Wednesday, September 28, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
The end of the immigration spike
Bernstein's story is a riff on the Pew Hispanic Center's latest report, "Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004." The executive summary also observes that:
Indeed, the report makes it clear that the shift in immigration flows to new states is a permanent and not temporary shift.
Beyond allaying fears of Mexifornia, the study has two take home points.
First, immigration flows follow the economy:
This finding probably won't surprise many economists, but it is politically significant -- because it counters the belief that immigration is some unyielding, unstoppable force.
That said, the second, more disturbing take-home point is that the composition of immigration flows is changing -- and not for the better:
This kind of study may give greater impetus to a grand bargain on immigration reform -- in which legal immigration flows are expanded at the same time there is a crackdown on illegal immigration. [I thought the grand bargain involved a guest worker program--ed. Yeah, but my grand bargain would ditch that part -- guest worker programs don't have a great track record, and the dispersal of immigrants to non-border states would probably reduce its allure anyway.]
Go check out the whole report.posted by Dan on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM
Any change in immigration policy that gives them more of a stake in their adopted country is an improvement, including a guest-worker program. What have we got to lose? They're here, they're not leaving. Let's welcome them for Pete's sake.posted by: Larry on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Boy, I'm not sure if I buy that 'rise, peak and decline' trend. The upticks that you see in their graphs post-2002 seem to mirror the 'rise' trend that they posit. They may be arguing that all immigration is cyclical, but I don't think so.(All of this is based on their graphs, which don't have historic trends.)
It's interesting to see that the report shows that Euro/Asian immigration seems cyclical. I'd imagine that their cycle is based on the knowledge economy in the US as opposed to the service/industrial one. I'm sure that with the next great intellectual/technology trend (let's hope it starts here soon), we'll get another uptick.
Finally, I too would be interested in a grand bargain. I'd trade serious economic aid for Mexico and more legal immigration for a tripling of the Border Patrol, huge fines on caught employers and mass deportations. Any takers?posted by: Klug on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Opponents of current immigration policy -- it might perhaps be more accurate to say the absence of immigration policy -- always say that what they are most concerned about is not immigration as such, but illegal immigration and its various consenquences.
Pew if anything supports their case, to the extent that most of the (possibly temporary)decline in immigration since the 1999-2000 peak has been a decline in legal immigration. Moreover the dispersal of new illegal immigrants across the country has already generated significant political friction, since without large immigrant communities to fall back on new immigrants are more likely to place unwelcome demands on state and local government services.
If one really thinks public discontent is directed at immigration in general, the Pew study may be as reassuring as Dan believes it is. But if one thinks that, one is, for the most part, dead wrong.posted by: Zathras on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
I, for one, welcome the millions of rocket scientists coming in illegally from Mexico. Yeah, I can feel our country getting stronger.posted by: Jose-Carlos Von Braun on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Since I've got hundreds of posts about different aspects of immigration matters, the reader might want to consult the link to find out what's really going on.
For instance, I've occasionally mentioned Nina Bernstein. I don't consider her a reliable source.
For just one example of the problems caused by massive illegal immmigration, consider the case of Illinois state senator Martin Sandoval. He wants to join a Mexican advisory council: That raises the peculiar prospect of the Cicero Democrat offering policy advice in an official capacity to Mexican Cabinet members while creating laws in Illinois...
Regarding the first comment:
The MSM constantly lies and misleads about immigration, and few bloggers want to honestly discuss it for various reasons. I strongly suggest doing your own research to find out the truth of the matter.posted by: Lonewacko: Illegal immigration news on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Yes I agree that having millions of people in the country illegally is a big problem. As I said earlier, and I think Lonewacko would agree, they are not leaving. So any change that gives them a stake in this country is an improvement, including a guest-worker program. So what if they never leave? They pay taxes and commit to their communities. Their children go to college, start businesses, and otherwise benefit this country in ways that ethnocentric rednecks never could.posted by: Larry on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
That's right Larry, because all the ethnocentric rednecks are a huge drag on our society; what with them not starting any businesses or going to college, or overwhelmingly fighting our wars.
