you who so casually casts aspersions at anyone who emigrates in directions that aren’t convenient to your own antisemitism, now you’re astute enough to observe that it’s a hard step, not lightly taken?
No shit, Sherlock!
And yet, that’s what people have been doing. That is why Baltimore is so damned empty.