Look I'm with you on giving the Mexican immigrants more of a sense of stake in the country, and Logan Square is downright gentrified compared to other places in the city (like west of Pilsen). Please, though, no ad hominems against rednecks. There are plenty of racists right here in the city and the label of ethnocentricity would sound pretty weird to some redneck who probably describe his ethnic make-up as 'mutt.' Tribalism is left to the cities.posted by: ElamBend on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Thanks for your input, "Larry". They aren't leaving because corrupt businesses and corrupt politicians make it easy for them to stay.
Make it difficult for them to stay and many of them will go home. There are two things that could be done:
1. Enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens. Unfortunately, Bush simply refuses to do almost any kind of interior or workplace enforcement. The WalMart fine was about 15 minutes' worth of their revenue. And, you let me know when Bush starts going after someone who contributes to the GOP.
2. Reduce the non-emergency benefits provided to them. Mexican-"American" politicians like CA's Gil Cedillo keep trying to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, despite 70% of CA being against that. Even in El Paso they're against that. And, if you've heard about Matricula Consular cards, guess who made those possible: yes, you're right, the Bush administration went to bat to prevent the passage of a law that would forbid their acceptance by banks.
Once again, I'd suggest the reader does some research on this matter. You'll find out, for just one example, that Mexico makes billions off illegal immigration and that they're continually trying to meddle in our laws and obtain political power in the U.S. The more Mexican citizens in the U.S., the more power Mexico has. The American thing to do is to oppose that, not enable it.posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
We could arrest every business owner who ever hired an illegal alien, and tomorrow there would be a million more willing to risk arrest. We cannot change the laws of economics. Mexicans are willing to risk their lives to come to the US because a corrupt govt prevents them from earning a living there. American businesses are willing to hire them because a corrupt govt looks the other way here. Let's not live in denial.posted by: Larry on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
We had a grand bargain on immigration in 1986, and the Bush administration refuses to enforce the law.
Larry, if illegal immigrants do not have to obey the law, why should I obey the tax code or the price fixing laws? There are goo d arguments that both are harmful to my economic status.
Is Bernstein talking about JUST legal immigration, or about both legal and illegal? I don;t believe total immigration is down, not for a minute. I will read farther.posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Larry's first sentence is obviously false. Business leaders are not like crack dealers; I doubt whether 99% of them would like it in prison.
I predict it would take far fewer than 100 imprisoned biz leaders for the rest of them to wake up. That would get a lot of coverage from biz mags, and almost all the rest would choose hiring legal workers over the possibility of ending up being someone's girlfriend.
As for the corrupt MX government, we should have two goals:
President Bush and the leadership of the Dems and the GOP are doing the opposite in both cases.
Of the two, the last should be the most worrisome.
Whatever the other arguments, the last thing we want to do is embrace a culture of corruption, which is exactly what's being done by those who support illegal immigration.posted by: Katrina Coverage on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Fears of "Mexifornia", or an American Quebec, are vastly overblown. The vast majority of ethnic identification by Hispanics in America is by language, and study after study after study after study after study shows that children born in America are fluent in English, and maaaaybe their heritage language. Their children speak almost only English, and have an understanding-only grasp of their heritage language. Not to mention that even non-English-speaking immigrants rate it highly important that they and their children learn English. So there are not only social but individual forces at work that Americanize immigrants, even in very large ethnic enclaves like southern California, Texas and Florida, and even in an age where Univision and foreign-language newspapers make it somewhat easier for non-English-speakers to survive. The overwhelming fact is that English is the national language of this country, and all children born here master it and live in it.
See here for more, from Stanford linguist Geoff Nunberg:
Money quote: "In point of fact, though, all the evidence suggests that Hispanics are learning English very rapidly -- more rapidly than the Germans and other groups did at the turn of the century. There's also no evidence that the rate of Spanish retention is higher than the rate of retention for other groups. This was the clear finding of an extensive study by Alejandro Portes and Lingxin Hao of 5000 second-generation Hispanic children in San Diego & South Florida. Overall, they found that 95 percent of the children speak English well and that 40 percent speak no Spanish."
So much for Mexicostan.
Fact: the mayor of LA now makes
Fact: I have seen with my own eyes Mexican American kids in a class on Mexican politics complain about Mexican General Santa Ana 'not holding out' against American forces. I.e. they regret that the US of A won the Mexican-American war.
Fact: The geography of California is resembling Mexico's more each day, with a wealthy class living in 'gate guarded communities' complete with rent-a-cops and a poor, 'hispanic' population living in deteriorating cities.
Fact: Any city in California now has 'jornaleros', day workers loitering on corners.
Fact: Illegal food pushcarts are to be found on the streets of major California cities.
Now, if these are the sorts of things you like, then you like these sorts of things. However, please don't tell those of us from the state that California is not being Mexicanized demographically, sociologically, ecnomically and culturally. We see it with our own eyes.
Oh, here is a Portes article that is not nearly so sanguine.posted by: Mitchell Young on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"I have seen with my own eyes Mexican American kids in a class on Mexican politics complain about Mexican General Santa Ana 'not holding out' against American forces. I.e. they regret that the US of A won the Mexican-American war."
Were they illegal immigrants?
"Fact: The geography of California is resembling Mexico's more each day, with a wealthy class living in 'gate guarded communities' complete with rent-a-cops and a poor, 'hispanic' population living in deteriorating cities."
Cheap hyperbolized 'class-warfare' high on rhetoric and short on facts.
"Now, if these are the sorts of things you like, then you like these sorts of things. However, please don't tell those of us from the state that California is not being Mexicanized demographically, sociologically, ecnomically and culturally. We see it with our own eyes."
Was California not "Mexicanized" before you were born? or before your father was born? and his father?posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Did you know that 58% of Mexicans in Mexico think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to them?
A fair number of Chicanos believe in "Aztlan", the supposed Chicano homeland which is what we Americans call the U.S. southwest. Did you know about that?
Did you know there's a college group called MEChA that advocates "liberating" Aztlan?
Did you know that many Chicano leaders (like Antonio Villaraigosa, Bustamante [actually he's Spanish but he passes], Gil Cedillo, Fabian Nunez in California and Raul Grijalva in Arizona and others) are former members of that organization?
Does it matter whether someone is an illegal alien or second-generation if they favor liberating Aztlan?
Did you know that Mexico has provided free Spanish-language schoolbooks to many school districts throughout the country?
Do you know what propaganda is?
Do millions of illegal aliens give power to people like Gil Cedillo, the author of no less than six bills to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens?
Do millions of illegal aliens give power to people like Nunez, Villaraigosa, and all the rest?
Do millions of illegal aliens give power (and money) to the Mexican government in our country?
Does the U.S. have the necessary military force to forcibly eject all illegal aliens in the U.S.? If you can't forcibly eject people who are in your country illegally, aren't you in effect being occupied?
How many thousands of people would die and how many billions of dollars would be lost if we were forced to eject all illegal aliens, and they resisted?
Did you know that the Mexican government has more consulates in the U.S. than any other country?
Did you know that Mexican consuls travel from city council meeting to city council meeting trying to get local officials to accept Mexico's matricula consular cards, aka "IDs for illegals"?
Did you know that Mexican consuls travel to small outposts in the U.S. passing out those cards to their citizens?
Did you know that Mexican consuls sometimes do that at banks or even public facilities?
There's probably a lot many people don't know about this issue, and I'd very strongly advise doing as much research as you can. You will be shocked, and you won't regard apologists like those above too well at all.posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Nice effort Mr. Ridgeway. I'll try to answer your questions.
Were they illegal immigrants?
No, but a very good chance they were children of illegals. So today's illegal will produce more of this population which resents the US takeover of the Southwest. And this is home-grown sentiment -- not the product of some Anglo lefties.
"Cheap 'class-warfare' etc."?
Well, there have been numerous academic studies on this issue -- See Blakley and Snyder's Fortress America. I simply add a correlation with immigration. This is so evident to the naked eye -- anyone whose spent time in Southern California versus Washington State will know its true. But it would make a fascinating academic study. As for the 'class warfare', well there is class warfare going on, that of the 'cognitave elite' employed in self sustaining industries such as law and education -- industries which guard their own gates via creditialism, limited access to schools etc -- and the native-born working class.
You pass on the 'jornaleros', undoubtedly unable to deny their existence. Of course, many cities are now using taxpayer funds to try to keep these guys off the streets, out of sight, and out of mind. Doesn't work though, they use the facilities built, but tend to spill outside them, as getting picked up for day labor is a first come, first serve free market type scramble -- you have to be out on the streets to get the job.
Finally, I am glad you brought up the historical issue of 'Mexicanization', implying that California was Mexican in my father and grandfather's time. But this is wrong. From a state perspective California was Spanish, of course, until 1824. It was 'Mexican' until 1849. I.e. all of 15 years. You have to understand the dynamics of Spanish imperial policy (and indeed pre-Columbian geography) to understand this. Mexico city and the Oaxaca valley was always the center of population and administration of "New Spain". The area now the Southwest US was lightly explored, a few frontier settlements were set up in New Mexico (not california) and that's it. It was only in 1769, under pressure from the expanding Russian Pacific Empire as well as British gains in the area that the Spanish put effort into colonizing Alta California. The first settlement, Mission San Diego, was until established in 1769. Even then, the demography, economy and culture of Spanish california was drastically different that that of Central Mexico.
So no, California was not 'Mexicanized' in the time of my father or grandfather.posted by: Mitchell Young on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Pew Charitable Trusts ran a poll, approximately 40% of Mexican citizens wanted to move to the United States. Mexico has about 104 million people, so that's back of the envelope about 40 million people.
Can we in the US absorb that many people? No, not without serious cost.
We are sleepwalking towards disaster. Mexico has been always and remains today a very corrupt, violent place where everyone sees no possibility for change and simply leaves to find work elsewhere. Like the Philippines. It depends on a remittance economy to keep a corrupt cabal in power and is in thrall to violent criminal organizations. ONLY by cutting off the social safety valve will we see genuine change and thus the problem solved (Mexico becoming prosperous) despite painful short term issues.
Otherwise we will see a depression in wages as massive influx of labor comes in; with attendant erosion of living standards (think New Orleans). Poorest citizens will have no chance to climb up the economic ladder into success, competing with waves of people who work for less and have an extensive ethnically based social network (ala the Chinese Diaspora in Southeast Asia).
We would also face massive drains on public expenditures, and the inevitable and corrupting tendency to meddle in Mexico's affairs. If Mexico is going to send all it's people north, inevitably the US will simply start interfering, first politically and economically and inevitably militarily. Already Fabian Nunez the CA Speaker of the Assembly went to Mexico City to proclaim his leadership in co-ordinating with Mexico and wanting action in illegal immigration, with considerable backlash among Mexico's political elite. Governors in New Mexico and Arizona have already started freelancing and proclaiming their willingness to have a "foreign policy" towards Mexico while declaring a state of emergency along the border.
Good fences make good neighbors (sorry). We can construct millions of miles of freeway sound barriers, we can build a real concrete wall along the border. Penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. Deport illegals immediately. And work with reformers and others inside Mexico to press forward economic development, freedom, and end corruption and violence. These are not easy things but beats a nastier replay of Pancho Villa's Columbus raid and the Pershing Expedition.posted by: Jim Rockford on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"No, but a very good chance they were children of illegals. So today's illegal will produce more of this population which resents the US takeover of the Southwest."
So these children weren't illegals but there is a 'very good chance' they were the 'children of illegals' and their parents legal/illegal immigration status sufficiently explains their treason? This is xenophobia at it's ugliest and most backward.
You have no idea whether these children's parents were illegals and seem to be operating under the assumption that it even matters. As if their parents had gotten into the country LEGALLY, these adolescents wouldn't have expressed sympathies to people with whom they only have a language, a culture and an ethnicity in common.
This country is full of immigrants, legal immigrants who share sympathies with the people whom they share a common language, culture, or even who just look like them that may conflict with the Nation-State in which they reside. Heck, forget immigrants, there are people who have been here for generations who fall prey to the same thing. Black people, whether they be black nationalists or regular citizens, obviously feel a connection to people around the world that look like them that sometimes precedes connection to a white person from the nation-state in which they reside.
Don't think this is just an 'ethnic thing' either. I can't recall all the times during the recent olympics in sports bars, and on talk radio I saw/heard White Americans rooting for some tin pot Eastern European team full of caucasians to triumph over the mostly black American team. White American men who probably detested Euros and European culture, yet felt more connection to white men from another country than to the black men of their own.
Is this a problem? I don't think so. I don't mean someone's ethnic or racial nationalism preceding their State Nationalism isn't a problem, just that the problem isn't as widespread as the xenophobic fearmongers paint it out to be. The immature remarks of some zit faced latino adolescents in school that didn't respond in the patriotically correct way to a question about the Southwest is hardly an indictment of anything besides immature adolescents, much less their parents and their immigration status.posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"Well, there have been numerous academic studies on this issue -- See Blakley and Snyder's Fortress America. I simply add a correlation with immigration."
?? If you buy the thesis of Blakley and Snyder's book, then how do you correspond this with your advocacy of more extensive fortressing to keep out the mexicans?
"You pass on the 'jornaleros', undoubtedly unable to deny their existence."
I didn't address the 'jornaleros' aspect because I neither found it important, have no grievance with their existence and cannot fathom yours. They are looking for day-labor, what exactly is wrong with this? would you rather they commit crime or something? You acknowledge the fact that many counties now have designated areas for them to go to yet you still feel aggrieved at the fact that they 'spill out'. This leads me to believe you aren't bothered with them searching for work and are just bothered with...them. Why? if they had nicer clothes and were less swarthy would their presence bother you less?
"Finally, I am glad you brought up the historical issue of 'Mexicanization', implying that California was Mexican in my father and grandfather's time. But this is wrong. From a state perspective California was Spanish, of course, until 1824. It was 'Mexican' until 1849. I.e. all of 15 years. You have to understand the dynamics of Spanish imperial policy (and indeed pre-Columbian geography) to understand this. Mexico city and the Oaxaca valley was always the center of population and administration of "New Spain". The area now the Southwest US was lightly explored, a few frontier settlements were set up in New Mexico (not california) and that's it. It was only in 1769, under pressure from the expanding Russian Pacific Empire as well as British gains in the area that the Spanish put effort into colonizing Alta California. The first settlement, Mission San Diego, was until established in 1769. Even then, the demography, economy and culture of Spanish california was drastically different that that of Central Mexico."
When I asked whether California wasn't already mexicanized before you were born, I was referring to it the same sense that you refer to California being 'mexicanized' now. Not the nation or state ownership, but the demographics. Cultures and Ethic groups, the languages they speak and their physical appearance don't magically cut off at arbitrarily drawn nation-state borders.
I've lived in West Texas my whole life. I have spent time in New Mexico and can attest to this: When you look at the make-up of the Southwest I.E. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, it's hardly Mexico, but it resembles Mexico alot more than say, the Mid-west or the Northeast resembles Mexico. This is not because of things that have happened after the United States aquired the Southwest, but because of how things existed and were before the territory was annexed. This 'Mexification' of the Southwest happened before the "Americanization" of the Southwest.
I suggest a compromise Mr. Ridgeway. If you and your fellow West Texans want to sit back while your region turns into a giant colonia , great. Please secede and join Mexico, but take our illegals with you!posted by: Mitchell Young on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
You have no idea whether these children's parents were illegals and seem to be operating under the assumption that it even matters.
You're right about that, it doesn't matter. Our legal immigration system is bonkers too. But the odds say that a good percentage of those kids, who would have been born around 1980 have parents who came to the US illegally.
And please, enough with the xenophobia. You know, back in the Soviet day, they used to put dissidents in mental institutions as they were obviously insane in not appreciating the 'workers paradise'. Milder, but based on the same concept, is this labelling those who disagree with having the demographics, economy and culture of the country changed by mass immigration as 'xenophobe'.posted by: Mitchell Young on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"This is not because of things that have happened after the United States aquired the Southwest, but because of how things existed and were before the territory was annexed. This 'Mexification' of the Southwest happened before the "Americanization" of the Southwest."
This may be true of New Mexico and the El Paso area, but it is wrong for California, wrong for Arizona and wrong the rest of Texas. In Texas the Comanche came in after a short period of Spanish, not Mexican ascendancy, and bottled the Mexian colonies up in their towns, boasting that they held off annihilating the remnant because they liked having places to "get" new horses. It was the same way in Arizona ofter the Pueblo Revolt, which nearly exterminated the Spanish in that area. In California the Spanish presence never extended beyond a coastal zone ending just north of the Bay Area. That presence by the way consisted of Hispanicized California native people, not Mexicans. There was no need to bring Mexicans to California, since there was an ample supply of native people, and there was no reason for Mexicans to go on thier own, since they were hardly going to be granted land and there was really no other incentive.
In none of these cases therefore does the current demographic situation reflect in any way the situation that obtained before the Anglos arrived.
Fascinating Jim. There is so much history of our own country most people don't know. You basically are talking about a real live culture (or dare I say race) war between the Comanche and the Mestizo Mexican culture. I've read Cormac MacCarthy's Blood Meridian which I guess is based on the situation you describe.
"You're right about that, it doesn't matter. Our legal immigration system is bonkers too. But the odds say that a good percentage of those kids, who would have been born around 1980 have parents who came to the US illegally."
So it would appear, as is true with most border control zealots, that your problem isn't so much with illegal immigrants as immigrants in general. Like I said; xenophobia at it's most ugly.posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"In California the Spanish presence never extended beyond a coastal zone ending just north of the Bay Area. That presence by the way consisted of Hispanicized California native people, not Mexicans."
Just exacly what do you think Mexicans are?posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Mr. Ridgeway, you are resorting to name calling -- and following the old Soviet habit of labelling dissent as mental illness, as I mentioned above.
The question is, do nations have a right to limit the numbers of people who come to live and settle among them, and select the composition of those numbers. I say yes, as do most lawmakers throughout the world (including Mexico, BTW, which has very strict immigration laws). I guess we are all mentally deficient.posted by: Mitchell Young on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"Mr. Ridgeway, you are resorting to name calling -- and following the old Soviet habit of labelling dissent as mental illness, as I mentioned above."
#1, I have yet to call you, or anyone else in this thread a name. #2 I have yet to ever express that 'dissent' is mental illness or that our disagreements in this thread are a result of mental illness; yours or mine. And for the record, I find your rather unfortunate insinuation that anyone disagreeing with you in an argument is utilising 'soviet tactics' pernicious at the very least.
"The question is, do nations have a right to limit the numbers of people who come to live and settle among them, and select the composition of those numbers. I say yes, as do most lawmakers throughout the world (including Mexico, BTW, which has very strict immigration laws). I guess we are all mentally deficient."
I have never questioned the right of the United States to affect it's immigration policy however it pleases. I am suspicious of the motivations of people who wish to limit immigration; legal or otherwise.posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Newspapers, race groups, "human rights" groups, etc. etc. question the "motivations of people who wish to limit immigration" all the time. The goal is to limit discussion; it's basically a less polite version of "shut up."
From the AP, NYT, LAT, etc. it occasionally takes the form of giving said groups a megaphone to call people names, then they bring in the callees to deny the charges. I'm starting to call that type of articles HYSOI: "Have you stopped oppressing immigrants".posted by: BoreAmerica: monitoring Air America Radio on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
What complete anti-intellectual nonsense.
If someone was questioning the motives of certain people and organizations who wish to prevent/end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, whether the suspicions be Anti-Americanism or some type of fifth columnism, does that mean the quesioners are trying to limit discussion or tell them to shut up? If so than guilty as charged.
You have all dropped the ball on this one. Better luck next issue.posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
does that mean the quesioners are trying to limit discussion or tell them to shut up? If so than guilty as charged.
Yes it does. Thanks for the admission.
posted by: Mitchell Young on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Here's a good example of what I was refering to: Immigrants, leaders rally to decry Minutemen.
The author is a reporter who also writes an immigration Q&A column.
First, you've got 15 paragraphs of name-calling: racists, vigilantes, xenophobia, they hit all the top smears.
Only after do those 15 paragraphs do you get a statement denying the charges laid forth.
It's a cute trick that allows newspapers to smear people and put them on the defensive. And, being called all those names has an effect on people who might support the callees, but are too wimpy to do so out of fear of being called names themselves.
If you read that article, notice that the Knight-Ridder "reporter" never gives any information on the groups involved, such as where they get their money, who they're affiliated with, etc. etc.
Remember all those articles the MSM did smearing the MMP project back in May? Did you ever see one reporting on what the other side actually wants? Believe it or don't, they want completely open borders, as in they want anyone from Mexico to be able to come here at any time for any reason. Literally. You let me know when the press covers that.posted by: BoreAmerica: monitoring Air America Radio on 09.28.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: