Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers (aka human capital) under neoliberalism

 Lars Cornelissen[] The human condition in a neoliberal world (criticalstudies.org.uk, Nov 19, 2015)

This article considers the subject that neoliberal rationality constructs. By engaging first with Michel Foucault’s account of the entrepreneurial self, then with contemporary critical theorists who build upon and move beyond Foucault’s account, it considers three aspects of the human condition under neoliberal hegemony: the moral, the political, and the existential.

Neoliberal rationality, then, analyses not only people’s economic activity (with Smith, those activities that spring from our natural propensity to ‘truck, barter, and exchange’) in terms of competition and investment, but all of their action. It turns economics, the study of economic behaviour, into “praxeology”: the study of human action as such.8 With the rise of rational choice theory in the post-WWII period, economic analysis becomes one of the most prominent methodologies applied in the humanities and therewith economics quickly replaces the artes liberales of yesteryear as the core curriculum for social scientists. “Economic imperialism”, indeed.

Taken together, the notion of human capital and the widened scope of economics result economic activity is analysed in terms of human capital, at the same time economics broadens its scope, colonises the all human action as economic action, thereby effectively recasting every human activity as either the obtention of income, or the appreciation or depreciation of human capital.11 Homo oeconomicus - nomic analysis, is not made to disappear (notwithstanding neoliberals’ insistence on the contrary)12 homo oeconomicus in the classical liberal conception was a “partner of exchange” based on “a problematic of needs,”13 under neoliberalism homo oeconomicus becomes modelled on the enterprise, that is, a business sought in “the mechanisms of competition.”14 consist of capital and is likewise required to compete in markets. Homo oeconomicus becomes “an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of himself.”15 The entrepreneurial self, in short, is the self who is constantly engaged in investing in her own human capital because she must compete in a marketplace; it is the self “who incurs expenses by investing to obtain some kind of improvement.”16 or otherwise.

The neoliberal subject for Foucault is thus the subject who invests, who competes, who appreciates her human capital.17 This subject is considered to behave like an enterprise and, crucially, sees herself as an enterprise. She is made to conform to entrepreneurial standards through an ethics of the self and, indeed, the newly fashioned neoliberal “[h] omo oeconomicus is someone who is eminently governable.”18 The point here is that whereas homo oeconomicus as the classical political economists understood it had to be left alone (“one must lasser-faire”)19 the neoliberal subject is so intimately tethered becomes easily conducted.

The neoliberal subject will always respond to socio-economic reality, because her survival, her income, depends on her adaptation to changing cirto increase the value of their human capital, or more precisely, to act on the way they govern themselves, by inciting them to adopt conducts deemed valorizing and to follow One merely has to consider ‘welfare-to-work’ or ‘workfare’ programmes to understand how such self-government unfolds in everyday life.21 Here ends Foucault’s account of the neoliberal subject. Although he did not address the topic himself, we can use the framework he provides to ask what kind of subject neoliberal rationality constructs after having become hegemonic. In what follows I will consider the neoliberal subject’s moral agency, her political agency, and, somewhat more their theoretical underpinnings.

Moral agency

Neoliberal theory deals with private subjects who “do and permit what they will” according to their own preferences and value orientations within the limits of legally permissible action. They are not required to take any mutual interest for one another; they are thus not equipped with any moral sense of social obligation. The legally requisite respect for private liberties that all competitors are equally entitled to is something very different from the equal respect for the human worth of each individual. J. Habermas, The Postnational Constellation

When neoliberal rationality becomes the hegemonic imaginary, a meaningful sense of that the neoliberal subject, although purportedly non-gendered, is deeply gendered in fact. See the case.22 The argument runs deeper, for the point is that neoliberal rationality undermines the very possibility of any non-instrumental moral agency by reconstructing the subject exclusively along entrepreneurial lines. Let us see how this goes. Firstly, and most importantly, the entrepreneurial logic neoliberalism commits its subjects to turns them into unabashedly self-interested micro-enterprises. The place proper to enterprises, however, is the marketplace. This means that subjects, whose activity is other human capitals), appreciation or depreciation of their own capital, or the obten- But if all human activity is interpreted as self-interested (as rational choice theory assumes)24 we thereby lose the ability to view anything other than our own utility as an end in itself. This means nothing less than the inability to act as Kantian moral agents, because for Kant only prescribes it, are moral in nature. Since neoliberalism assumes that all action is spurred by individual interests, it becomes impossible, among other things, to view other human beings (or indeed ourselves) as ends in themselves or to act according to our moral duty as such. The neoliberal subject is, in effect, not an inhabitant of the Reich der Zwecken

Although this does not mean that the neoliberal subject is entirely divested of moral agency, it does mean that the only moral agency she is capable of pertains to what developmental children. In this sense, neoliberal morality is pre-eminently infantile.26 Neoliberalism inherited this utilitarian understanding of morality from classical liberalism. Classical liberalism too denies that individuals are anything other than desiring beplanning of supporting. ings, perpetually moving from one joy to the next.27 The difference lies therein that while classical liberalism held that an individual’s desires are given prior to any contact with

...For its bastard offspring self-interestedness is wholly tethered to market mechanisms. The self-interestedness prescribed by neoliberalism is not the quasi-epicurean perpetual want-satisfaction Bentham and his liberal fellow travellers celebrated; it is, rather, the injunction to be a productive, responsible, self-investing speck of human capital.29 As Jacques Rancière explains, the neoliberal subject is “called on to be the microcosm of the great noisy whole of the circulation and uninterrupted exchange of rights and capabilities, of goods and the Good,” and is “required to see himself [sic own militant, as a small alliance-forming energy, running from one tie to the next, from one contract to the next as well as from one thrill to the next.” The neoliberal evisceration of moral agency should not surprise us; it is inherent in the entrepreneurial logic neoliberalism submits its subjects to. In a critique of corporate power, Joel Bakan writes that “[u]nlike the human beings who inhabit it, the corporation is singularly self-interested and unable to feel genuine concern for others in any context.”

This leads him to conclude that if corporations were people, they would be diagnosed as psychopathic. Surely he is right, and surely this is what neoliberal rationality wants every human being to model their behaviour on. Neoliberal theory has never been very secretive about its simplistic understanding of morality either. For while Adam Smith (whose Wealth of Nations, I imagine, is to be found on every neoliberal’s night stand, while the fact that the same man authored The Theory of Moral Sentiments is conveniently forgotten) once held that “[i]t is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,”33 Bernard Mandeville, the political economist from whom Hayek derived his theory of spontaneous order, actually celebrated the vices with splendid candour: Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live, Hunger’s a dreadful Plague, no doubt, Yet who digests or thrives without?34 The subtitle to Mandeville’s magnum opus neatly sums up the neoliberal understanding of morality: Hayek, who is very much indebted to the work of this “master-mind”35 - deville’s lessons to heart and indeed not only condemns all of the cardinal virtues except for Prudence;36 it actively prescribes all of the cardinal vices, with the exception of Sloth (more on Sloth below), as vices are imagined to be the fuel of History’s engine: spontaneous (market) order. That this view of virtuosity is detrimental to any notion of ‘civic virtue’, upon which many democratic theories rest, requires no elaboration. Moral agency and neoliberalism, in sum, do not go together. The subject neoliberal rationality creates cannot be anything other than a self-interested being, whose (literally) vicious behaviour is celebrated because, in neoliberal mythology, the only way to progress as a species is for individuals to behave like wholly self-interested, atomistic Benthamites.

Political agency

Voters and customers are essentially the same people. Mr. Smith buys and votes; he is the same man in the supermarket and in the voting booth G. Tullock, The Vote Motive

Besides undermining the possibility to view themselves, others, and the world as ends in themselves, neoliberal rationality thoroughly subverts subjects’ capacity for political agency. Although it is an academic commonplace to refer to neoliberalism as a depoliti- Usually neoliberalism’s depoliticising tendency is understood to lie in its penchant for rhetorically and institutionally reducing all problems to market problems. Neoliberalism, in this sense, is indeed “the belief that the traditional questions of the polis are best answered by the market.”37 This depoliticising logic is inherent in most neoliberal theory, which as I argued above, tends to understand all human action as economic action: everything is understood as either investment, consumption, competition, or income obtention (although obtention of psychic income is literally equated with consumption). The creed underlying this ‘praxeological’ economics is that “[h]uman beings do not behave basically differently when they solve social and political problems compared to when they turn to economic or legal tasks.”38 To be sure, this is certainly one way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. If human beings are self-interested specks of human capital all round, then it follows that in the ‘political marketplace’ they are just as entrepreneurial, self-interested, and asocial as they are anywhere else. Many authors point to a second way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. Because politics in a neoliberal era becomes solely about economic matters, which are far too complex for mere mortals to even grasp let alone decide upon, citizens quickly avert their gaze to the more interesting things in life. Neoliberalism, as Wendy Brown quite rightly points out, “reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity and political complacency.”39 Although people are still made to vote and perhaps even contribute to politics in other ways (protest, write articles for newspapers), this politics revolves around banal or inconsequential policies and voting is increasingly reminiscent of actual consumer choices. “In place of the citizen-participant,” as Sheldon Wolin explains, “the new politics courts the viewer-consumer.”40 What this results in is “a cant politics of the inconsequential.”41 Meanwhile, actual political processes are submitted to comhegemony, as Rancière points out, “[t]he theme of the common will is replaced by that of the lack of personal will, of capacity for autonomous action that is anything more than just management of necessity.”42 The authors discussed here are certainly right in signalling the way in which neoliberalism turns citizens into apathetic, one-dimensional men (to borrow a phrase from Herbert Marcuse) and the state into a puppet controlled by today’s greatest puppeteer: the Global Market. There is, however, another more fundamental way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. Essentially, the point is that neoliberalism reconstructs both the subject and democracy, turning them into an enterprise and a market respectively, thereby undermining the very possibility of genuine political action. Here is how this goes. By casting subjectivity in economic terms across all spheres of life, neoliberal rationality turns political activity into another strand of the protean economic behaviour that investors), as is commonly pointed out, it also means that political agency disappears. The consumer-investor cannot be a political subject, for the latter is a subject who acts in an Arendtian sense, meaning appearing, speaking, expressing oneself in a public realm human beings see themselves as citizens of a polis, who collectively act because such action is a bonum in several subjects are naught but entrepreneurial and, as I already argued above, are for this reason entirely self-interested, politics becomes, in Arendt’s terms, “no less a means to an end than making is a means to produce an object,” which “happens whenever human togetherness is lost, that is, when people are only for or against other people.” In these cases, “speech becomes indeed ‘mere talk,’ one more means toward the end.”44 However, while on the one hand the neoliberal subject is incapable of viewing herself as anything other than a self-interested, entrepreneurial speck of human capital, neoliberalism, on the other, denies and deconstructs the public realm that is a conditio sine qua non for action of this sort. The counterfeit ‘public realm’ that neoliberalism constructs in lieu of the one it deconstructed is nothing but a marketplace: an agora, not an ekklesia.45 This is to say, neoliberalism does not simply frame democratic institutions in market terminology; its rationality in fact reconstructs them.

As recent examples of neoliberal jurisprudence in the US make clear, neoliberal rationality recasts democracy as a "markeplace" . ..Speech, which is understood as a commercial good rather than as the one capacity that distinguishes humans from animals (as Aristotle, Arendt, or Rancière would have rations, monetary institutions, and the like. By recasting speech as a good bought with (which protects, inter alia, free speech) to be interpreted as protecting not citizens from censure but the ‘democratic marketplace’ from state interference.46

It likewise legitimizes far-reaching political inequality, because one’s economic capital is translated directly into one’s ‘political capital’. The result: even as subjects are disenfranchised, turned into apathetic, passive consumer-citizens, and made increasingly powerless vis-à-vis the demands of global markets, the corporation is allowed into the realm of (what is left of) politics.47 In effect, neoliberalism’s reconstruction of the subject is a blade that cuts both ways: by recasting the subject as an enterprise, it simultaneously bestows upon actual business enterprises a similar political subjectivity. Democracy becomes rule not by the people but by capital (a redefinition that goes unnoticed by neoliberals themselves, because they understand people as capital).

 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 15, 2017] Two Cheers For Trump's Immigration Proposal Especially "Interior Enforcement" - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species. ..."
"... So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality. ..."
"... Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal ..."
"... A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that ..."
"... Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas. ..."
"... A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy? ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Headliner of the week for immigration patriots was President Trump's immigration reform proposal , which he sent to Congress for their perusal last Sunday. The proposal is a very detailed 70-point list under three main headings:

Border Security (27 items) Interior Enforcement (39 items) Merit-Based Immigration System (four items)

Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, "Interior Enforcement." That's very welcome.

Of course we need improved border security so that people don't enter our country without permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be here.

The President's proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary cities , visa overstays , law-enforcement resources , compulsory E-Verify , more deportations , improved visa security.

This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than a year ago the White House and Justice Department were run by committed open-borders fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and taxpayers.

That said, here come the quibbles.

That third heading, "Merit-Based Immigration System," with just four items, needs work. Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.

There's some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items -- numbers one, three, and four -- got a fist-pump from me:

cutting down chain migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children; eliminating the Diversity Visa Lottery ; and limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to zero.

Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:

Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support themselves financially.

sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than what the late Lee Kuan Yew referred to as " fruit-pickers ." Forgive me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.

For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa ) That gave me two clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class employment in America.

In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species.

So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality.

On so-called "merit-based immigration," therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the immigration system for cheaper labor.

Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal immigration system in a nutshell. It's a cheap-labor racket.

A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that contribute to social harmony?

With coming up to a third of a billion people, the U.S.A. has all the talent, all the merit , it needs. You might make a case for a handful of certified geniuses like Einstein or worthy dissidents like Solzhenitsyn, but those cases aside, there is no reason at all to have guest-worker programs. They should all be shut down.

Some of these cheap-labor rackets don't even need congressional action to shut them down; it can be done by regulatory change via executive order. The scandalous OPT-visa scam, for example, which brings in cheap workers under the guise of student visas.

Here is John Miano writing about the OPT program last month, quote:

Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas.

Because there is no reporting on how long guestworkers stay in the country, we do not know the total number of workers in each category. Nonetheless, the number of approvals for work on student visas has grown by 62 percent over the past four years so their numbers will soon dwarf those on H-1B visas.

The troubling fact is that the OPT program was created entirely through regulation with no authorization from Congress whatsoever. [ A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , CIS, September 18, 2017]

End quote. (And a cheery wave of acknowledgement to John Miano here from one of the other seventeen people in the U.S.A. that knows the correct placement of the hyphen in "H-1B.")

Our legal immigration system is addled with these scams. Don't even get me started on the EB-5 investor's visa . It all needs sweeping away.

So for preference I would rewrite that third heading to include, yes, items one, three, and four -- cutting down chain migration, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery, and ending refugee settlement for anyone of less stature than Solzhenitsyn; but then, I'd replace item two with the following:

End all guest-worker programs, with exceptions only for the highest levels of talent and accomplishment, limit one hundred visas per annum .

So much for my amendments to the President's October 8th proposals. There is, though, one glaring omission from that 70-item list. The proposal has no mention at all of birthright citizenship.

have abandoned it . It leads to obstetric tourism : women well-advanced in pregnancy come to the U.S.A. to give birth, knowing that the child will be a U.S. citizen. It is deeply unpopular with Americans , once it's explained to them.

Yes, yes, I know: some constitutional authorities argue that birthright citizenship is implied in the Fourteenth Amendment , although it is certain that the framers of that Amendment did not have foreign tourists or illegal entrants in mind. Other scholars think Congress could legislate against it.

The only way to find out is to have Congress legislate. If the courts strike down the legislation as unconstitutional, let's then frame a constitutional amendment and put it to the people.

Getting rid of birthright citizenship might end up a long and difficult process. We might ultimately fail. The only way to find out is to get the process started . Failure to mention this in the President's proposal is a very glaring omission.

Setting aside that, and the aforementioned reservations about working visas, I give two cheers to the proposal. email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013 . (Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)

SimpleHandle > > , October 14, 2017 at 2:56 am GMT

I agree with ending birthright citizenship. But Trump should wait until he can put at least one more strict constitutionalist in the supreme court. There will be a court challenge, and we need judges who can understand that if the 14th Amendment didn't give automatic citizenship to American Indians it doesn't give automatic citizenship to children of Mexican citizens who jumped our border.

Diversity Heretic > > , October 14, 2017 at 5:04 am GMT

@Carroll Price

Insofar as your personal situation is concerned, perhaps you would find yourself less "relatively poor" if you had a job with higher wages.

Diversity Heretic > > , October 14, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT

John's article, it seems to me, ignores the elephant in the room: the DACA colonists. Trump is offering this proposal, more or less, in return for some sort of semi-permanent regularization of their status. Bad trade, in my opinion. Ending DACA and sending those illegals back where they belong will have more real effect on illegal and legal immigration/colonization than all sorts of proposals to be implemented in the future, which can and will be changed by subsequent Administrations and Congresses.

Trump would also be able to drive a much harder bargain with Congress (like maybe a moratorium on any immigration) if he had kept his campaign promise, ended DACA the afternoon of January 20, 2017, and busloads of DACA colonists were being sent south of the Rio Grande.

The best hope for immigration patriots is that the Democrats are so wedded to Open Borders that the entire proposal dies and Trump, in disgust, reenacts Ike's Operation Wetback.

bartok > > , October 14, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Carroll Price

Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?

White people couldn't possibly thrive without non-Whites! Why, without all of that ballast we'd ascend too near the sun.

Negrolphin Pool > > , October 14, 2017 at 7:53 am GMT

Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?

Right, prior to 1965, Americans didn't exist. They had all starved to death because, as everyone knows, no Americans will work to produce food and, even if they did, once Tyson chicken plants stop making 50 percent on capital they just shut down.

If there were no Somalis in Minnesota, even Warren Buffett couldn't afford grapes.

Joe Franklin > > , October 14, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

Illegal immigrants picking American produce is a false economy.

Illegal immigrants are subsidized by the taxpayer in terms of public health, education, housing, and welfare.

If businesses didn't have access to cheap and subsidized illegal alien labor, they would be compelled to resort to more farm automation to reduce cost.

Cheap illegal alien labor delays the inevitable use of newer farm automation technologies.

Many Americans would likely prefer a machine touch their food rather than a illegal alien with strange hygiene practices.

In addition, anti-American Democrats and neocons prefer certain kinds of illegal aliens because they bolster their diversity scheme.

Carroll Price > > , October 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

@Realist "Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?"

Eliminate welfare...then you'll have plenty of workers. Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including themselves.

Jonathan Mason > > , October 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT

@Randal Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on it.

The "jobs Americans/Brits/etc won't do" myth is a deliberate distortion of reality that ignores the laws of supply and demand. There are no jobs Americans etc won't do, only jobs for which the employers are not prepared to pay wages high enough to make them worthwhile for Americans etc to do.

Now of course it is more complicated than that. There are jobs that would not be economically viable if the required wages were to be paid, and there are marginal contributions to job creation by immigrant populations, but those aspects are in reality far less significant than the bosses seeking cheap labour want people to think they are.

As a broad summary, a situation in which labour is tight, jobs are easy to come by and staff hard to hold on to is infinitely better for the ordinary working people of any nation than one in which there is a huge pool of excess labour, and therefore wages are low and employees disposable.

You'd think anyone purporting to be on the "left", in the sense of supporting working class people would understand that basic reality, but far too many on the left have been indoctrinated in radical leftist anti-racist and internationalist dogmas that make them functional stooges for big business and its mass immigration program.

Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on it.

There might be some truth in this. When I was a student in England in the 60′s I spent every summer working on farms, picking hops, apples, pears, potatoes and made some money and had a lot of fun too and became an expert farm tractor operator.

No reason why US students and high school seniors should not pick up a lot of the slack. Young people like camping in the countryside and sleeping rough, plus lots of opportunity to meet others, have sex, smoke weed, drink beer, or whatever. If you get a free vacation plus a nice check at the end, that makes the relatively low wages worthwhile. It is not always a question of how much you are paid, but how much you can save.

George Weinbaum > > , October 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

We can fix the EB-5 visa scam. My suggestion: charge would-be "investors" $1 million to enter the US. This $1 is not refundable under any circumstance. It is paid when the "investor's" visa is approved. If the "investor" is convicted of a felony, he is deported. He may bring no one with him. No wife, no child, no aunt, no uncle. Unless he pays $1 million for that person.

We will get a few thousand Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes a year under this program

As to fixing the H-1B visa program, we charge employer users of the program say $25,000 per year per employee. We require the employers to inform all employees that if any is asked to train a replacement, he should inform the DOJ immediately. The DOJ investigates and if true, charges managerial employees who asked that a replacement be trained with fraud.

As to birthright citizenship: I say make it a five-year felony to have a child while in the US illegally. Make it a condition of getting a tourist visa that one not be pregnant. If the tourist visa lasts say 60 days and the woman has a child while in the US, she gets charged with fraud.

None of these suggestions requires a constitutional amendment.

Auntie Analogue > > , October 14, 2017 at 7:10 pm GMT

In the United States middle class prosperity reached its apogee in 1965 – before the disastrous (and eminently foreseeable) wage-lowering consequence of the Hart-Celler Open Immigration Act's massive admission of foreigners increased the supply of labor which began to lower middle class prosperity and to shrink and eradicate the middle class.

It was in 1965 that ordinary Americans, enjoying maximum employment because employers were forced to compete for Americans' talents and labor, wielded their peak purchasing power . Since 1970 wages have remained stagnant, and since 1965 the purchasing power of ordinary Americans has gone into steep decline.

It is long past time to halt Perpetual Mass Immigration into the United States, to end birthright citizenship, and to deport all illegal aliens – if, that is, our leaders genuinely care about and represent us ordinary Americans instead of continuing their legislative, policy, and judicial enrichment of the 1-percenter campaign donor/rentier class of transnational Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment $ellout$.

Jim Sweeney > > , October 14, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

Re the birthright citizenship argument, that is not settled law in that SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of whether a child born in the US is thereby a citizen if the parents are illegally present. Way back in 1897, SCOTUS did resolve the issue of whether a child born to alien parents who were legally present was thereby a citizen. That case is U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649. SCOTUS ruled in favor of citizenship. If that was a justiciable issue how much more so is it when the parents are illegally present?

My thinking is that the result would be the same but, at least, the question would be settled. I cannot see justices returning a toddler to Beijing or worse. They would never have invitations to cocktail parties again for the shame heaped upon them for such uncaring conduct. Today, the title of citizen is conferred simply by bureaucratic rule, not by judicial order.

JP Straley > > , October 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

Arguments Against Fourteenth Amendment Anchor Baby Interpretation
J. Paige Straley

Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:
Article 30
Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "

A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary source, the parents' citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen at birth.

[MORE]
There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies. Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly, all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.

Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)

The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.

"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." (Italics added.)

For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have " permanent domicile and residence " But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.

If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not ". . .carrying on business. . .", and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright citizenship

If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies. Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

Part three. Birth Tourism

Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife's pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called "birth tourism." WKA provides two tests for birthright citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a "birth tourism" child to be granted birthright citizenship.

Realist > > , October 14, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

@Carroll Price Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including themselves. Then let them starve to death. The Pilgrims nipped that dumb ass idea (welfare) in the bud

Alfa158 > > , October 15, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT

@Carroll Price

An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be here.
Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy?

Let alone relatively poor people (like myself) and those on fixed incomes? What un-thinking Americans want, is having their cake and eating it too. Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what? Please look up;History; United States; pre mid-twentieth century. I'm pretty sure Americans were eating chicken, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce, etc. prior to that period. I don't think their diet consisted of venison and tree bark.
But since I wasn't there, maybe I'm wrong and that is actually what they were eating.
I know some people born in the 1920′s; I'll check with them and let you know what they say.

[Jul 09, 2017] Trump Turns The Corner And Goes On The Attack. Will He Make The GOP Follow by James Kirkpatrick

Trump deflated and sold all his election promises. He is essentially a neocon now. why he will be different on immigration?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump Interrupted 6 Times in Poland With a Chant You Might Have Thought Would Only Be Heard in the USA ..."
"... Independent Journal Review, ..."
"... Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization. ..."
"... Trump's speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto ..."
"... 'Kate's Law' battle shifts to the Senate, testing Dems ..."
"... As Trump's Coach, Senator Cotton Provides Policy to Match Rhetoric ..."
"... 'These deaths were preventable': Trump urges Senate to pass 'Kate's Law,' ..."
"... Immigration bills face Senate hurdle ..."
"... San Antonio Express-News, ..."
"... Trump's 'face-lift' tweet overshadows week to push immigration, energy policies ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... How The Democrats Lost Their Way On Immigration ..."
"... What's the point of an anti-immigrant left ..."
"... Trump is winning the immigration debate ..."
"... In my opinion, even more important than to attack the hostile, mostly liberal media is for Trump to distance himself not just form the Neocon wing of the Republican party, but also to keep a healthy distance from and even attack Ayn Rand fanboys like Paul Ryan and other lackeys of the Koch Brothers ..."
"... No, Donald Trump hasn't really read "Atlas Shrugged." Sad! But he's surrounding himself with Ayn Rand superfans ..."
"... IMO, Trump's deeds rarely match the words written for him by his speechwriter(s). There's been little progress on our Southern border wall and his administration only marginally decreased refugees to 50K for 2018. I want zero or only white refugees from S. Africa – not racial, cultural and religious aliens from the third world. ..."
"... That remains to be seen as Trump has drifted towards the center on immigration since his inauguration. He kept DACA in place and hasn't uttered one negative word on the presumption of birthright citizenship or implored Congress to pass legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment only applied to descendants of blacks slaves and not every person who sneaks across the border and drops an anchor baby or two or eight. The same applies to visa holders and "maternity tourists". ..."
"... Poland and the CIA – what memories, what a work over! Lech Walesa and Solidarność. No wonder they cheer Trump, but they might as well be cheering any US President and that's the point. ..."
"... There is no real opposition to Trump. He's a walking clown, pay attention if you must. But the mainstream media includes Kirkpatrick as much as it does The Atlantic and Vox and Fox and CNN. Super national corporations delivering control over your lives. When they tell you who, what and when you should foam at mouth you'll obey – 'those damn other guys!' ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

Donald Trump received a hero's welcome in Poland on Wednesday, with a crowd of thousands chanting both his name and the name of our country [ Trump Interrupted 6 Times in Poland With a Chant You Might Have Thought Would Only Be Heard in the USA , by Jason Howerton, Independent Journal Review, July 6, 2017].

Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization. Not surprisingly, the hysterically and openly anti-white, anti-Trump Main Stream Media screamed that the president had delivered an "Alt Right manifesto". [ Trump's speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto , by Sarah Wildman, Vox, July 6, 2017]

Nothing of the sort of course: Trump merely delivered the kinds of patriotic platitudes which every other generation in history would have taken for granted. However, with many Western nations under de facto occupation by a hostile elite, such common sense comments are revolutionary. More importantly, President Trump finally seems to be going on the attack in the last week , championing the kinds of populist policies which put him in office.

The House Republicans finally seem to be taking some action on the immigration issue, recently passing both Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act . The former increases penalties on criminal aliens who attempt to reenter our country and latter cuts funding to cities which refuse to imply with federal immigration laws. Two dozen House Democrats voted for "Kate's Law" and Senate Democrats in red states, a number of whom are facing re-election in 2018, will be under pressure to support the legislation in the Senate. [ 'Kate's Law' battle shifts to the Senate, testing Dems , by Jordain Carney and Rafael Bernal, The Hill, July 3, 2017]

The increasing willingness of the President's team to seek the advice of Senator Tom Cotton, who seems to have succeeded Jeff Sessions as the greatest immigration patriot in the upper chamber, is also an encouraging sign [ As Trump's Coach, Senator Cotton Provides Policy to Match Rhetoric , by Maggie Haberman and Matt Flegenheimer, New York Times, June 8, 2017]. Most importantly, Trump himself is taking the strategic offensive, championing his success on these issues. [ 'These deaths were preventable': Trump urges Senate to pass 'Kate's Law,' Fox Insider, July 1, 2017]

Of course, the real question is what the Republican Senate Leadership will do. Everything depends on whether Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is willing to put the bills up for a vote and pressure the caucus to vote for them. [ Immigration bills face Senate hurdle , by Bill Lambrecht, San Antonio Express-News, July 5, 2017]

And here, again, it's really not even about McConnell but about Trump's own will. While Trump's fight with the MSM is amusing and important, ultimately, he needs to put pressure on the leaders of his own party. The battles with CNN and Mika Brzezinski risks distracting from the real policy accomplishments the president poised to secure in the coming weeks [ Trump's 'face-lift' tweet overshadows week to push immigration, energy policies , by Alex Pappas, Washington Examiner, June 30, 2017]. As leader of the party, he can set the priority and challenge McConnell to put his weight behind the immigration bills.

If Trump indeed has the "will" to go through with it, there are the faint outlines how to achieve the political realignment necessary for the United States of America to survive in any meaningful sense. For the first time in many years, there are real splits on the intellectual Left on immigration.

Peter Beinart recently admitted in The Atlantic, "A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today," citing the legacy of Barbara Jordan among others . While Beinart is far from a born-again immigration patriot, he admitted restrictionists have valid concerns that progressives should heed:

Liberals must take seriously Americans' yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

[ How The Democrats Lost Their Way On Immigration , July/August 2017]

Of course, Leftist Enforcer Dylan Matthews , [ Email him ] whose entire oeuvre can be summarized as a hysterical insistence on the moral necessity of white genocide , blasted Beinart on the grounds that Open Borders is what defines the West. "Beinart doesn't actually seem to care about promoting mass immigration," Matthews sneers. "And that's the one answer to this dilemma that's completely unacceptable". [ What's the point of an anti-immigrant left , Vox, July 2, 2017]

To whom? Matthews decrees:

[A]ny center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the US but for everyone it means treating people born outside the US as equals.

But of course, this renders American citizenship essentially pointless. Indeed being an "American" (which would simply mean owning a certain kind of passport) would be an active disadvantage, as you would simply exist to be tax-farmed for the benefit of an ever growing number of hostile and hapless Third Worlders .

Few Americans would sign up for this. So, as even Rich Lowry [ Email him ] now admits, Donald Trump is "winning" on immigration simply by mentioning the issue and breaking apart the Democratic coalition.

Trump probably wouldn't have won without running so directly into the teeth of the elite consensus. According to a study published by Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlantic of white working-class voters, it was anxiety about culture change and support for deporting undocumented immigrants that correlated with voting for Trump, not loss of economic or social standing. Likewise, a Democracy Fund Voter Study Group report found Hillary Clinton cratered among populist voters who had supported Barack Obama, with the issue of immigration looming large.[Links added by VDARE.com]

[ Trump is winning the immigration debate , July 5, 2017]

Realist says: July 9, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

"Trump Turns the Corner and Goes On the Attack. Will He Make the GOP Follow?"

Not much chance.

jilles dykstra says: July 9, 2017 at 7:31 am GMT

• 100 Words When Bush jr was in Vilnius he was also cheered, by 30.000 carefully selected Lithuanians.
If Warschau did the same, I do not know.
However, Poles still seem afraid of Russia, and they resist the Muslim immigration Brussels tries to force on them.
The crash of the Polish aircraft with nearly the whole Polish establishment on board on its way to Katyn still is blamed on Russia, while it was Polish stupidity, and too much liquor.
So maybe this was a spontaneous crowd.

FKA Max says: July 8, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

• 400 Words @FKA Max ... ... ..

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1927899

This paper by Dutton and van der Linden (2014) might be interesting to you:

Who are the "Clever Sillies"? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them

[...]
European Romantic nationalism could be seen as problematic from a Jewish perspective. Both thinkers may have been motivated by the good of their group.
[...]
neo-liberal "Chicago School"-style economics, also known as "Freshwater" economics, promoted by Milton Friedman
[...]
Western mind seducer and manipulator, "Objectivist" Ayn Rand
[...]
The Refutation of Libertarianism
[...]
But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1928063

In my opinion, even more important than to attack the hostile, mostly liberal media is for Trump to distance himself not just form the Neocon wing of the Republican party, but also to keep a healthy distance from and even attack Ayn Rand fanboys like Paul Ryan and other lackeys of the Koch Brothers :

Fountainhead of bad ideas: Ayn Rand's fanboys take the reins of power

No, Donald Trump hasn't really read "Atlas Shrugged." Sad! But he's surrounding himself with Ayn Rand superfans

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/14/fountainhead-of-bad-ideas-ayn-rands-fanboys-take-the-reins-of-power/

Never forget the Never Trumpers , Mr. President:

Charles Koch Snubs Trump, Prefers Hillary

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OqbHkZV1yfA?feature=oembed

annamaria says: July 9, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT

The sensation: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/07/hiding-us-lies-about-libyan-invasion/

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/06/hillary-clinton-and-libya-sending.html

"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans.

We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"

Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly controlled and restricted."

KenH says: July 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization.

IMO, Trump's deeds rarely match the words written for him by his speechwriter(s). There's been little progress on our Southern border wall and his administration only marginally decreased refugees to 50K for 2018. I want zero or only white refugees from S. Africa – not racial, cultural and religious aliens from the third world.

The increasing willingness of the President's team to seek the advice of Senator Tom Cotton, who seems to have succeeded Jeff Sessions as the greatest immigration patriot in the upper chamber,

Cotton has a proposed immigration bill that reduces legal immigration from 1.1 million to 700K. It also takes aim at some chain migration mechanisms which is a positive step, but overall immigration still overwhelmingly favors the third world. Some "immigration patriot".

Even if this miraculously passes this does nothing to arrest the pro-third world demographic trends that ensures white go from majority to plurality by 2040 and America is still on a path to become Brazil Norte.

The House Republicans have proven they will go along with a Trump immigration agenda, provided the president leads the way.

That remains to be seen as Trump has drifted towards the center on immigration since his inauguration. He kept DACA in place and hasn't uttered one negative word on the presumption of birthright citizenship or implored Congress to pass legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment only applied to descendants of blacks slaves and not every person who sneaks across the border and drops an anchor baby or two or eight. The same applies to visa holders and "maternity tourists".

Ben Banned says: July 9, 2017 at 5:51 pm GMT
• 200 Words Poland and the CIA – what memories, what a work over! Lech Walesa and Solidarność. No wonder they cheer Trump, but they might as well be cheering any US President and that's the point.

Americans are long worked over – they are led to believe in some fictional mass of opposition "that hates white people so they oppose Trump" and the standard false equivalence of a "main stream media" that isn't themselves to begin with! The so-called left are the dancing partners who play their part in this fraud – put up targets so the other team can shoot at them, that isn't left, and that isn't right.

There is no real opposition to Trump. He's a walking clown, pay attention if you must. But the mainstream media includes Kirkpatrick as much as it does The Atlantic and Vox and Fox and CNN. Super national corporations delivering control over your lives. When they tell you who, what and when you should foam at mouth you'll obey – 'those damn other guys!'

The unelected mob with their clowns on podiums doesn't concern themselves with borders, security and punishment the way their controlled minions are programmed to. These are there weapons – they'll publish every op-ed online if need be for you to cheer on the use of these weapons. Wear your weblinks like Solidarnosc buttons. You love Lockheed and you hate the others.

[Jul 04, 2017] Is [neoliberal] America Still a Nation

Neoliberalism like Bolshevism sacrifices nations on the altar of globalism.
Notable quotes:
"... You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. ..."
"... Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. ..."
"... This identification is the direct result of indoctrination from our Founding Fathers. ..."
"... The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert. ..."
"... Americans eat like pigs. US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Al-Qaida in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane. We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade. ..."
"... America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled by outside forces from within. ..."
"... Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it leads us. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, "We the people "

And who were these "people"?

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as "one united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs "

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

After the attempted massacre of Republican Congressmen at that ball field in Alexandria, Fareed Zakaria wrote: "The political polarization that is ripping this country apart" is about "identity gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (and) social class." He might have added - religion, morality, culture and history.

Zakaria seems to be tracing the disintegration of our society to that very diversity that its elites proclaim to be its greatest attribute: "If the core issues are about identity, culture and religion then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite."

Among the issues on which we Americans are at war with one another - abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, white cops, black crime, Confederate monuments, LGBT rights, affirmative action.

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind's most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Is America really "God's Country"? Or was Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, justified when, after 9/11, he denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?

With its silence, the congregation seemed to assent.

In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance many of us recited daily at the end of noon recess in the schoolyard was amended to read, "one nation, under God, indivisible."

Are we still one nation under God? At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama, a motion to put "God" back into the platform was hooted and booed by half the assembly.

With this July 4 long weekend, many writers have bewailed the animus Americans exhibit toward one another and urged new efforts to reunite us. Yet, recall again those first words of Jefferson in 1776:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them "

Are we approaching such a point? Could the Constitution, as currently interpreted, win the approval of two-thirds of our citizens and three-fourth of our states, if it were not already the supreme law of the land? How would a national referendum on the Constitution turn out, when many Americans are already seeking a new constitutional convention?

All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:

"A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.

"Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past with great men and glory is the social capital upon which the national idea rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again."

Does this sound at all like us today?

Watching our

The Alarmist > , July 4, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT

We're as much a nation as any in the Western world, and that is a sorry statement on the shape of the world today.

Bill Jones > , July 4, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

"God bless America"

Why?

What country is causing more slaughter around the world?

The Anti-Gnostic > , Website July 4, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Isn't the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?

Corvinus > , July 4, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

Part 1

"In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, "We the people " And who were these "people"? In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as "one united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs " ** If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people? **

** YES

It would appear that Mr. Buchanan is making an argument our Founding Fathers established a British enthnostate, but IF (and I say IF) he is taking this position, similar to Vox Day, then he is totally wrong. Preserving rights "for one's posterity" was legal repudiation of feudalism, which stated liberties were a grant from a monarch and the State, and reverted upon his/her death. That is, fundamental freedoms were NOT passed to future generations. The Declaration and the Federalist Papers in particular destroys that feudalist notion. More importantly, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, as a component of our Constitution and reflects original intent, granted Congress and NOT the States the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization. By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and the liberties related to it, to an "outsider".

So, the drafters of our Constitution and the adopting state s fully comprehended the new Congress would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized. Citizenship therefore is NOT exclusively confined to the British. This means this argument that the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document. Since immigration was allowed to the United States, at first to Europeans but later extended to non-Europeans, the "posterity" includes more than the actual descendants of residents of our great nation at that time.

But, but, but "[the Constitution] did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously." Well, a contract, which essentially is what is our Constitution, that has an amendment process is NOT meant to remain constant. It has no original purpose but to establish exactly what the Preamble states. Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity is synonymous with "legacy"–what we leave behind. Indeed, few, if any, had imagined when the Constitution was created that anyone BUT a white European had the intellectual capacity to embrace Republican principles of government YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific. Of course, that does NOT mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, and it is legitimate, although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles. Of course, in the past foreigners have ben excluded on racial and religious grounds.

Corvinus > , July 4, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT

Part 2

Interestingly enough, Vox Day makes these arguments

"As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

"Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant.

"The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing."

So, everyone on this fine blog, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

Happy 4th Of July!

Tom Kratman, a science fiction writer, took Vox Day to task on this matter.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/04/17/politics/civic-nationalism-ourselves-and-our-posterity/#1

"All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation?"

Aelius Aristides, a Greek who received Roman citizenship in 123 A.D. stated

You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction between Europe and Asia No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common "world democracy" under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it were, their own people Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance, which would fall upon the more powerful without delay should they dare to break the law. Thus, the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single, harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind "

Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. They know who they are and where they come from, and create groups who share their self-identities. Furthermore, the default for American is American and not a particular race, regardless of one's willingness to admit it this decided fact. When you call yourself a black American or a Chinese American, you are still an American, as in residing in the nation referred as the United States. And while Yankees and Southerners and Midwesterners are clearly different, they are not separate "tribes" or "nations", just locations with groups of people who self-identify geographically, socially, and culturally.

This identification is the direct result of indoctrination from our Founding Fathers.

Avery > , July 4, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

@Johnny Smoggins

Yeah, and someone named Khizr Khan, a Pakistani Islamist-supremacist who, as a lawyer, has written articles defending Sharia law, was _invited_ by the Clinton campaign to speak at the Democratic convention, where the Islamist proceeded to lecture Trump on the U.S. Constitution, and wagging his finger declared .."Mr. Trump, this is not your America .." (or words that effect), to a wild applause of brainwashed 1,000s in the audience.

Imagine that.

Corvinus > , July 4, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

@The Anti-Gnostic "Isn't the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?"

So are you and your family, with you being a lawyer and your wife a school teacher. Now are you ready to get rid of all of your technological gadgets and live strictly in accord with the beliefs AND lifestyle of Orthodoxy?

KenH > , July 4, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we're starting to see things slowly escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.

... ... ...

Randal > , July 4, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind's most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Both, obviously.

Randal > , July 4, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert.

Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force, and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks. Any diversity is a fault line, along which a society can crack under pressure, even if that pressure is merely the kind of opportunist identity lobby charlatans who have done so much harm in modern American and European societies.

But common sense has little chance in the face of ideology.

VIDALUS > , July 4, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT

Pat like most Amurikans in the Fourth Reich have forgotten what ideals animated the American and French revolutions: liberty from tyrannical big guvmints, liberty to strike out on one's own to build a business and a homestead, and a declaration of universal human rights (life liberty pursuit of happiness privacy) all of which the current and past empires have trampled upon in the name of greed for money and power the glue that defines America is precisely the willingness to risk life and property for these ideals if we studied our two greatest wars 1770-87 and 1859-1965 (civil rights and states rights) we might educate ourselves to the light and dark in our culture

Priss Factor > , Website July 4, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

he(Wright) denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?

Happy Fourth. And God bless the USA.

ROTFL. Is Buchanan still in defensive mode about America?

Why would God bless the current America? Just think about it.

This is a degenerate nation whose new faith is homomania. People have tattoos and piercings for identity. Even in elite colleges. Mainstream culture has been pornified. Just turn on the TV. Some primetime shows are downright lurid.

We have white families falling apart too and opoid addiction going thru the roof. Gambling is of the main industries and GOP's main sugar daddy is cretin Sheldon Adelson. Fathers raise their boys to be pansies and their girls to be skanky sluts.

Catholic church is home of pederasty and homo agenda. Women's idea of protest is wearing 'pussy hats' and spewing vulgar filth from their lips.

Media are 100x nuttier than Joe McCarthy in their hysteria and paranoia. These are the very Libs who'd once made McCarthy the most sinister person in US history.
Blacks routinely beat up & wussify white boys and colonize white wombs, but white 'Muricans worship black thugs in sports and rappers.
Blacks do most violence but we are supposed to believe BLM.

Americans eat like pigs. US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Al-Qaida in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane. We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade.
And 'pride' is now synonymous with homo fecal penetration.

Why would God bless this kind of degenerate nation?

Bill Jones > , July 4, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT

@KenH And on the third hand you have the whack-job "Christian" Zionist Israel first traitors.

Randal > , July 4, 2017 at 10:24 pm GMT

@Bill Jones

Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

Not enough of them vociferously enough to make the ruling elites pay attention, clearly.

Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

As I noted, ideology trumps common sense, for those who make policy and for those who wish to be seen as good guys by their supposed betters and peers.

truthtellerAryan > , July 4, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled by outside forces from within. It is pimped to the max!!! Our cuckold "experts and politicians " imaginations run wild whenever the pimps (from outside) and their representatives (within) give the orders to further push this land into an increasingly decadent society .. look how happy we are when we kill defenseless people, clearing their (pimps) garbage, work hard to collect wealth for them, it is soooo sad just thinking about it. Carrying the pimp's flag is considered one of the most patriotic thing to do, ask Tom Cotton, Bolton, Rumsfeld .

Issac > , July 4, 2017 at 11:01 pm GMT

@Bill Jones Israel?

Talha > , July 4, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

@Corvinus Well thought out and stated.

Peace.

MEexpert > , July 5, 2017 at 12:04 am GMT

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it leads us.

First, unless the original white immigrants to this country had wiped out every non-white resident (the American Indians) of this country, there would still be non-white people living in America.

However, leaving that little detail aside, let us examine who caused the decline of America. The laws of the land are enacted by the congress of the United States. The US congress has the sole power of imposing taxation, allowing immigration, and the conduct of wars. Up until recently the congress of the United States consisted of mostly white citizens. Out of the 45 presidents that the country has seen, all but one have been white Americans. The one black president was more white than black. Just check with black citizens and they will tell you that they were better off before him.

The British taxes, without representation, that the colonist rebelled against were much lower than what they are now. These taxes have been imposed by the white congressmen and signed by white presidents.

The immigration laws and quotas were passed by the white congress and signed by white presidents.

The wars, both declared and undeclared, have been waged by the white presidents.
While I sympathize with Mr Buchanan lamenting upon the good old days, no one but his own white folks have destroyed those good old days. America took pride in been called the nation of immigrants but only when the going was good. As long as, the immigrant scientist, engineers, and architects made this country great they were welcome but as soon as things got rough America blamed the immigrants.

Mr. Buchanan, don't blame all immigrants. Most of them are still productive and faithful to their adopted country. If you want to blame someone, follow the money, since money is the root of all evil. I don't have to tell you who controls the money. You should know very well who. I have followed your career for a long time. I even voted for you in 1992 presidential primary. You were very outspoken then but your wings have been clipped. There is no zing left in your writing. You have toned down criticism of the very group of people that have destroyed this country.

Corvinus > , July 5, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

@Bill Jones Bill Jones

"Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture."

Which America has. "Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society." According to Vox Day, only the English immigrants were able to understand the Rights Of Englishmen. Non-English immigrants perverted its meaning. Are you non-English? If yes, you have to go back.

Jacques Sheete "We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud."

Thank you for your virtue signaling. "Can a cesspool be a nation? If so, who would want it?" Except America is not a cesspool, nor resembles anything like it.

The Jester

"In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal choice defines one's culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes populating the Third and Fourth Worlds."

The scope of Cultural Marxism is Fake News.

Randal

"Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force "

Except America does not fit that description.

"and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks."

America's people are bound by a common set of values.

[May 08, 2017] Acuckalypse Now! The Budget Betrayal And Trump Derangement Syndrome - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is another vassal/tool of the power elite. as all Presidents have been for decades. Some unhappily, but all completely. ..."
"... Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators. ..."
"... He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. ..."
"... "EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh, give me a break -- ..."
"... Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't get his wall. Period. For the rest of the agenda other than the wall – I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because his agenda is supported by a majority. ..."
"... The other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they care for Trump's agenda. ..."
"... Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and needs to be reigned in. ..."
"... Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected. ..."
May 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Realist , May 7, 2017 at 8:05 am GMT

Trump is another vassal/tool of the power elite. as all Presidents have been for decades. Some unhappily, but all completely.

Felix Krull , May 7, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT

And, I'll say this for President Trump: He's still hated by all the right people. Boy, how they hate him!

That is the smoke-screen that allows him to cuck so hard. They can't very well congratulate him without the Trumpentroopers getting suspicious.

Bragadocious , May 7, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT

Still hoping for the best from this President. But it's apparent he isn't fighting the Democrats, he's fighting the DC Uniparty. I wish him luck.

Sean , May 7, 2017 at 8:11 pm GMT

The Trumpocalypse is already building a wall in the minds of the prospective immigrant.

Amid immigration setbacks, one Trump strategy seems to be working: Fear Most notably, Trump signed an executive order during his first week in office that, among other things, vastly expanded the pool of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants who are deemed priorities for deportation. [...] The most vivid evidence that Trump's tactics have had an effect has come at the southern border with Mexico, where the number of apprehensions made by Customs and Border Patrol agents plummeted from more than 40,000 per month at the end of 2016 to just 12,193 in March, according to federal data.

jilles dykstra , May 8, 2017 at 6:20 am GMT

Had a similar story, mutatis mutandis, been written by somone French in France about French immigration, he or she would have been labeled extreme right, or even fascist.

unit472 , May 8, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT

Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

animalogic , May 8, 2017 at 9:15 am GMT

"EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh, give me a break --
H2B is a clear example that those researchers from Stanford (?) where right: that the views/interests etc of 80-90% of Americans has exactly ZERO influence over government/s policy.

humpfuster , May 8, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT

how do you people of the list handle the information in these links..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-06/thank-god-people-are-back-power-kushner-family-pitches-invest-500k-immigrate-america?page=2

see also the links talked about there ..

reiner Tor , Website May 8, 2017 at 9:35 am GMT

@Randal

Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet process.
Zogby , May 8, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't get his wall. Period. For the rest of the agenda other than the wall – I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because his agenda is supported by a majority. The 40% approval rating Trump enjoys – that's how many support his agenda. It's not a majority.

The other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they care for Trump's agenda.

Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and needs to be reigned in. His agenda is not particulary popular among people that voted against Hillary, not for Trump. Support for it is soft, and as Trump continues a divisive agenda push that creates too much opposition – soft support withers away.

sedgwick , May 8, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT

he is going to be the same in office as all previous Republican administrations . Worse: Hard to see how the following story can be interpreted as anything up Trump-Kushner selling visas for personal enrichment. This is FILLING the swamp with corrupt Chinese .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/china-pitch-by-kushner-sister-renews-controversy-over-visa-program-for-wealthy/2017/05/07/59d18360-3357-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.72006b5909d6

Mr. Derbyshire is a very smart guy and is worried about Trump. But I worry Mr. Derbyshire is not worried enough.

KenH , May 8, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

There's been all kinds of cucking from Trump. I knew it would happen eventually, but never dreamed it would happen within the first 100 days.

His latest cuck is leaving DACA in place and agreeing to accept the 1250 Muslim refugees who Australia did not want after blustering that Obama made a "stupid deal" and we would not take them. You can't take anything Trump says to the bank as it could change tomorrow or next week and he acts like it's nothing.

fnn , May 8, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

Pretty good video on how the West failed and "we're all doomed."

bluedog , May 8, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

Agent76 , May 8, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

Apr 3, 2017 President Trump Could Drain the Swamp in 2 Seconds

Demand that President Trump sign the American Anti-Corruption Executive Order.

Clark Westwood , May 8, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words - one for cowards and one for fakes.)

Carol , May 8, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT

Where I live, in Montana, young white guys still work construction and landscaping jobs. It's an amazing oasis, really.

What scares me is that immigration decisions are being made by people who just can't imagine themselves or their family ever working these kinds of jobs or anything close. They're out of touch. They have no right to capitulate like this.

utu , May 8, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

Intelligent Dasein , Website May 8, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

utu , May 8, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT

@Randal

Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet process.
Bill , May 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

Joe Hide , May 8, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.

republic , May 8, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-hardens-immigration-rules-3-lakh-indian-americans-to-be-affected/story-L1YaYVWOo1ZvWJG97oNmHJ.html

This big Indian newspaper quote a US think tank that there are about 500,000 Indian Nationals
living illegally in the US

Delinquent Snail , May 8, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT

@ThreeCranes A former psychology professor of mine who also worked as a counselor at a crisis center told our class that he could tell the real suiciders from the wannabes by whether, after the "bang" of the supposed gunshot to the head, he could actually hear the phone dropping onto the floor. If he didn't, then presumably the caller was clinging to some hope, which it was his job to nurture.

JT smith , May 8, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT

Mr. Derbyshire, like you I chuckle whenever Pres. Trump's makes the PC crowd clamor for a safe space. But if you are concerned with the vilification and death of traditional America then snark doesn't cut it. If you voted for Trump, then sorry, the joke' on you, bloke.

We probably both miss the Scranton PA or Binghamton NY of 1955, but Trump or any pol is powerless to bring them back. The best we rubes stuck in the heartland can hope for is that the transfer payments from the costal elites keep coming, and that the dollar remains a reserve currency so that the government can borrow to support us. As I see it, Trumps policies , gutting healthcare, tax cuts for the investor class, will hurt us "badwhites". That is a bad bargain for seing Rosie ODonnell cry, no matter how sweet.

Delinquent Snail , May 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT

@Clark Westwood Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words -- one for cowards and one for fakes.)

Tipsy , May 8, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT

Chuck Schumer = Cuck Sooner?

Authenticjazzman , May 8, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

" How were these reptiles able to get their way on a major issue in the Trump electoral agenda"

Very simple : Because they, the Democrats, own and wield the "Racism" bludgeon, and there is nothing which terrifies a meek, mild-mannered "Fair" Republican politico more than being labeled as a :

RACIST

( not forgetting : " Enemy of women" , Homophobe, etc)

period.

And until these cowards learn to do their duty and persue that which they were elected for, and ignore the tauntings of racism, and until they begin to just throw it back, the racist label, at the crazy democrats, they will be in the losers seat, period.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

Authenticjazzman , May 8, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMT

@Intelligent Dasein

Straw man, much?

Nobody here thinks that, you sanctimonious jerk-store. Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected.

truthtellerAryan , May 8, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT

Worry not! The vice grip has been tightened , and now it's welded. You think a con man from New York will betray his cabal buddies for a down on his luck, beer chugging, and his world possession of a lifted 4×4, when he has resorts to build and secure his little Zionist grand children that one day will inherit the earth .Keep dreaming!

Bill , May 8, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT

@Joe Hide Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.

bluedog , May 8, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

@Wally The alternative was HILLARY.

In First 2 Months in Office – Trump Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion – Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December, 2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush served as president.

Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/

Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/

20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/

Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed

Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html

2010 Dems lost the House

The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

Fake Law

Art , May 8, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT

Congress is the problem – not the president. Congress is dysfunctional. Getting reelected is everything to those people. First and foremost, congress people represent themselves – not their voters. Taking campaign money from lobbyists to stop challengers in jerrymandered districts and blue or red states, is paramount.

The last time congress really accomplished something was in the Clinton administration. Newt Gingrich did good things (balancing the budget and changed welfare). Other than open ended war, Bush congresses did nothing. Obama's congress got a disastrously bad healthcare bill passed and nothing else.

For sixteen years, the Bush and Obama congresses just spent more and more money driving up the debt.

Trump is going to show his colors, when in a couple of months – a new long-term spending bill is coming up for a monumental vote.

Will Trump veto the trillion-dollar deficit that congress will send to him or not?

Realist , May 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT

@Wally The alternative was HILLARY.

In First 2 Months in Office – Trump Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion – Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December, 2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush served as president.

Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/

Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/

20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/

Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed

Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html

2010 Dems lost the House

The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

Fake Law

[Apr 25, 2017] Why The H-1B Visa Racket Should Be Abolished, Not Reformed - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... laissez faire ..."
"... There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited. ..."
Apr 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
Billionaire businessman Marc Cuban insists that the H-1B visa racket is a feature of the vaunted American free market. This is nonsense on stilts. It can't go unchallenged.

Another billionaire, our president, has ordered that the H-1B program be reformed. This, too, is disappointing. You'll see why.

First, let's correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets are intertwined. Trade, including trade in labor, is not free; it's regulated to the hilt. If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an example of a fascistic government-business cartel in operation.

The H-1B permit, in particular, is part of that state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B hogs-Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel-import labor with what are grants of government privilege. Duly, the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do they get to replace the American worker, but they get to do so at his expense.

Here's how:

Globally, a series of sordid liaisons ensures that American workers are left high and dry. Through the programs of the International Trade Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, and other oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker is forced to subsidize and underwrite the investment risks of the very corporations that have given him the boot.

Domestically, the fascistic partnership with the State amounts to a subsidy to business at the expense of the taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic welfare state externalize their employment costs onto the taxpayers.

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belongs to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit-at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez faire ?

Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant-the meal ticket-will pay his way. The honor system not being an especially strong value in the Third World, the rest of the clan will be America's problem. More often than not, chain-migration entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.

Spreading like gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic population growth is detrimental to all ecosystems: natural, social and political.

Take Seattle and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015 and 2016, the area was inundated with "86,320 new residents, marking it the region's biggest population gains this century. Fueled in large part by the technology industry, an average of 236 people is moving to the Seattle area each day," reported Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our local fish-wrapper-in my case, parrot-cage liner-have discharged their journalistic duties by inviting readers to "share" their traffic-jam stories.)

Never as dumb as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Marc Cuban are certainly as detached.

Barricaded in their obscenely lavish compounds-from the comfort of their monster mansions-these social engineers don't experience the "environmental impacts of rapid urban expansion"; the destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland; the decrease in the quality of the water we drink and air we breathe, the increase in traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution, the cellblock-like housing erected to accommodate their imported I.T. workers and extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped up waste management and associated seepages.

For locals, this lamentable state means an inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices have been artificially inflated. Young couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more. (And our "stupid leaders," to quote the president before he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are so low!)

In a true free market, absent the protectionist state, corporate employers would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity brought about by a multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves into residential areas almost overnight as has happened in Seattle and its surrounds.

Alas, since the high-tech traitors can externalize their employment costs on to the community; because corporations are subsidized at every turn by their victims-they need not bring in the best.

Cuban thinks they do. High tech needs to be able to "search the world for the best applicants," he burbled to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yet more crap.

Why doesn't the president know that the H-1B visa category is not a special visa for highly skilled individuals, but goes mostly to average workers? "Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices," by the Economist's accounting.

Overall, the work done by the H1-B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning or higher-order thinking. "Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work," attest the experts who've been studying this intake for years. The master's degree is the exception within the H1-B visa category.

More significant: THERE IS a visa category that is reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know, because the principal sponsor in our family received this visa. I first wrote about the visa that doesn't displace ordinary Americans in 2008 :

It's the O-1 visa.

"Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics," states the Department of Homeland Security, "means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."

Most significant: There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.

My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. In reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

There is no limit to the number of geniuses American companies can import.

Theoretically, the H-1B program could be completely abolished and all needed Einsteins imported through the O-1 program. (Why, even future first ladies would stand a chance under the business category of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating supermodel could certainly qualify.)

Now you understand my disappointment. In his April 18 Executive Order, President Trump promised to merely reform a program that needs abolishing. That is if "Hire American" means anything to anybody anymore.

ILANA Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter & Facebook

[Apr 09, 2017] Much of the focus on immigration as a mechanism for low wage growth is a red-herring that seeks to turn attention away from the undermining of labor, civil, and voting rights.

Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
yuan, April 08, 2017 at 10:40 AM
IMO, much of the focus on "immigration" as a mechanism for low wage growth is a red-herring that seeks to turn attention away from the undermining of labor, civil, and voting rights.

"First, not all migrants are competing against native workers. Some are complements, and so help to raise wages."

"Of course, it is the case that real wages have been under pressure in recent years. But why blame immigrants for this? There are many other culprits: weaker trades unions; fiscal austerity; financialization (pdf); the financial crisis; power-biased technical change; and all the things that have depressed productivity."

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/04/immigration-mechanisms.html

pgl -> yuan... , April 08, 2017 at 12:29 PM
Good post - thanks. But it is always easier for the politicians to blame immigrants as opposed to adopting better policies.

[Mar 20, 2017] Trump Administration To Reopen H1B Visa Program

Mar 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Anachronism -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... March 20, 2017 at 09:59 AM , 2017 at 09:59 AM
I posted this a few days ago. Another promise Trump reneged on.

http://www.ibtimes.com/does-immigration-help-economy-trump-administration-reopen-h-1b-visa-program-2509198

Does Immigration Help The Economy? Trump Administration To Reopen H-1B Visa Program

By Lydia O'Neal @LydsONeal On 03/15/17 AT 4:30 PM

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced Wednesday that it would not draw down the number of H-1B visas doled out to foreign workers for fiscal year 2018, leaving the total cap at 85,000, and would begin accepting applications April 3.

The decision came less than two weeks after USCIS alarmed proponents of freer immigration for skilled workers when it suspended the premium processing route for H-1B visas, which allows companies to import workers quickly with just 15 waiting days and a $1,225 fee, for a period of at least six months.

The agency attributed the decision to its need to "process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years," according to a USCIS press release. USCIS also kept its expedited processing route, which is reserved for emergency situations, in place.

H-1B visas are reserved for foreign nationals with a clear relationship with the American company seeking to hire them, as well as a bachelor's degree or higher in a "specialty occupation," defined by USCIS as "in fields such as engineering, math and business, as well as many technology fields."

H-1B Visa Petitions Approved in 2014 by Level of Education

Showing petitions approved in the 2014 fiscal year by level of education. Approved petitions exceed the number of individual H-1B workers sponsored because multiple types of petitions can be filed for a single worker. The U.S. caps the number of H-1B workers that can be given a visa at 65,000 per fiscal year.

The tech industry often cites the program, which primarily benefits Indian workers and companies, as a necessary tool to compensate for labor shortages, but the existence of that shortage has long been disputed.

A recent study found that, had the program not been in place between 1994 and 2001, tech workers' salaries would've been up to 5 percent higher, while their employment would've grown by up to 11 percent. The paper, by researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of California, San Diego, also pointed out that productivity in the sector rose by as much as 2.5 percent, while consumer prices fell, ultimately benefitting information technology firms.

[Feb 01, 2017] Read Draft Text Of Trumps Executive Order Limiting Muslim Entry To The US

Notable quotes:
"... Block refugee admissions from the war-torn country of Syria indefinitely. ..."
"... Suspend refugee admissions from all countries for 120 days. After that period, the U.S. will only accept refugees from countries jointly approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the U.S. and require in-person interviews for all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa. ..."
"... Suspend the visa interview waiver program indefinitely and review whether existing reciprocity agreements are reciprocal in practice. ..."
Feb 01, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

According to the draft executive order, President Donald Trump plans to:

The draft order, which is expected to be signed later this week, details the Trump administration's plans to "collect and make publicly available within 180 days ... information regarding the number of foreign-born individuals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts." It also describes plans to collect information about "gender-based violence against women or honor killings" by foreign-born individuals in the U.S.

The language is unclear as to whether the names of these individuals, which could include American citizens, would be made public, nor does the document define "radicalized" or "terrorism-related acts," leaving open the potential to sweep vast numbers of people onto the list.

The move is reminiscent of the expansive enemies lists created by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover last century.

[Feb 01, 2017] Reply

Feb 01, 2017 | onclick="TPConnect.blogside.reply('6a00d83451b33869e201b8d25b4391970c'); return false;" href="javascript:void 0">
Wednesday, February 01, 2017 at 12:27 PM libezkova said in reply to pgl... First of all, what is called "School of management" typically is a voodoo cult that should have nothing to do with university education ;-)

"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and 'economic madness.'"

Compare with comments to

Ok To Bomb Them But Don't Ban Them

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46349.htm

== quote ==
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it.

The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous atrocities.

...And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites?

...The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice. Reply Wednesday, February 01, 2017 at 08:40 PM

[Feb 01, 2017] Ok To Bomb Them But Don't Ban Them : Information Clearing House - ICH

Feb 01, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

By Jimmy Dore Show

January 31, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls
Trump Muslim Ban Made Possible By Obama Admin & Media Won't Tell You

tictac · 1 day ago
Jimmy Dore makes some great points from time to time but this particular rant has so many flaws that it would be a real undertaking to itemize all of them.

Millions if not billions of people, including millions of USAmericans have been horrified at US terrorism wherever it occurs. We weren't OK with the US terrorizing these seven countries or any of the other countries the US has terrorized. We protested. We talked to our political representatives. We advised young men to refuse to volunteer to kill and be killed for money. We did whatever we could think of to stop the carnage. We were unsuccessful.

It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it. The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religious have committed heinous atrocities.

I could go on, but those are the main points I wanted to make.

Belisarius6 · 1 day ago
What? Fake news isn't enough for you, so now you're engaging in fake debate? You have problems with Jimmy's points then argue them. Too many for you? Then pick the top six and critique them. Otherwise stop stuffing your fingers in your ears and loudly singing patriotic songs to drown out the unpleasant truths. P.S. There were significant protests when Bush Jr. was running the show but they all died out after Obama took over the nation's reins. After that all I heard from the American left about his constant assault on the Constitution, keeping Guantanamo, the country's wars of aggression, U.S. support of the military coup in Honduras, his unconditional and unlimited subsidization of Wall Street, his unprecedented vendetta against government whistle blowers, and his impressive accumulation of 306 golf outings (at a gob smacking five hours a pop!) ... was crickets.
tictac · 13 hours ago
You read different stuff than I do. I heard a fire hose stream of Progressive/liberal criticism of Obama's policies and enormous disappointment in Obama - including from people like Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, and Amy Goodman, and especially from Glenn Greenwald, Assange and other brilliant political thinkers as well as from Veterans for Peace, Pro-Palestine humanitarians, and anti-nuclear activists. Medea Benjamin has been on the front lines for eight years attacking Obama's war mongering. Of course we need many more like her. Unless you are her, using a fake name, then why weren't you right there with her?
weevil wobbly · 1 day ago
And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites? Cynical demo pigs would love to impeach Drumpf and wage nice with Pence. We are f*^ked unless we (us "lefty ranters" and more) don't demand radical change from the Corporatist neo-fascist establishments of both parties - the party of dicks and the party of pant-suited V's. And the media/wall street/military industrial complex can't get enough of this.
Dr. Nomas Kakita · 1 day ago
Jimmy Great Information --

BEWARE -- Why is the Zionist control media, and many Zionist controlled organizations, so adamant about allowing people from war torn Muslim countries come to the US ?

The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice.

bubbles · 1 day ago
thanks, jimmy, for the truth. from the mouths of comedians......
Mahmoud El-Yousseph · 1 day ago
Trump's Muslim ban is not about terrorism or keeping America safe. Otherwise Saudia Arabia would have been on the top of list. This is about countries that stand against the US/Israel agenda. https://www.darkmoon.me/ /dona.. .
гость · 23 hours ago
This guy should take Wolf Blitzer's job and expose the truth on the national media. Blitzer can be consigned to telling risible lies on You Tube, as should most of the jokers in the so-called mainstream media.
Schlüter 87p · 20 hours ago
Well, double standards implemented since long!
"Only ISIS is Barbaric? Burning People Alive!" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/only-is...
anonymous · 16 hours ago
Good Point, But you ae biased. You never mention Zionism. The Zionists are at the center of this policy.
romanaorfred · 13 hours ago
HYPOCRISY.

People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes ' when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey headline:

NBC Today Show Warns of Possible Drone Bombing at Trump Inauguration
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-warns-po...

more evidence bogus tv news:

"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors

"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen" about a planned construction project before the council.

Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself as a local, sincere citizen.

Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did, nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...

ringo · 11 hours ago
All those demonstrating against Trump are a asset to the deep state. I can't understand why those demonstrators in the UK/EU
bashing Trump, there are more pressing reasons to demonstrate
in the UK, poverty, austerity, families relying on food banks that the supermarkets have thrown out, where are the marches against that obscenity, instead of going along with the agenda of the Clinton band wagon, those causing havoc in the US/UK/EU, would be better employed in demonstrating against those who have created all those immigrants Muslim or otherwise in the first place, ie; bush blair obama the clintons etc; time those out on the streets got their priorities right.
European_Dad 98p · 6 hours ago
why use obama's list, donald, why? you were not elected to continue his policies, i thought.
romanaorfred · 4 hours ago
HYPOCRISY.

People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes ' when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey headline:

NBC Today Show Warns of Possible Drone Bombing at Trump Inauguration
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-warns-po...

more evidence bogus tv news:

"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors

"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen" about a planned construction project before the council.

Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself as a local, sincere citizen.

Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did, nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...

[Feb 01, 2017] "They keep coming," In 1994, though, that message helped lift California's governor, the Republican Pete Wilson, to re-election. That same year, voters adopted a referendum, Proposition 187, denying state services to undocumented immigrants, including public education and health care.

Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : February 01, 2017 at 09:23 AM

, 2017 at 09:23 AM
(California dreamin'?)

Strife Over Immigrants: Can California Predict the
Nation's Future? https://nyti.ms/2jW2PTW via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Emily Badger - February 1, 2017

The political ads warned that illegal immigrants were dashing, by the millions, over the Mexican border, racing to claim taxpayer-funded public services in California.

"They keep coming," the announcer intoned over grainy aerial footage and a thrumming bassline. When viewed on YouTube today, these ads hardly seem the stuff of multicultural California as we know it.

In 1994, though, that message helped lift California's governor, the Republican Pete Wilson, to re-election. That same year, voters adopted a referendum, Proposition 187, denying state services to undocumented immigrants, including public education and health care.

California is often held up as a harbinger of the demographics - and, Democrats hope, the politics - of the nation to come. Mr. Wilson's bet against immigration is thought to have hurt Republicans in the long run in the state. But in the dawn of the Trump era, the state is also a cautionary tale of what happens during the tumultuous years when that change is occurring rapidly.

Donald J. Trump has taken office in a nation that is not only growing more diverse, but also growing more diverse everywhere, because of both foreign immigration and shifting internal migration patterns that are touching the last bastions of nearly all-white America.

After an election in which Mr. Trump appealed to unease about the nation's changing identity - and a month when he alarmed civil rights leaders and immigration advocates - his presidency poses a very different question from his predecessor's.

Not: Are we post-racial? But: How will we handle the racial change that is only going to accelerate?

Sociological studies suggest that increasing contact between groups can yield familiarity and tolerance. But it can also unnerve, especially in communities where that rapid change is most visible - and when politicians stand to gain by exploiting it. California lashed out at diversity before embracing it.

"There's a very rich history of xenophobia, of racism, of trying to wipe each other out," said Connie Rice, a longtime civil rights lawyer in California. "It's not like we were all of a sudden born the Golden State." ...

Related?

More Californians dreaming of a country without
Trump: poll http://reut.rs/2j6s8iG
Reuters - Sharon Bernstein - January 24

The election of Republican businessman Donald Trump as president of the United States has some Californians dreaming - of their own country.

One in every three California residents supports the most populous U.S. state's peaceful withdrawal from the union, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, many of them Democrats strongly opposed to Trump's ascension to the country's highest office.

The 32 percent support rate is sharply higher than the last time the poll asked Californians about secession, in 2014, when one-in-five or 20 percent favored it around the time Scotland held its independence referendum and voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

California also far surpasses the national average favoring secession, which stood at 22 percent, down from 24 percent in 2014.

The poll surveyed 500 Californians among more than 14,000 adults nationwide from Dec. 6 to Jan. 19 and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of one percentage point nationally and five percentage points in California.

The idea of secession is largely a settled matter in the United States, though the impulse to break away carries on in some corners of the country, most notably in Texas.

While interest has remained about the same nationwide, it has found more favor in California and the concept has even earned a catchy name - "Calexit."

"I don't think it's likely to happen, but if things get really bad it could be an option," said Stephen Miller, 70, a retired transportation planner who lives in Sacramento and told pollsters he "tended to support" secession. ...

'Calexit' would be a disaster for progressive values http://fw.to/ks9LHNS
LA Times - January 27

Imagine if President Trump announced that he wanted to oust California from the United States. If it weren't for us, after all, Trump would have won the popular vote he so lusts after by 1.4 million. Blue America would lose its biggest source of electoral votes in all future elections. The Senate would have two fewer Democrats. The House of Representatives would lose 38 Democrats and just 14 Republicans. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, among the most liberal in the nation, would be changed irrevocably. And the U.S. as a whole would suddenly be a lot less ethnically diverse than it is today.

For those reasons, Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Republicans with White House ambitions, opponents of legalizing marijuana, advocates of criminalizing abortion and various white nationalist groups might all conclude –– for different reasons –– that they would benefit politically from a separation, even as liberals and progressives across America would correctly see it as a catastrophe.

So it makes sense that the leader of the Yes California Independence Campaign, Marcus Ruiz Evans, was - contrary to popular assumptions - a registered Republican when he formed the separatist group two years ago, according to the San Jose Mercury News. He briefly hosted conservative talk radio shows in Fresno, and would not tell the newspaper if he voted for Trump. ...

[Feb 01, 2017] The US national mythology glosses over the history of how unwelcoming our country has mostly been to new immigrants.

Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
pgl : February 01, 2017 at 02:01 AM , 2017 at 02:01 AM
I'm not a Budweiser fan as I only drink real beer but this Super Bowl commercial is nice as it slams that Trump Muslim ban in its own unique way:

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/31/budweiser-just-trolled-trump-amazing-super-bowl-ad/

Chris Lowery -> pgl... , February 01, 2017 at 09:58 AM
Point well made! Regarding the argument that today's immigrants aren't as willing as past immigrants to assimilate, I recently read that 80% of 19th Century German immigrants returned to Germany, and 30% of Italian immigrants did the same.

Our national mythology glosses over the history of how unwelcoming our country has mostly been to new immigrants. The idea that America has always been a land that welcomed immigrants and provided them immediate opportunity is very comfortable, but it contradicts a much harsher history. It's a real shame that so many of our fellow countrymen are willfully ignorant of their own ancestors' struggles, and are willing to inflict the same harshness on our newest arrivals.

On the other hand, the news coverage of this past weekend's protests over the Trump immigration Executive Order included a picture of a man carrying a sign saying, "Mexican-Americans Welcome Muslim Refugees!" I can't thing of anything that expresses the ideals of real Americanism better than that!

Peter K. -> pgl... , February 01, 2017 at 10:32 AM
Isn't Budweiser owned by a Belgian company?

[Feb 01, 2017] Full Executive Order Text Trump's Action Limiting Refugees Into the US

Feb 01, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States." Following is the language of that order, as supplied by the White House.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq ., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose . The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern . (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs . (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017 . (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest - including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship - and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility . The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security . (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity . The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection . (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[Feb 01, 2017] Are the neoliberals all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US

Notable quotes:
"... I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering. ..."
"... silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc....... ..."
"... Before the Nazi had the power to go after the Jews they had effect the party's police state, before which ordinary Germans [and whatever police there were after the depression shuttered everything] permitted the party to do organized violence on their opponents: the social democrats, socialists, bolshevists, et al. ..."
"... The ban on returning residents is utterly against the law. ..."
Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

pgl : , January 29, 2017 at 01:45 AM
Bill McBride on Trump's Muslim ban:

'Mr. Trump's executive order is un-American, not Christian, and hopefully unconstitutional. This is a shameful act and no good person can remain silent.'

Thanks for saying this Bill. JFK International had a demonstration against this ban that featured the detention of a brave Iraqi who helped US troops. This ban is also incredibly stupid.

Jerry Brown -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 02:10 AM
I add my thanks to yours. Very important post from Bill McBride.
pgl -> Jerry Brown... , January 29, 2017 at 03:04 AM
A temporary victory from the courts:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316714-federal-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

New Deal democrat -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:24 AM
Agreed in full.

I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering.

But on a longer term scale, heartlessness towards Muslim immigrants and DREAMers is going to turn persuadables against Trump. That and the next recession.

EMichael -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 05:29 AM
We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in every single election they have voted in.

Amazes me that even now people keep thinking that Trump voters are anything but loyal GOP voters. And I think the best argument against this (besides common sense) is the reaction of Rep leaders to this obviously illegal action.

They're silent.

They cannot afford to speak out against this racist policy, as their own voters are for this racist policy.

ilsm -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 05:45 AM
silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc.......

Are the libruls all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?

New Deal democrat -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:11 AM
There were a fair amount of voters who "came home" to the GOP before the election, even though they found Trump himself distasteful. At least some of those nouveau-Reagan democrats also voted for him because of his economic agenda. They believed that his racism was all for show.
New Deal democrat -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:57 AM
A further historical analogy ....

Once upon a time, for academic reasons I read the same book that Trump was rumored to have by his bedside in NYC: the english translation of the full text of Adolf Hitler's speeches. Hitler's argument for getting ordinary Germans to go along with his extreme anti-Semitic agenda was masterful. It went in essence like this: "I know that there are a very few good Jews, and you may know a few of them. But the vast majority of Jews, who you don't know, are evil. But in order to get to the mass of bad apples, we might have to inflict some hardship on a few good people." By getting people to overlook their own experience with Jews they knew, he prevailed.

In contrast - for example - gay rights triumphed when enough people knew gays in their ordinary lives, and realized that they were no different from anybody else. So they were unable to see any valid reason to discriminate against them.

This ban is much more like the second situation than the first. It is inflicting a lot of pain on a lot of good people, in order to get to (allegedly) a few bad apples, and people can see that. It is not going to be popular.

anon -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 08:24 AM
" for academic reasons I read the same book that Trump was rumored to have by his bedside in NYC"

unsubstantiated nonsense. other wise known as fake news

New Deal democrat -> anon... , January 29, 2017 at 08:36 AM
Unsubstantiated = It may or may not be nonsense, since we don't know if it is true or not. Hence, as I said, "rumor."

Have a nice day.

ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 01:24 PM
Before the Nazi had the power to go after the Jews they had effect the party's police state, before which ordinary Germans [and whatever police there were after the depression shuttered everything] permitted the party to do organized violence on their opponents: the social democrats, socialists, bolshevists, et al.

It was way too late when the pogrom started.

Peter K. -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 08:05 AM

"We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in every single election they have voted in."

Reminds me of the obstinate, closed-mindedness which Trump voters direct at immigrants and Muslims.

BenIsNotYoda -> Peter K.... , January 29, 2017 at 08:26 AM
The ban on returning residents is utterly against the law.

However, I agree on PeterK. The closed mindedness of neoliberals to their own follies has brought this state of affairs upon us. Wake up.

Peter K. -> BenIsNotYoda... , January 29, 2017 at 08:34 AM
Neoliberals have not delivered a growing, healthy economy despite Krugman's claims that everything is great, crime is down, etc.

Obama's record for 8 years is an average of 1.7 percent growth. NGDP is even worse which is why I support an NGDP target for the Fed. It would show how poorly they have done.

This after decades of corporate trade deals and a shrinking middle class.

People are angry. They want scapegoats. Trump provided them with scapegoats and the uneducated white working class took the bait.

Gibbon1 -> Peter K.... , January 29, 2017 at 11:48 AM
Peter K shows an understanding of politics.
ilsm -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:33 AM
I agree!

but..... there are a lot more for all parties in starting with funding and training jihadis to do Assad like US did Qaddafi and Libya......

Bill pastes:

"Republicans in Congress who remain quiet or tacitly supportive of the ban should recognize that history will remember them as cowards."

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/01/these-are-not-normal-times.html#cGvlOOcKIMa08xzJ.99

Most of the 95% rest of the world see the US like the NYT says history see GOP congress.

point -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:36 AM
I appreciate Bill's judgement that Trump's acts are odious, but "un-American, not Christian, and hopefully unconstitutional" seems to be going too far.

It only takes a quick tour of historical US acts on immigration to find plenty of precedent.

1870-1943, Chinese.
1882, lunatics.
1907, Japanese
1921, everybody.
1923, Indians.
1932, everybody, especially Mexicans.

This according to the useful article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States


New Deal democrat -> point... , January 29, 2017 at 06:04 AM
Small historical anecdote.

Mme. Chiang Kai Shek (recently deceased at age 106 on Long Island) has much to answer for before the bar of history, but she had one shining moment.

Supposedly at one point during WW2 both she and Winston Churchill were living at the White House (must have made for interesting dinner conversation). Anyway, during that time she gave a speech to Congress. In that speech she pointed out that Japanese militarist propaganda, that America's myth of liberty and equality before the law was hypocritical, had one inconvenient feature: given the Chinese and Japanese Exclusion Acts, it was true.

This speech was so shaming that Congress changed the law to allow Asian immigation - in a trickle at first, but thereafter a river.

kthomas -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 06:23 AM
Thank you for sharing.
ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 06:48 AM
Mme Chiang was Christian, spent part of youth in Georgia.

Japanese militarist propaganda used 'Asian co-prosperity' propaganda to point out imperialism..... too!

Java was Dutch, etc.

New Deal democrat -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:15 AM
Yes, and her teenage voyage to San Francisco ended with her being treated exactly like the people being detained at airports this weekend. It made a lifelong impression on her.
ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM
She married Chiang to give him a link to the west....

Aside I am no fan of Chiang and Mme C.

BenIsNotYoda -> point... , January 29, 2017 at 08:27 AM
whenever bans were by democrat presidents, people here will never criticize.
Tom aka Rusty -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:51 AM
Given at least 16 years of intentional presidential failure to fully enforce immigration laws, this seems pretty small change.

But enough to make lefty heads explode.

Have a nice day.

PS: Did the State Department intentionally avoid Christian Arabs for refugee status? Not certain.

EMichael -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 05:57 AM
Wow.

Five feet over your head.

kthomas -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:23 AM
What head? Brain by accident.
ilsm -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:49 AM
ad hom when you ate wrog the best tool.
kt too!
Observer -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 06:49 AM
Yes, its pretty unremarkable. And you are correct the that Christian Arab refugees from Syria have been accepted at 5% of the rate their population would suggest:

"But the numbers tell a different story: The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.

The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group."


Here's a quite detailed discussion of the background around the EO and its implementation ... including the 2015 law limiting visas from those countries, and the reference for the above quote. It also contrasts the headlines in much of the press. As they say, read the whole thing.

"There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks.

That they are 7 majority Muslim countries does not mean there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and more).

Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected.

Moreover, the "ban" is only for four months while procedures are reviewed, with the exception of Syria for which there is no time limit.

There is a logic to the 7 countries. Six are failed states known to have large ISIS activity, and one, Iran, is a sworn enemy of the U.S. and worldwide sponsor of terrorism.

And, the 7 countries on the list were not even so-designated by Trump. Rather, they were selected last year by the Obama administration as posing special risks for visa entry ..."

I believe they don't mention that IIRC we were bombing 5 of the 7 counties on the list last month.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/most-claims-about-trumps-visa-executive-order-are-false-or-misleading/

BenIsNotYoda -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 08:31 AM
The current system relies on referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Syria's population in 2011 was 90 percent Muslim and 10 percent Christian, CNS said. Less than 3% admitted as refugees are Christian. But not the state dept's doing.
Peter K. -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 09:48 AM
why was Obama called "Deporter in chief?"

Too bad your empathy for those in the Rust Belt doesn't extend to honest, innocent immigrants trying to make a better life for their families.

DrDick -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 07:37 AM
Yep! But we need to get used to it, because this is just the beginning.
pgl : , January 29, 2017 at 01:52 AM
I've seen some farmers of late complaining about Trump's protectionism hurting their business. Yes they are smart enough to realize that the dollar appreciation will reduce their exports. Too bad these rural Americans were not smart enough on election day not to vote Trump in as President.
kthomas -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 04:04 AM
Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is the new Smart.
ken melvin -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 04:42 AM
The man knows only what he's seen on cable TV most of which he doesn't understand. Knows nothing about: economics, trade, foreign affairs, government, law, ... He epitomizes the know nothings of the world, and, the fact that he doesn't know doesn't bother him in the least. A narcissists-grandiose type with neither regard nor interest for the probable consequences.
ken melvin -> ken melvin... , January 29, 2017 at 04:45 AM
I think it's wrong to even hope Trump turns out well. I think the country needs act to save democracy, to save itself from traveling down the road of despots and tyrants, from the likes of Trump who can be manipulated by the likes of Bannon.
ilsm -> ken melvin... , January 29, 2017 at 05:36 AM
We need a Dr. King, America's Gandhi!
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:57 AM
We have needed one ever since the last one we had was murdered.
im1dc -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 07:37 AM
'Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is the new Smart."

LOL, loved that.

It will make a great Bumper Sticker coupled with the GOP logo of its Red, White, and Blue elephant

BenIsNotYoda -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 08:33 AM
stupid is one who ignores that Obama presidency growth averaged 1.7% and failed to lift millions while wall street prospered and corporate market power increased both in goods and labor markets.
kthomas -> BenIsNotYoda... , January 29, 2017 at 09:25 AM
He's not President anymore. Now go f yourself, Vlad.


BenIsNotYoda -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 09:38 AM
awwww. did I hurt your fragile sensibility?
ilsm -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:35 AM
I will dig out that best seller about Jackson and review the chapter on Nullification in Charleston,. SC........

[Jan 30, 2017] Trump Administration Flip-Flops Green Card Holders Are Not Affected By Immigration Ban Zero Hedge

Jan 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
As The Hill reports , White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on Sunday said the president's executive order barring refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim nations does not affect green card holders.

"We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn't affect them," Priebus said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

But Priebus noted if a person is traveling back and forth to one of the seven countries included in that order, that person is likely to be "subjected temporarily with more questioning until a better program is put in place."

"We don't want people that are traveling back and forth to one of these seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between the United States and those countries," he said.

When pressed further on whether the order impacts green card holders, though, Priebus appeared to reverse himself, saying, "Well, of course it does."

"If you're traveling back and forth, you're going to be subjected to further screening, " he said.

Furthermore, Priebus also said more countries could be added to the list already included in the president's executive order.

"Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward," he said.

"But in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the 7 countries that have already been codified and identified."

As we noted yesterday, of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.

evoila -> Croesus , Jan 29, 2017 11:41 AM

maybe he didn't include saudi arabia because he is a genius. couldn't do it on the first go, but if enough people raise their voice about that exclusion, he will be like, what do you think folks, should I include SA? Ok, done!

xythras -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 11:30 AM

Giuliani Knows WHAT TO DO:

Calls for"Detention Centers" for Illegal Immigrants

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-01-29/giuliani-calls-for-detention-c...

Number 156 -> FreezeThese , Jan 29, 2017 3:05 PM

"Yeah what a disaster."

Chattanooga TN - 5 dead. San Bernardino, CA - 14 dead Orlando FL - 49 dead. Ft Lauderdale FL - 5 dead.

Havent learned anything since 9/11.

flaminratzazz -> xythras , Jan 29, 2017 11:33 AM

as far as green card holders moving forward, [the order] doesn't affect them."

yet

TahoeBilly2012 -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 11:27 AM

Why isn't Saudi in the group, weren't they the hijackers on 9/11?

BigFatUglyBubble -> TahoeBilly2012 , Jan 29, 2017 11:31 AM

Maybe the Tweeter-in-Chief could clarify in a series of misspelled sentence fragments.

Oldwood -> junction , Jan 29, 2017 11:44 AM

The seven countries listed were already defined by the Obama administration as principle threats, which is WHY Trump used them in his EO of his FIRST WEEK in office. This is part of his campaign agenda and using Obama policy was the fastest way to get it started. You can also bet that there are PLENTY of government employees who will do their best to make ANY such policy an embarrassment.

It's uphill, ALL THE WAY.

cheech_wizard -> Mammon , Jan 29, 2017 4:58 PM

Just when I thought you couldn't embarrass yourself further, you prove me wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Standard Disclaimer: How long do you think those planes will keep flying when hit with a million dollar a day fee? 10M? 100M?

Or do the words "any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." still fail to register within that pea-sized brain of yours.

Cassandra.Hermes -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 12:22 PM

Trump banned 7 countries who produced not a single terrorist attack on US soil, but Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Russian, Indian and Israeli Muslims are not in the list, such are uselessness. What about US jail system, it seems to produce more Muslims than the immigration. Even USA army produced more terrorists than the 7 countries.

Ballin D -> Cassandra.Hermes , Jan 29, 2017 2:01 PM

I came here to accuse you of being full of shit but the first few were somalia, afghanistan, pakistan. not going to dig deeper because the conclusion is obvious - we just need a full blown muslim ban.

halcyon -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 1:07 PM

This is already a PR fight.

Where the Trump admin is clumsy, inexperience and naive is in thinking that every move they will make will NOT be used as an opportunity to assassinate them politically and in PR terms.

The fight happens mainly in the media, for voters minds anyway.

Trump admin should learn this. Fast.

P.S. The decision was just fucking stupid. Non-muslim, non-refugee PhDs who've been working for US tech/aerospace/finance/medical industry were left stranded. I'm not sure that Bubba from Alabama or Joe from Flint would get those jobs, even if Trump kicked out every single foreign PhD working in the US. Also, Silicon Valley would totally tank, if that happened. It was just a stupid move. Stupid.

toady -> halcyon , Jan 29, 2017 2:00 PM

I think what you're missing here, along with many others, is that this administration DOES NOT CARE what the MSM thinks. They can fabricate all the protests and memes they want, the administration will just shrug and say "whatever".

W said he "had a mandate", then did half-steps. Obama said he "had a mandate" , then didn't do any of it (close Gitmo, close black sites, end the middle east wars (hell, he more than doubled the middle east entanglements!)), Trump isn't even bothering to say he has a mandate, he's just proceeding as if it's a given.

So go ahead and rage MSM and associated protesters, but I doubt it'll do you any good.

Blankone -> halcyon , Jan 29, 2017 3:51 PM

The only way for him to avoid that from occuring would be to turn over the office to them and not make any decision they have not given approval to.

The effectiveness of their PR using the msm and their protest events will lessen if Trump ignores them and makes moves quickly and moves on. They will have difficulty getting attention over last months news - Unless they get more destructive or violent.

ich1baN -> BigFatUglyBubble , Jan 29, 2017 12:55 PM

Sorry BigFat, I like Ron Paul as much as you do, but his Libertarian Foreign Policy viewpoint on the Islamic issue is COMPLETELY naive. They want to establish a caliphate REGARDLESS whether they are bombed or not. They are inextricably linked to following what the Koran says about murdering Christians and Jews and establishing Sharia Law to dominate and subdue unbelievers (yes even naive Libertarians).... goodness me bro, educate yourself. Watch this school in Britain that is teaching students crazy Sharia Law viewpoints and ask yourself if these people in its current form are really compatible with Western Society:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=708_1470922102

It took Charles Martel "The Hammer" to put a stop to the Islamist creed of conquering Europe after the Moors completely took over Spain and were headed north towards France and the rest of last vestiges of the West. It looks as if we need a revival of his bloodline in order to really bring about peace and security in the West.

Yog Soggoth -> BigFatUglyBubble , Jan 29, 2017 1:28 PM

Criminal factions in the USA created ISIS. The American people are trying to undo that crime and bring those responsible to justice. This ain't gonna happen in a week.

Everyman -> HelloSpencer , Jan 29, 2017 11:42 AM

No, you are wrong, VISAS and Green Cards are NOT "Forever documents" granting the holder full citizenship or voting rights. It CAN be suspended for ANY reason deemed proper under the ALREADY WRITTEN LAWS. The President can suspend ANY entry:

"8 US Code 1182 Inadmissable Aliens

Section (10) (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Additionally, theree can be action that can be taken on any airline or transporter that accepts fradulent documents for admission. The United States Law on immigration was NEVER get here stay here. WE get to choose and it is NOT for democrats or globalists or elitiets to make that call. It is .... wait for it.... wait for it...

WE THE (FUCKING) PEOPLE. WE DECIDE. Not a bunch of libtards that gave up on America.

HelloSpencer -> Everyman , Jan 29, 2017 1:44 PM

I am wrong in regards to what?

The fact that even Green Card holders are aliens (with legal permanent residence in the US) is clear. A Green Card expirs after 10 years, you can apply for another 10 years, but then either become a citizen or leave the country. I understand that.

I was referring to the 90-day ban in the executive order. The executive order appears to me - among many other things - to imply, for example, that all Green Card holders, say, from Iran that just left the US for, say, a week to go on vacation (but have otherwise lived and worked here for years) will be barred from re-entering the US for a period of 90 days until various objectives in the executive order are worked out.

From Trump's executive order, Sec. 3. (c): '... I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order'

The way I read this is that if I am a Green Card holder from Syria who has lived in the US for the past 17 years and has studied and worked here, but who went on vacation to Venice, Italy, I WILL BE (no exception) barred from re-entering the US for 90 days. While your quote of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) appears to indicate that the president can do exactly that I still think it is not clear cut from a legal perspective. We will see. If I am wrong I am wrong. I maintain that the Trump administration did not think through this executive order carefully. We can reconvene in the near future once this initial transient period is over to see where we are.

Bay of Pigs -> HelloSpencer , Jan 29, 2017 11:40 AM

You obviously don't understand the size and scope of the problems this administration is inheriting. Your agenda is clear. Bash Trump at every turn and deflect from Obama's disastrous policies.

HelloSpencer -> Bay of Pigs , Jan 29, 2017 1:50 PM

I find it interesting that you claim that my agenda is clear from just reading one of my posts. That is not enough information that would allow you make such a grand claim. Maybe you should go back and only claim things, for which you have sufficient evidence. BTW, in my original post I actually do bash the previous administration.

Got The Wrong No -> HippieHaulers , Jan 29, 2017 5:41 PM

Cater Banned Iranians and deported Students during the Hostage situation. The Left needs to get a grip.

Max Cynical , Jan 29, 2017 11:46 AM

Why the fuck not?

Obama was giving out green cards like candy.

Chart: Obama Admin. On Pace to Issue One Million Green Cards to Migrants from Majority-Muslim Countries

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/obama-admin-pace-issu...

ANOTHER OBAMA DHS SCREW UP: 20,000 GREEN CARDS HANDED OUT LIKE CANDY

In the latest instance of the Obama administration's neglect and indifference toward America's immigration problem, around 20,000 green cards have been wrongly distributed or contained false information.

The DHS report highlights that at least 19,000 green cards were issued with either incorrect information or sent in duplicate, while the USCIS also received over 200,000 complaints that cards had either been sent to the wrong address or not received at all.

Furthermore, the OIG report found that over 2,400 immigrants who had only been cleared for two-year conditional residence status were inadvertently issued cards that don't expire for 10 years.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/another-obama-dhs-...

I Write Code , Jan 29, 2017 11:32 AM

Lance Prius makes a good enough case, actually.

_SILENCER , Jan 29, 2017 11:34 AM

Well, three of the countries on the list are countries we totally shit all over: Iraq, Libya and Syria. Legit call there.

That whole bloody region should be in immigration quarrantine.

But goddamn I'd add Saudi Arabia t

Wahooo , Jan 29, 2017 11:34 AM

Amateur Hour, Starring Drumpf.

Oh, and BTW, these countries where Drumpf has businesses or business interests are exempt:

1. Saudi Arabia

2. United Arab Emirates

3, Turkey

4. Indonesia

Of course, no terrorists ever came from those nations. Oh, wait...

It's one thing to try to tighten immigration overview. Quite another to knee-jerk your way into an international political blow-up with a fucked-up bull-in-china-shop approach to strategy and tactics.

Lots more of that with this bi-polar president.

buckstopshere -> Wahooo , Jan 29, 2017 11:45 AM

1. Saudi Arabia is the centerpiece of the petrodollar. An attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on the dollar and worthy of a military response. Nixon and Kissinger laid the foundation of this monetary order and Carter made it very clear about US defending Saudi Arabia.

2. UAE is a key ally of Saudi Arabia.

3. Turkey is a key NATO member, contributing a large percentage of troops and vehicles, and also controls a key outlet for Russian warships based in Crimea.

4. Indonesia controls the Strait of Malacca, a strategic chokepoint for oil headed to East Asia.

Ilmarinen -> buckstopshere , Jan 29, 2017 12:07 PM

I would refer everyone complaining about KSA and friends not being on the list to your post.

Become self-sufficient (money/energy/manufacturing not critically dependant on others), then you can tell KSA what you really think of them. With all the winning these days, maybe it's not so far-fetched a dream...

Got The Wrong No -> Wahooo , Jan 29, 2017 5:51 PM

Obama picked the Countries ass hole. Trump said he may expand the list. Trump Haters are Funny Pukes

Xena fobe , Jan 29, 2017 11:39 AM

It's a difficult issue. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Some risk must be accepted in order to remain within the law. Obama issued these visas and we have to abide by them and that is that. We can not have witch hunts in this country. Fortunately going forward, we can refuse new visas. And what is taking President Trump so long to ban new border crossing "refugee" claims? That is actually a more pressing issue.

There , Jan 29, 2017 1:10 PM

It is not a matter of we vs. them, it's we vs. us. This Administration is proving in 7 days to be rank amateurs.

So many statements and decrees have been walked back, cancelled or corrected. No one thinks these things through or understands what is lawful or possible.

So many statements and numbers have been proven objectively wrong and changed on the fly.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, he cannot be trusted.

The Administration appointees and the Vampire Squid already control more wealth than 1/3rd of the population.

Today we learn that the National Security Council has been downsized so as not to include the Dec Def, or White House Security Adviser. A joke that only President Paranoid can love.

When will the loyalists realize we have been PUNKED by this Administration?

PleasedToMeatYou , Jan 29, 2017 1:14 PM

Good thing there's no Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor anti-Western Jihadis in Turkey, etc.

What I want to know is - regarding the drone ordering, cakewalk promising, WMD swearing terrorists who started all shit to begin with - when will they be banned permanently from sunlight and fresh air?

old_cynic , Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM

Do you really think for a moment that Google is so desperate to hire good programmers that it needs to recruit from Syria/Iraq/etc???

The Obama administration and its henchmen for years has preyed upon the generosity of businesses like those in Silicon Valley, to get them to hire from these Muslim countries. This is how a Muslim governs. Obama did this with the express intent of cirumventing any limitations on refugees, this way their status was immediately legal.

This is a Muslim invasion. They are not refugees. And Islam is an evil cult, which should not be given the title of 'religion'.

Pitchman , Jan 29, 2017 7:09 PM

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

This story is about an investigation by George Webb that takes us back to the Dulles Brothers and the birth of the CIA in 1947. It includes a cast of characters, entities, and events leading up to Snowden; including Booze Allen; the Carlie Group; the Enron scandal; Kosovo; Somalia; Argentina; East Timor; the Clinton Foundation in Haiti; Hillary's arming of ISIS, and destruction of Libya. And then there's the FALSE FLAG attack on Syria, using Sarin Gas from Libya, for which Assad was blamed.

Webb began investigating of the Clinton Foundation and has descended into a labyrinth of a Rabbit hole. Be assured the prima facie evidence against Hillary in Libya and the Foundation, including Bill, is overwhelming.

If you are interested in the depth of the Rabbit Hole and the psychopaths within, please see:

" DynCorp, Haiti & Me: Will Trump Drain the Swamp? This is How We'll Know "

https://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2017/01/dyncorp-haiti-me-will-trump-drain-swamp.html

[Jan 30, 2017] The ban on Muslim immigration is so much more useless and immoral than selling cluster bombs for the Sunni to 'do' Huthi in Yemen!

Jan 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : , January 29, 2017 at 06:55 AM
Paul Krugman ‏✔ @paulkrugman · 1 hour ago

Deep thought: The abruptness and extremism of the refugee ban make no sense in terms of policy, even racist, anti-Muslim policy 1/

Best understood, I think, as an attempt by Trump to resuscitate a narrative of personal dominance after a humiliating first week 2/

Which makes the judge's stay a big deal -- a new humiliation -- even though it only protects a relative handful of people already here 3/

Trump's response is predictable: there will be new, bigger crazy in a couple of days, just to show that he's really in charge 4/

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 06:56 AM
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/825698148152520704
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 07:07 AM
Yup!

The ban on Muslim immigration is so much more useless and immoral than selling cluster bombs for the Sunni to 'do' Huthi in Yemen!

or a hundred other immoral neocon tactics espoused by libruls at nyt and subsidiary humbug mills.

JohnH -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:30 AM
Good point. Much as I disagree with both bombing Muslims and denying refugees, it is refreshing to see a president actually try to accomplish what he believes in...after eight years of a president who just shrugged his shoulders, told us it can't be done, and that Americans should just suck it up...the jobs are never coming back!

What 'liberal's fail to understand is that Trump probably cares less about whether he succeeds in banning Muslim immigrants and is more concerned about how deplorables perceive how hard he is trying.

If Obama and Hillary had tried half as hard as Trump to accomplish things that working Americans wanted, then Trump wouldn't be president. It is tragic that Democrats were more interested in rolling over and having their bellies rubbed by wealthy and powerful interests than beating their heads against the wall for American workers.

Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:38 AM
Hmmm. Perhaps you are picking up on the irony
of US munitions sales driving immigrants to
our formerly welcoming shores.
JohnH -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 08:41 AM
Or maybe ilsm is picking up on the liberal hypocrisy of complaining when Muslims are denied entry to the US but being happy when Muslims get bombed...
Dan Kervick -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 08:54 AM
In one way, the things that Trump is doing are similar to what other newly elected presidents have done. In their first weeks they try to reward the base voters by pushing through a huge number of changes that are high on those voters' agendas. Then they turn back to more normal, professional, DC-oriented politics.

But in this case, we might not get a return to normal. Possibly the most worrisome thing he is done yet is put the lunatic cretin Bannon on the NSC, and demote the Joint Chiefs and DNI. He's creating his own little radical, ideological national security directorate of wild-eyed, amateur outsiders and Holy Warriors.

He has already started a process for reviewing the US's ISIS policies, including looking for ways to avoid international law constraints. I expect that within a relatively short time, he will launch a major, ruthless military blitz against ISIS. He will team up with Putin to do it. It will be combined with a domestic campaign of persecution and intimidation directed against various kinds of Muslims and non-Muslim political dissidents.

Peter K. -> Dan Kervick... , January 29, 2017 at 09:16 AM
Trump believes he's the head of a movement, one that overthrew the Republican establishment and faces unyielding opposition from the press.

It's the economic and cultural nationalism of Jeff Sessions and Bannon etc. He's a populist which is why he is concerned with how popular he is. It's why the size of crowds matters to him. It's why it matters whether or not he won the popular vote. It's why he tweets directly at his supporters.

He repeatedly called Iraq a disaster on the campaign trail. Many of his voters agree. I don't see him putting boots on the ground, at least not for any extended period of time or for an occupation. He's isolationist. America First. They want to withdraw from the world, from alliances.

His Defense Secretary Mattis says torture doesn't work and Trump said he'll defer to him. We'll see. Yes he'll probably do some sort of military adventure but it will be drawn up by Mattis and the generals. He'll declare victory and go home and change the subject. When all is said and done he's a real-estate developer and a con man. He'll use bombing ISIS as a distraction. I see him as more like Berlusconi. Corrupt.

Just a guess. Trump is unpredictable.

Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 29, 2017 at 09:18 AM
"They want to withdraw from the world, from alliances."

But in a way he's sees himself as part of the international populist movements in Europe like with Brexit, UKIP and Farange.

DeDude : , January 29, 2017 at 07:36 AM
How many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? So if all but one came from that country the travel ban on people from 7 countries must certainly include Saudi Arabia, right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/

No apparently not - because it could hurt Trumps personal business deals. The criteria to select countries for this cruel and completely unnecessary travel ban (leaving many students at american universities stranded in their home countries) has apparently not been designed based on actual likelihood of terrorism.

[Jan 30, 2017] The judge's ruling blocked part of the president's actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order.

Jan 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : Reply Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 06:33 AM , January 29, 2017 at 06:33 AM
Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos
and Outcry Worldwide https://nyti.ms/2jHS6tQ
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, NICHOLAS KULISH and ALAN FEUER - Jan 28

WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Brooklyn came to the aid of scores of refugees and others who were trapped at airports across the United States on Saturday after an executive order signed by President Trump, which sought to keep many foreigners from entering the country, led to chaotic scenes across the globe.

The judge's ruling blocked part of the president's actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's actions. ...

Boston judges temporarily block Trump edict on immigration
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/29/judges-put-temporary-stop-trump-immigration-order/UQiz2kEXJMDQHuiIFoguuJ/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - Maria Sacchetti - January 29, 2017

In a rare middle-of-the night decision, two federal judges in Boston temporarily halted President Trump's executive order blocking immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

At 1:51 a.m., Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein imposed a seven-day restraining order against Trump's executive order, clearing the way for lawful immigrants from the seven barred nations – Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria – to enter the US.

"It's a great victory today," said Susan Church, a lawyer who argued the case in court. "What's most important about today is this is what makes America great, the fact that we have the rule of law."

The ruling prohibits federal officials from detaining or deporting immigrants and refugees with valid visas or green cards or forcing them to undergo extra security screenings based solely on Trump's order. The judges also instructed Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines overseas that it is safe to put immigrants on US-bound flights. ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 06:42 AM
Judge Who Blocked Trump's Refugee Order Praised
for 'Firm Moral Compass' https://nyti.ms/2jDI930
NYT - CHRISTOPHER MELE - January 29, 2017

The federal judge who blocked part of President Trump's executive order on immigration on Saturday night worked for years in the Manhattan district attorney's office, where she was one of the lead prosecutors on the high-profile Tyco International fraud trial.

Colleagues remembered the judge, Ann M. Donnelly, as an astute lawyer unfazed by the spotlight. She found herself in its glare unexpectedly on Saturday night, when she heard an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the executive order barring refugees. She granted a temporary stay, ordering that refugees and others detained at airports across the United States not be sent back to their home countries.

Enforcing Mr. Trump's order by sending the travelers home could cause them "irreparable harm," Judge Donnelly ruled.

The order, just before 9 p.m., capped an intense day of protests across the country by opponents of the order, which suspended the entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely and blocked entry for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. ...

President Trump takes to Twitter urging 'extreme vetting'
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/29/president-trump-takes-twitter-urging-extreme-vetting/hnkdLMTzmCWELYbcuYBBqN/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - Sean Smyth - January 29, 2017

President Trump was handed two losses in federal courts overnight regarding the executive order on immigration he issued Friday.

On Sunday morning, Trump appeared to refer to those court rulings on Twitter.

"Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW," he wrote.

Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

Our country needs strong borders and extreme
vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over
Europe and, indeed, the world - a horrible mess!

8:08 AM - 29 Jan 2017

He also took aim again at The New York Times, a frequent foil for Trump during the presidential campaign and afterward.

Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy
the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run
it correctly or let it fold with dignity!

8:00 AM - 29 Jan 2017

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 06:50 AM
Protest Grows 'Out of Nowhere' at Kennedy Airport
After Iraqis Are Detained https://nyti.ms/2jDgKhA
NYT - ELI ROSENBERG - January 28, 2017

It began in the morning, with a small crowd chanting and holding cardboard signs outside Kennedy International Airport, upset by the news that two Iraqi refugees had been detained inside because of President Trump's executive order.

By the end of the day, the scattershot group had swelled to an enormous crowd.

They filled the sidewalks outside the terminal and packed three stories of a parking garage across the street, a mass of people driven by emotion to this far-flung corner of the city, singing, chanting and unfurling banners.

This was the most public expression of the intense reaction generated across the country by Mr. Trump's polarizing decision. While those in some areas of the country were cheered (#) by the executive order, the reaction was markedly different for many in New York. References to the Statue of Liberty and its famous inscription became a rallying cry.

Similar protests erupted at airports around the country.

Word of the protest at Kennedy first filtered out on social media from the immigrant-advocacy groups Make the Road New York and the New York Immigration Coalition. It seemed like it might stay small.

But the drama seemed to rise throughout the day. ...

#- Trump's Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger
and Muted Praise https://nyti.ms/2jBezLG
NYT - RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA - Jan 28, 2017

A group of Nobel Prize winners said it would damage American leadership in higher education and research. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and some relatives of Americans killed in terrorist attacks said it was right on target. An evangelical Christian group called it an affront to human dignity.

The reaction on Saturday to President Trump's ban on refugees entering the United States, with particular focus on certain Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, was swift, certain - and sharply divided.

The order drew sharp and widespread condemnation Saturday from Democrats, religious groups, business leaders, academics and others, who called it inhumane, discriminatory and akin to taking a "wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty." Thousands of professors, including several Nobel laureates, signed a statement calling it a "major step towards implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling promised on the campaign trail." ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 07:10 AM
'Give me your tired, your poor:' The story behind the Statue of Liberty's famous immigration poem http://ti.me/2keeIFr
Time - Katie Reilly - January 28, 2017

In the wake of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration Friday, many critics quickly took up a familiar rallying cry, lifting words from the Statue of Liberty that have for decades represented American immigration: "Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright all invoked those words - written by American author and poet Emma Lazarus in 1883 - as they condemned Trump's suspension of the country's refugee assistance program. ...

The poet James Russell Lowell said he liked the poem "much better than I like the Statue itself" because it "gives its subject a raison d'être which it wanted before," according to the New York Times.

"Emma Lazarus was the first American to make any sense of this statue," Esther Schor, who wrote a biography on Lazarus, told the Times in 2011. ...

"Wherever there is humanity, there is the theme for a great poem," she once said, according to the Jewish Women's Archives.

The poem was later published in New York World and the New York Times, just a few years before Lazarus died in 1887.

The Statue of Liberty arrived in New York in 1885 and was officially unveiled in 1886, but Lazarus' poem did not become famous until years later, when in 1901, it was rediscovered by her friend Georgina Schuyler. In 1903, the last lines of the poem were engraved on a plaque and placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, where it remains today.

The poem, in its entirety, is below:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Jan 29, 2017] Are the libruls all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?

Jan 29, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
New Deal democrat -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:24 AM
Agreed in full.

I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering.

But on a longer term scale, heartlessness towards Muslim immigrants and DREAMers is going to turn persuadables against Trump. That and the next recession.

EMichael -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 05:29 AM
We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in every single election they have voted in.

Amazes me that even now people keep thinking that Trump voters are anything but loyal GOP voters. And I think the best argument against this (besides common sense) is the reaction of Rep leaders to this obviously illegal action.

They're silent.

They cannot afford to speak out against this racist policy, as their own voters are for this racist policy.

ilsm -> EMichael... , -1
silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc.......

Are the libruls all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?

[Dec 26, 2016] China Chases Silicon Valley Talent Who Are Worried About Trump Presidency

Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
(cnbc.com) 416 Posted by msmash on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @10:20AM from the aftermath dept. China is trying to capitalize on President-elect Donald Trump's hardline immigration stance and vow to clamp down on a foreign worker visa program that has been used to recruit thousands from overseas to Silicon Valley. From a report on CNBC: Leading tech entrepreneurs, including Robin Li, the billionaire CEO of Baidu, China's largest search engine, see Trump's plans as a huge potential opportunity to lure tech talent away from the United States . The country already offers incentives of up to $1 million as signing bonuses for those deemed "outstanding" and generous subsidies for start-ups. Meanwhile, the Washington Post last month reported on comments made by Steve Bannon, who is now the president-elect's chief strategist, during a radio conversation with Trump in Nov. 2015. Bannon, the former Breitbart.com publisher, indicated that he didn't necessarily agree with the idea that foreign talent that goes to school in America should stay in America. "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ...," Bannon said, trailing off. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society."

[Dec 26, 2016] Fearing Tighter US Visa Regime, Indian IT Firms Rush To Hire

Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

(moneycontrol.com) 184 Posted by msmash on Monday November 28, 2016 @02:20PM from the meanwhile-in-India dept. From a report on Reuters: Anticipating a more protectionist US technology visa programme under a Donald Trump administration, India's $150 billion IT services sector will speed up acquisitions in the United States and recruit more heavily from college campuses there . Indian companies including Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, and Wipro have long used H1-B skilled worker visas to fly computer engineers to the US, their largest overseas market, temporarily to service clients. Staff from those three companies accounted for around 86,000 new H1-B workers in 2005-14. The US currently issues close to that number of H1-B visas each year. President-elect Trump's campaign rhetoric, and his pick for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a long-time critic of the visa programme, have many expecting a tighter regime.

[Dec 26, 2016] Will Trump Protect America's IT Workers From H-1B Visa Abuses?

Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
(cio.com.au) 400

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @11:34AM from the making-campaign-promises-great-again dept. Monday president-elect Donald Trump sent "the strongest signal yet that the H-1B visa program is going get real scrutiny once he takes office," according to CIO.

Slashdot reader OverTheGeicoE summarizes their report: President-elect Donald Trump released a video message outlining his policy plans for his first 100 days in office. At 1 minute, 56 seconds into the message, he states that he will direct the Department of Labor to investigate "all abuses of the visa programs that undercut the American worker ."

During his presidential campaign, Trump was critical of the H-1B visa program that has been widely criticized for displacing U.S. high-technology workers. "Companies are importing low-wage workers on H-1B visas to take jobs from young college-trained Americans," said Trump at an Ohio rally.

At other rallies, Trump invited former IT workers from Disney who had been forced to train their H-1B replacements to speak.
"What he didn't say was that he was going to close the door to skilled immigrants," one tech entrepreneur told CNN Money -- although Trump's selection for attorney general has called the shortage of qualified American tech workers "a hoax".

[Dec 23, 2016] The economics of open borders - Crooked Timber

Notable quotes:
"... I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc. ..."
"... If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period. ..."
"... Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs. ..."
"... The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access. ..."
"... In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability. ..."
"... It undermining social and democratic structures. ..."
"... Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy. ..."
"... What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? ..."
"... It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable. ..."
"... As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability. ..."
"... Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem. ..."
"... So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue. ..."
"... I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework. ..."
"... For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon. ..."
"... What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all. ..."
"... Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland . ..."
"... At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view. ..."
"... In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. ..."
"... It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction. ..."
"... Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering. ..."
"... Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery? ..."
"... John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism. ..."
"... By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here. ..."
"... I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way. ..."
Dec 23, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

Sebastian H 12.21.16 at 5:53 am ( )

This is definitely approaching it from the right angle–large immigration flows act like globalization. They improve overall average GDP but definitely hurt certain sectors of workers in ways that thus far in the experiment suggests that they never recover.

I wonder about the effect of big city housing costs. They act as a barrier to moving to a better job. Is this something that we should be worried about as part of the immigration issue?

ZM 12.21.16 at 6:15 am

I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc.

If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period.

Also there is already a problem with gentrification in many cities, and associated issues of people having to move further away from family and friends, and not enough affordable housing, and homelessness - open borders would increase all these problems I would think as it would take out all the regulations. And we already have problems with people from poor countries or poor areas being under pressure to migrate for work and financial reasons, and open borders would exacerbate that problem as well.

I think refugees need to be able to migrate the most urgently, but it would still be better for them that there were specific policies for refugee migration that would allow the high numbers of refugees to migrate to safety either temporarily or permanently, rather than open borders.

Most of the bloggers here are not in favour of laissez faire free trade, so I don't see why open borders are favoured when "open trade" isn't?

ZM 12.21.16 at 6:21 am ( 5 )

Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs.

Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 9:14 am

I blogged about a bunch of work, including a draft version of the same paper by Kennan, a few years ago John:

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/08/22/open-borders-wages-and-economists/

reason 12.21.16 at 9:19 am ( 7 )

I'm a bit suspicious that this sort of analysis suffers from large measurement biases.

As an environmentalist, I'm concerned that we may be increasing a statistic (GDP) that is just a measure of an extent of how much higher a proportion of consumer is now being captured in the market, and not a measure of actual welfare. I remember very well as young economist wondering when I heard a more senior economists complaining that Australians didn't want to work but just wanted to lie about on the beach. And then I thought about how northern Europeans pay large amounts of money in order to be able to lie about on the beach.

Maybe the beach occupying Australians were being rational and the economist was not being rational. Having more crowded beaches does not show as a minus on GDP as far as I know.

reason 12.21.16 at 9:20 am P.S.

GDP may also measure how rapidly our natural capital is being converted to perishable goods, but not measure how rapidly it is being eroded.

Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 9:34 am ( 9 )

On the immigration surcharge thing, I can see its attractions as a policy, but let me just comment on it from the point of view of principle, not to advocate any particular solution but to notice some things:

The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access.

(Adding in some plausible history, we might further note that the existing domestic infrastructure hasn't, in many cases, been built up simply from the unaided efforts of the ancestors of the natives but often reflects the efforts of the colonised or dominated ancestors of the would-be immigrants.)

Then notice also another asymmetry, that the proposal is to charge the incomers for the benefits they derive from the infrastructure, whilst allowing the natives to benefit for free from human capital that has been created elsewhere through educational and training programmes. That issue, the so-called brain drain problem (I'm not a fan of the term or many of the associated claims btw) forms the basis for a quite different set of proposals for taxing immigrants, the so-called Bhagwati tax. So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!

reason 12.21.16 at 9:35 am

P.P.S. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not totally against open borders in all circumstances (in fact in a fairly equal world with a stable population I would be all for it), but I see a distinct danger of very rapid immigration:
  1. In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability.
  2. It undermining social and democratic structures.

Tom Davies 12.21.16 at 9:42 am ( 11 )

"Chang, who opposes open borders" "Currently a reader in the Political Economy of Development at the University of Cambridge"

Open borders for me but not for thee?

ZM 12.21.16 at 9:45 am Chris Bertram,

"So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!"

Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy.

I would rather make improve inequality between countries, and then experiment with freer migration after that. Since I think there would be less incentive to migrate if countries were more equal, and then freer migration would be more likely to run smoother.

Tom Davies 12.21.16 at 9:46 am ( 13 )

And (didn't see comment 7) - while yes, a surcharge isn't strictly fair, it is a far lesser evil than not letting immigrants in at all.

I think it's plausible that remittances would more than make up for the investments home countries had made in 'their' immigrants.

SamChevre 12.21.16 at 11:14 am

On a surcharge–I proposed one years ago in the context of the proposed "amnesty," that I think avoids some of the problems Chris Bertram notes above.

What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? This would be a "pay your share of current costs" tax, not an additional tax.

For the US, it would be roughly $10,000 a year for the federal government (20% of per capita GDP)–and any taxes paid to the federal government (FICA and income tax) would be credits against it.

Dipper 12.21.16 at 12:16 pm ( 15 )

It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable.

As an example, it is possible to get as many workers as you want into the UK within a few days. If you have a warehouse that needs staff they can be here from anywhere in the EU, all well educated, speaking English, with accommodation and ready to work. I'm not saying its a good or a bad thing. But its a thing that has consequences.

One organisation that has resisted Open Borders is the Corbyn clique in the Labour Party. Entry into the employment opportunities within that sector of the economy appears to be only open to relatives, children of political allies, school mates and children of celebrity chums.

BenK 12.21.16 at 1:50 pm '

Not allowed to vote' is political smokescreen. If those people have for some reason not established voting in the country they currently live in, then yes, they haven't paid the price for liberty there. If they can, then they are voting – just not where they would apparently prefer to be voting.

As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability.

Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem.

William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:46 pm ( 17 )

A surcharge might be a useful approach. I will say, echoing Reason, that massive waves of immigration into a region change a lot of things, and not necessarily in ways that the natives would view as positive.

I've lived in L.A. for the past 35 years, and during that time millions of immigrants have come into this metropolitan area. Traffic problems, noticeable in L.A. when I arrived in 1981 but something that could be reasonably dealt with, got much, worse.

The public school system went from fair to actively problematic. In both cases, the problem was made much worse by lagging public investment, particularly in transportation systems.

Maybe L.A. was uniquely dysfuntional politically, but I would suspect that most regions would see degradations in public goods in times of massive in-migration. The significant investment required for massive population growth will, in all likelihood, not be made, especially in a timely way, and the sort of planning that would actually be necessary for a pleasant transition to a more populous future seems likely to be beyond the capabilities of most cities, at least the ones I've lived in.

The inevitable resulting problems will not endear the newcomers to the natives, even if those problems are solely the fault of the immigrants.

William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:48 pm

Sorry, my mistake, the last sentence should read "even if those problems are NOT solely the fault of the immigrants.

divelly 12.21.16 at 3:50 pm ( 19 )

#7
Reminds one of the old story of the Capitalist who berates the local for quitting fishing after catching enough for today's dinner so he can lay about playing guitar and drinking beer on the beach.

"You should fish from dawn to dusk 7 days a week. Sell your surplus. Buy another fishing boat. Do this for 30 years."

"What for?",asks the local.

"So you can retire and lay about, play guitar and drink beer on the beach!"

Omega Centauri 12.21.16 at 5:10 pm

I think its a very difficult sale politically. But, you already know that.

There also is the issue of potentially large scale population flows from less "productive" areas to more "productive" areas.

We have this same issue within countries, such as rust belt to coastal cities in the US, and we've seen political consequences -Trumpism become ascendant.

So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue.

Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 7:25 pm ( 21 )

@divelly it is from Adam Smith, Theory of the Moral Sentiments, part 3, ch. 3 :

"What the favourite of the king of Epirus said to his master, may be applied to men in all the ordinary situations of human life. When the King had recounted to him, in their proper order, all the conquests which he proposed to make, and had come to the last of them; And what does your Majesty propose to do then? said the Favourite.-I propose then, said the King, to enjoy myself with my friends, and endeavour to be good company over a bottle.-And what hinders your Majesty from doing so now? replied the Favourite."

Stephen 12.21.16 at 8:10 pm

Moral sentiments of less desirable people: I propose to enjoy myself by being revenged on and utterly destroying my enemies, and to be good company over the finest available bottle with those who dare not contradict me.

Not my sentiments, not CB's but

Matt 12.21.16 at 10:43 pm ( 23 )

I think we should be extra skeptical of any paper that claims that the "economics of open borders" hasn't received "much" attention. Maybe not as much as many other things, and there may be some hedging about what, exactly, fits, but the economics of migration has received _lots_ of attention. In The US, the National Academy of Science did a huge study on it in the mid 80's, and updated it again just recently.

Jagdish Bhagwati has written quite a bit on it, both popular and formal. George Borjas has written a lot on it (most of it not good, in my opinion, but a lot on it.) Lots and lots of people, including some very famous economist, have responded to Borjas. Paul Krugman has written on it. One of my mentors, Howard Chang, a lawyer-economist at Penn Law, has written a lot on it. Etc. So, already we know that there is something a bit fishy here.

Next, this sort of thing typically assumes, for its strong conclusions, that everyone will move to where he or she will get the "highest" return for his or her skills. We know this is false, because it doesn't even happen within any particular country, where there are no restrictions, no "surcharge" to pay, and fewer cultural barriers. So, the gain will certainly be much smaller than is projected.

I'd also suggest that this bit from John, Moreover, in a world where more than a billion people travel internationally each year, it's inevitable that vast numbers of people are going to have close relationships of all kinds with citizens of other countries. Restrictions on movements across borders impose costs on all those people ranging from minor to calamitous.

Would need to be _much_ more rigorous to do any work. I travel quite a bit, yet unless "close relationships" means "people I know somewhat", this isn't true for me. Is it true for "vast" numbers of people? I'm not sure. It's too flabby to do work now. And, do we have in mind visits, temporary residence, permanent residence (with or without access to full membership?) Etc. There are really a huge number of details here, and the absolutely must be worked through, carefully, before you can say anything useful. I'm in favor of reducing most barriers to movement. But, the arguments, if they are to be any good, really do need some care.

Chris Bertram 12.22.16 at 12:00 am

I'm puzzled by your last paragraph Matt, given what I know about your work. I don't know how large a number has to be to be "vast", but the spouses separated from one another and the children separated from one parent by the UK's spousal visa income requirements already number in the 10s of 1000s. Add to that elderly dependent relatives who are separated from children, lone refugee children separated from family members in other countries. And then multiply all this separation by the number of countries that make things difficult for people. I think that probably adds up to a vast number of people in close relationships with others who are separated by border regimes and who are currently incurring costs that are often calamitous. Don't you?

Matt 12.22.16 at 2:41 am ( 25 )

Hi Chris – yes, the cases you mention are interesting and important ones. It goes a little way towards making John's too flabby to work statement a bit better. But even in these cases, it's important to work through what's wrong with the different examples. (This is what I try to do in my work, and it's why I'm annoyed by what seems to me to be handwaving that blurs and distorts more than it helps.) I would insist that "making this difficult" for people, or causing them to "incur costs" isn't a good way to think about these issues at all. (I will go see my parents for the first time in over a year next week. It will be difficult and I will incur may costs to do so. Nothing interesting follows from that at all, I think.) And, John's categories include may more than those you mention. What follows for them? Why are borders, and not other types of boundaries relevant here? (Suppose my best friend is admitted to Harvard and I am not. But I'd like to study with him! Is it unfair that I'm not allowed to? Why not?) There are answers here, but we'll not get at them from the approach in the post, I think, and especially not if we follow the approach in this paragraph. The issues need to be dug in to, even though that take time.

(I might note that I've just finished a semi-popular short piece on thinking about immigration post-Trump and post-Brexit. I started it by thinking about some of your discussion of Joe Carens' book from a few years ago, and tried to think about reasonable strategies for working towards fairer immigration policies in our dark times. One thing I suggested was fighting against needlessly mean (in both senses of the word) restrictions like the too-high social support requirements for family members in the UK. So, I see that as a real problem. But, I don't think that helps rehabilitate the claims made, or suggested, in this paragraph. If and when the piece comes out, I'll send it to you.)

John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 3:22 am

Matt @24 It was an aside of course, but one that I didn't think needed a detailed exposition. The calamitous cases Chris mentions are well known, as is the fact that lots of people suffer no, or only trivial, problems of this kind. Rather than multipy such trivial examples as you do in @26, why not explain why you think the calamitous cases are rare, or need to be explained in detail?

Faustusnotes 12.22.16 at 5:10 am ( 27 )

Matts response is to glib. My own family was driven into poverty by separation in the 1980s and the long term pressures on all of us of that experience were huge. Yes nothing follows from that if you're a wealthy academic, but quite a lot follows from it if you're not.

Dave 12.22.16 at 10:05 am

I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework.

For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon.

What people in the urban professional class tend to forget, however, is that the old model of village life never went away . In truly rural or otherwise undeveloped areas, it's mostly stayed the same, and other cases it was remapped onto urban neighborhoods or desperately clung to in "small towns" that are, in fact, larger than most Medieval cities.

Now, these people have a problem, which is that they'd very much like to maintain a traditional village lifestyle (well, some of them just want to escape or move to the city and get rich, but I'll get to that), but neither industrial nor post-industrial capitalism has had any patience for people who want to stay put. Industries and opportunities have concentrated in large urban agglomerations, but exactly which industries and which cities shifts every generation or two. Plants close down or move to other countries, higher education pulls millions of people far from home, entire fields of employment vanish or emerge from whole cloth and it's impossible to keep up. So, we as individuals can, at any time, be forced into a terrible dilemma. Either move away from the life you know and the people who keep you happy, healthy, safe, and sane, or forfeit your "optimal" career and some share of prosperity and human capital.

Depending on what class you are, the values you hold, and what the costs and benefits of moving away really are, there may be no choice at all. Really, there are two kinds of migrants. There are the desperate, who migrate for negative reasons, and the ambitious, who do it for positive ones (with plenty of overlap) and only the latter is really making a choice as such. The outcomes are different too. Refugees and economic migrants occasionally become rich and successful, but usually they're just looking for security. Whereas people who move around a lot to get the best education and the best jobs, are often massively rewarded, but too many such people creates a culture of anomy and alienation where no one knows their neighbors and everyone seems to be from somewhere else.

What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all.

I grew up in the Southern California suburbs in wake of the Sunbelt migrations and massive immigration from Latin America and had the utterly peculiar experience of being one of only a tiny fraction of the population whose grandparents (well, two of them) also grew up there. Growing up, it seemed like most of my teachers (and really a huge chunk of the professional class in general) were from either the East Coast or the Midwest and many of them had strange notions about what it meant to be Californian, having moved here for the sunshine or the surfing or the jobs or the "vibe" and more able to see the place as an ideal than a reality.

People don't realize the extent to which generations of migration can isolate people from the land, but I saw it. People that luxuriantly watered their lawns despite the climate and planted gardens full of plants from all over the world while treating the native plants like weeds. The tragedy of people in brushfire country not even realizing that having wooden shingles is a bad idea. People mocking the native California accents, affecting them badly to fit in, or refusing to acknowledge that we had one at all (we have several). Or, take the baffling experience millions of California kids get this time of year where adults around them act like our Christmas is somehow "wrong" because there's no snow and we don't have a "real" winter.

There was and is wanton disregard for tradition or the environment. The old growth oaks that once covered much of SoCal were cut down for wood and cattle land and now most people have no idea they were ever there, huge tracts of "empty" desert were flooded with saltwater when the Salton Sea was created, the LA river was turned into a storm drain, massive population increases and utterly unrestricted suburban sprawl has destroyed most of our wetlands and turned the Coastal Sage Scrub into one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. All that and CalTrans still plants invasive, flammable Eucalyptus by every freeway. These were largely the work of generations of short sighted, greedy migrants who didn't understand or value the land, but will be borne by generations to come. Our land is being paved, poisoned, and pumped dry and most people don't even see it because there aren't enough people around who still remember when it was any different.

If open borders means that places all over the world start getting flooded with migrants and disrespected and debased the way Southern California has been, then I have no choice but to oppose it.

reason 12.22.16 at 10:47 am ( 29 )

A small point: – instead of adding additional taxes, one way to get the same net effect is to have a basic income with a long residency requirement for non-citizens.

Matt 12.22.16 at 3:29 pm

John – there is a lot of space between "not rare" and "vast", isn't there? That space needs to be looked at carefully, and not used as a hand-wave. That's my point.

Faustunotes – I'm sorry to hear that. In published work, I've argued for strong rights for family migration schemes. Without knowing more about your situation (not that I'm asking for details now) I can't say more about, but, for example, the sorts of public support systems I've argued for (and that exist in many countries) can be easily met by lots of people – the US requires 125% of the poverty level for a family of the appropriate size, for example. That is arguably a top acceptable level.

That meant that I was able to sponsor my wife when I was a grad student making $15,000 a year (in 2003), not at all a "wealthy academic". So, again, it's important to get the details right, to criticize particular cases, and not draw strong conclusions from hand-waving generalizations. Failing to do this won't lead to any good work.

Chris Bertram 12.22.16 at 7:08 pm ( 31 )

Matt, I think your quibbling with John on "vast numbers" is pretty silly here. You are an American, and the US is a continental power with a large population. Perhaps it is rare for Americans to have close relationships (let's set the bar at good friendships) with people outside the borders of their country. But many of us live in smaller countries and on continents with lots of borders. I think you'll find that when you tot up all the Europeans and Latin Americans with cross border relationships (to name but two continents) and add in all the people who belong to ethnicities that stretch across many borders, you'll get to a pretty high number.

Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland .

Alesis 12.22.16 at 8:55 pm

The ever present struggle with taking the empirical body of knowledge on gains from migration and making it into policy is that the only salient objections to migration are decidedly non economic. Sure they pretend at an economic basis with admirable dedication to the act but the bottom line is even if you prove that net wages for every single individual would go up from migration it would till have exactly the same opponents you started with.

WLGR 12.22.16 at 9:53 pm ( 33 )

At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view.

If he was reacting to this post Smith would zero in on the key premise underlying Kennan's model: the idea that global wage differentials inherently reflect global differences in the productivity of labor between nation-states, known as the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis. Kennan seems to handwave away the idea of actually defending it by deferring to "large bodies of evidence", evidence whose interpretation within a more-or-less standard neoclassical framework he takes as a given - although notice how he hedges his initial claims more carefully ("cross-country differences in income levels are associated with differences in productivity", and "large differences [in productivity] remain after adjusting for differences in physical and human capital endowments ", emphasis mine) before moving on to construct a model where "relative wages are used below to measure cross-country differences in labor efficiency", plain and simple. Nice trick!

In any case, here's Smith:

The North-South purchasing power anomaly is sometimes called the Penn effect, after the Penn World Table, which has gathered comparative price data from most countries in the world since 1950. This effect is inversely correlated with per-capita GDP; as Figure 5.2 (page 143) clearly shows, the poorer the nation, the bigger the gap. Mainstream neoclassical economics advances two chief explanations for this anomaly, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, which hinges on differences in labor productivity between rich and poor countries; and an alternative model, proposed by Jagdish Bhagwati, Irving Kravis, Richard Lipsey, and others, which claims to circumvent differences in labor productivity and accounts for the anomaly as the consequence of differences in "factor endowments," that is, the relative abundance of capital and labor in the two countries. Since their arguments are tautological, they arrive at the same conclusion. In the former approach, the relative productivity of labor and capital determines the demand for these two factors and, in conjunction with their supply, determines their equilibrium (market-clearing) prices. In the second approach, different factor endowments affect the supply and demand in markets for labor and capital, determining marginal productivities, so arriving at the other's starting point.

According to both approaches, the purchasing power anomaly arises because of the low wages of workers providing services (for example, a bus journey or a haircut), resulting in the prices of these services being typically much lower in, say, Bangladesh than in Belgium. But equilibrium exchange rates do equalize the prices of internationally tradable goods-in other words, they assume that strong PPP holds in the tradable goods sector. Service sector wages are low in Bangladesh because wage levels in the service sector are determined by wage levels in the tradable goods sector. This occurs because labor is intersectorally mobile but not internationally mobile; in other words, workers can freely move between the tradable and non-tradable sectors within nations, equalizing wages between them, but cannot freely move across the borders between nations, especially those between hard-currency and soft-currency nations. it therefore turns out that the suppression of the free international movement of labor, the great exception to the principle of globalization and whose cardinal importance is stressed in this book, is also at the heart of the purchasing power anomaly.

In sum, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis says that the purchasing power anomaly results from the lack of correspondence between the similar levels of productivity of service workers in Belgium and Bangladesh and the vast differences in their wages. The contrary argument advanced here is that it is the oversupply of labor, not its productivity, that is the prime determinant of Southern wage levels. wages of service providers and incomes of petty entrepreneurs are kept low not by the paltry productivity of workers in the tradable goods sector, as mainstream theory has it, but by the destitution of a large part of the working population. This is why a haircut or a bus journey in Dhaka is so much cheaper than in Amsterdam, even though a pair of scissors or a bus may cost the same in both countries, and may even have come off the same production line. Furthermore, local capitalists are not the prime beneficiaries of the super-profits generated by this expanded employment of low-wage labor. Instead, intense competition among Southern exporters leaves them with only a minor share of the proceeds, the rest passed on to their Northern customers through ever-lower export prices. The purchasing power anomaly results not only or mainly from conditions in goods and Forex markets but is fundamentally the product of conditions in labor markets and in the sphere of production where this labor is put to work. The enormous growth in the relative surplus population combines with suppression of international labor mobility to exert a tremendous downward pressure on all wages and on the incomes of small producers, maintaining or widening still further the distance between real wages in the imperialist nations and in the Global South.

In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. Here's Smith again:

Statistics on labor productivity, obtained by dividing the value added of a firm, industrial sector, or nation by its total workforce, are highly deceptive. Much of the alleged increase in labor productivity in the imperialist nations is an artifact resulting from the outsourcing of low value-added, labor-intensive production processes to low-wage countries. As Susan Houseman has argued, "when manufacturers outsource or offshore work, labor productivity increases directly because the outsourced or offshored labor used to produce the product is no longer employed in the manufacturing sector and hence is not counted in the denominator of the labor productivity equation." This is extremely important, because "the rate of productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing increased in the mid-1990s, greatly outpacing that in the services sector and accounting for most of the overall productivity growth in the U.S. economy." Thus she argues, "To the extent that offshoring is an important source of measured productivity growth in the economy, productivity statistics will, in part, be capturing cost savings or gains to trade but not improvements in the output of American labor." Houseman believes this solves "one of the great puzzles of the American economy in recent years the fact that large productivity gains have not broadly benefited workers in the form of higher wages. Productivity improvements that result from offshoring may largely measure cost savings, not improvements to output per hour worked by American labor."

Thus, when a firm outsources labor-intensive production processes, the productivity of the workers who remain in its employment rises, even though nothing about their specific labor has changed. Outsourcing therefore has what might be called a "ventriloquist effect" on measures of productivity. But this only scratches the surface of the productivity paradox. Labor-intensive production processes are practically synonymous with low value-added production processes, yet the more labor-intensive it is, that is, the larger living labor is relative to dead labor, the greater is its contribution to value and surplus value-but much of this is captured by capital-intensive capitals, showing up as a much higher value added per worker.

John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 11:17 pm

@Dave You are arguing against internal freedom of movement. Do you support systems of internal passports, as in the Soviet Union or the hukou system in China?

John Quiggin 12.23.16 at 3:14 am

WLGR: I'll look for this book. But on an initial reading of your first quotation, it seems to me that Smith is just restating the factor endowment model. What does "surplus labor" mean, if not a high ratio of labor to capital? Does he spell out the distinction somewhere else?

ZM 12.23.16 at 3:26 am

John Quiggin,

China has a very large population, hukou is problematic and has some undesirable impacts, but China needs to get all the provinces and cities more equal before they can change the hukou system. At the moment the inequality between provinces and cities in China is very very great compared to inequality between States and cities in Australia.

ZM 12.23.16 at 3:27 am ( 37 )

Although inequality has decreased as more people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 10-20 years.

Dave 12.23.16 at 6:06 am

@ John Quiggin 34

That's a very good question and it does show why one should always consider the full ramifications of ones' arguments. I would say that policies against internal migration are not limited to Communist dictatorships - that's what serfdom was, after all. I'm enough of a liberal to find that sort of thing oppressive, but I do think it had a certain social utility (of course, letting people move and travel has advantages too).

It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction.

Even in a modern era where resource extraction and heavy industry are less dominant economic drivers than they once were, the combination of free movement of capital and free movement of labor is a consistent recipe for explosive, unplanned, and unsustainable growth in whatever areas are deemed economically valuable. The boom bust cycle of capitalism maps onto the landscape itself and the effects for both the natives and the newcomers can be devastating.

What I would argue though is that free movement of people is a problem only insofar as there is free movement of capital. You won't have millions of people flood a region if that region hasn't already been flooded with millions of jobs. This would require a new international regulatory framework to put the brakes on massive industrial and commercial development and a rejection of the current extreme growth bias in economic thought. In effect, I think that it should be businesses that have to apply for those permits or internal passports, rather than individuals.

Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering.

My worst case scenario is something like this. Lets say a fairly small - but not necessarily tiny - country like Uruguay adopts global open borders. A little while later, they make the shocking discovery that they're sitting on some of the largest reserves of, oh let's say, rare earth metals in the world.

Now, these metals are incredibly valuable so getting the capital to open mines and ore processing centers isn't a problem, the bigger issue is that Uruguay only has 3.4 million people, most of whom already have jobs, so the tens of thousands of employees needed to build the new mining industry will mostly be coming from elsewhere (or the mining companies will start by hiring Uruguayanos, but then they'll need migrants to fill the jobs the natives vacated). It doesn't stop there though, because the great new mining industry will produce secondary industries such as cell phone manufacturing, service jobs for the growing population, construction jobs to expand the national infrastructure, and on and on and on. These jobs bring in new migrants, who help grow the economy, and attract new migrants in a feedback loop that only ends when the bubble bursts or wages collapse.

How big does Uruguay get before the boom goes bust? Does it double in size? Triple? Does Montevideo become one of the biggest cities in South America, with sprawling, polluted, slums to match? What happens to the reasonably stable, reasonably prosperous, reasonably progressive little country that was there before? Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?

These are the things I worry about.

hix 12.23.16 at 7:14 am ( 39 )

Poor former farmers that move to big cities typically wont drive cars, wont handle big industrial manichery and will only heat /cool tiny living spaces. So they are probably not a significant factor for the environmental issues in say big Chinese cities.

Neville Morley 12.23.16 at 7:39 am

@Dave #28:

"Cities as we know them (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old".

No. Ancient Rome had a population of 750,000-1,000,000, based almost entirely on migrants, and more than large enough to create any number of social maladies; at least five other cities in Mediterranean with populations in the hundreds of thousands; series of cities in China with populations similar to Rome.

Evidence suggests significant levels of mobility, not just for elite. I don't think this necessarily has any bearing on the modern situation (capitalism, technology, yadda yadda), but certainly the historical evidence doesn't support your implied "large-scale migration is unnatural" thesis.

Igor Belanov 12.23.16 at 7:58 am ( 41 )

Dave @ 38

"Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?"

What a daft question. When did the 'model' Uruguay exist, the one that we are supposed to preserve for all eternity? Now? Before the Uruguayan nation-state was formed? Before Columbus?

The irony is that the effort needed to prevent change would in all likelihood just lead to other changes of a more dysfunctional nature.

engels 12.23.16 at 12:21 pm

OT and possibly an ignorant question but does anyone know of any meaningful national or cultural difference between Uruguay and Argentina?

bob mcmanus 12.23.16 at 12:27 pm ( 43 )

Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery?

John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism.

Matt 12.23.16 at 1:30 pm

Chris – maybe it's silly, but, if my work on immigration has tried to show anything at all, it's that to make a contribution on the subject, it's important to get the facts right, not make assumptions about movement we know are not true (people will move to where they get the best return on their skills, etc.), not assume away other difficulties, and not blur cases together through hand-waiving ("vast numbers", "relationships", etc.) All of that's done here, and even more so in the paper under discussion. I find it really annoying. Maybe I shouldn't let it bother me, but it seems to me to be typical "assume a can-opener" level of discussion, at the very best, and not helpful.

By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here.

Dave 12.23.16 at 2:03 pm ( 45 )

@ Neville 40

You're right, of course. I recognize now that my argument was a bit fuzzy and verges into begging the question ("Modern cities, as I've chosen to define them, only existed under capitalism, therefore urban dysfunction is all capitalism's fault, QED, etc."). "Bigger than Cleveland" is not a universal definition of what a city is and I shouldn't have treated it as one.

I'm not trying to say massive migration was unnatural though. I'm of the opinion that anything humans do is natural, if that helps. Nor do I think migration, even of the large-scale variety is wrong , but rather that it can be immensely harmful if there are no systems in place to mitigate its social and environmental effects. So discussing policy that would tear down all political barriers to migration as if it were mainly an issue of wages and productivity struck me as reductive. Even on purely economic terms, the way migration contributes to urban sprawl outpacing infrastructure is a huge issue that I frequently see overlooked.

@Igor 41:

I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way.

engels 12.23.16 at 3:32 pm

Also would be interesting to see numbers on marriages to foreign nationals by country-a quick google didn't turn it up.

Chris Bertram 12.23.16 at 4:26 pm ( 47 )

@engels – pretty sure that this is because the stats don't exist for many countries. The British government simply has no idea how many of its nationals are married to EU nationals (at least for England and Wales, there may be some record-keeping in Scotland).

engels 12.23.16 at 6:55 pm

Chris, that makes sense-there's a bit about estimates here though:
http://www.economist.com/node/21538103

Dipper 12.23.16 at 7:36 pm ( 49 )

@47. The UK has no idea how many EU citizens are here full stop. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia.

The 2001 UK Census recorded 36,555 Portuguese-born people resident in the UK. More recent estimates by the Office for National Statistics put the figure at 107,000 in 2013. The 2011 Census recorded 88,161 Portuguese-born residents in England and Wales. The censuses of Scotland and Northern Ireland recorded 1,908 and 1,996 Portuguese-born residents respectively. Other sources estimate the Portuguese community to be larger, with the editor of a Portuguese-language newspaper putting the number of Portuguese passport holders in London alone at 350,000. According to academics José Carlos Pina Almeida and David Corkill, writing in 2010, estimates of the Portuguese population of the UK range from 80,000 to 700,000.

I mention it because informal information from someone at the embassy puts the number closer to 1 million. Many of them well have been born here. But nevertheless the point is that the estimates are all over the place.

Again, its not necessarily a good or a bad thing, but as a scientist with a bit of a measurement fixation I find the fact that no-one has any idea to be quite disturbing.

engels 12.23.16 at 8:31 pm

E.g. on US vs Europe:

[Dec 06, 2016] Very negative sentiment expressed in comment on immigration of progressive web site Moon of Alabama

Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
chipnik | Dec 3, 2016 7:40:26 PM | 42

30

A friend on Facebook made the mistake of posting two declamatory articles on the India financial apocalypse under Modi with the snark line 'this is what passes for democracy (sic) in the world now' and was notified just a day later by FB that their Profile was 'Determined to be an unauthorized Business Space', and would then be shut down, without any recourse, if they didn't provide a confirmed birth name and confirmed cell phone number. Nyet spasiba, ...so their profile went immediately 404.

This FB purge masks the truth for what Modi really is, the Menem of India, for privatization of Indian gold wealth, for taxation of outsourced high-tech workers, and covering up the 100,000s of Hindu HIBs flying into the USA by the 747-load, taking away, by some estimates 98% of new high-tech jobs, and 56% of existing high-tech jobs, where American workers are being forced to train their Hindu replacements, then given a pink slip and six months of COBRA and booted out.

[ASIDE: I was walking off frustration with Trump's financial picks today, and by sheer fate met an older guy who had just been terminated before he reached his employee-share pension age, by a company moving their assembly operations to China. He's hoping to move to Idaho or Montana, where there are so many unemployed meth heads, anyone who is clean and straight can find some kind of job that the Monkey Boys can't get their hooks into.]

Hindus flooded the MSM back-office journalist pool, cratering American journalism careers. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Street, ...all use Hindus to write their news, bloat their comment section, and with more 'legal' Hindu H1Bs in editorial positions within the USA, which is why in the Big Feu-faw since 9/11 fussing over Mexicans, Muslims, Deadbeat Students and UnInsurable Elders, ...even with 95,000,000 Americans unemployed, you will NEVER, EVER hear a single word about Hindus.

Nadella, Ellison, McDermott, Gelsinger, Besos, Zuckerberg, and Trump and his Cabinet are all 100% behind UNLIMITED H1B 'legal' immigration for USA. (Amazon even had to put cones around a dead PT minimum-wage worker, so their robots wouldn't crush his body, then the other day, an 'addlebrained' employee jumped off the roof). With all the jobs going to H1Bs, Trump will have to make America Great Again with his YUUGE infrastructure program : The Few, The Proud, The Brave!

[Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

♦♦♦

The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

♦♦♦

So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

[Dec 05, 2016] The Democratic Party Presidential Platform of 1996 – On Immigration

Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
"... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
"... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

What follows is from Today's Democratic Party: Meeting America's Challenges, Protecting America's Values , a.k.a., the 1996 Democratic Party Platform. This is the section on immigration. I took the liberty of bolding pieces I found interesting.

Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship , and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.

We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape, and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and truly call America their home.

Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.

Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries. We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be held legally responsible for supporting them.

[Nov 30, 2016] Ten Points on Immigration

Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

I have written a number of posts, some using data and some not, on immigrstion. Some of those posts attracted vitriol in comments, including from some who keep accusing me of hiding my punchline. Personally I find myself repeating myself, or trying to restate a point yet a different way so it will sink in. I figured it is probably time to put everything in one place, so here it is:

1. Some cultures prepare their people to function well in the US, some don't.

2. Ability to function well in the US is not the same thing as intelligence. As an example, consider me. I lived almost a third of my life in South America. I have never been to Central Asia. All else being equal, I can hit the ground running more easily in Argentina than in Iran. In Argentina I know how to behave in a seamless way that won't raise eyebrows. In Iran, I would need to put effort into day to day activities. Additionally, my communication skills wouldn't work as well. It isn't just a matter of not speaking Farsi, but also being unable to unconsciously read and display the myriad of social signals Iranian society uses. Therefore, my productivity will be greater in Argentina than Iran (again, all things being equal). And yet my traits – the degree to which I am or am not intelligent, creative, diligent, sane, honest, etc. – will be the same whether I am in Buenos Aires or in Teheran. Most of my work related skills (less those involving communication) will also be the same in both places. The difference between my productivity in Argentina v Iran will be due entirely to differences in cultural compatibility.

3. Cultural compatibility runs the other way too. Arriving in the US doesn't automatically confer respect for Western values. In many countries, anti-Christian or anti-Semitic attitudes are common. In the West people argue about gay marriage. In some countries, the debate is whether gay people should be stoned or thrown off tall buildings. Similarly, the treatment of women and children in some countries would be criminal in the US. Think honor killings, child's marriages, FGM or bacha bazi. (And yes, we are seeing those things happening here now.). Writing again from the role of someone who was a guest in other peoples' countries for a third of his life, it should be the responsibility of the newcomer to adapt to his/her new home, and not of the residents of his/her new home to adapt to the newcomer.

4. In Western countries, immigrants who don't manage to bridge cultural gaps are more likely to end up dependent on the taxpayer. Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare. In general, it seems (at a minimum) to be bad form to request entry into another society only to become a burden on its people. It is one thing for refugees with no other option to do it, but most immigrants to the US are not refugees.

5. Being overwhelmingly reliant on government largesse in a foreign society built by strangers has got to be dispiriting to most thinking adults. It can only add to a person's feeling of alienation. That in turn can lead to various dysfunctions – vices, crime, anti-social behavior and even terrorism. It is no surprise that some of these issues exist disproportionately in some immigrant communities.

6. Countries whose emigrants do well in the US also tend to be countries with Western values and strong economies. More precisely, countries whose immigrants do well in the West have economies which thrive from the skills of its people, and not countries whose economies is based mostly on raw material extraction directed by foreigners or on financial transfers from wealthier nations.

7. Countries whose emigrants function well in the US also function well in other Western countries. Conversely, countries whose emigrants don't function well in the US also don't function well in other Western countries.

8. Within any society, there are some who are more able to function in the US and some who are less able to function in the US. To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries. Place of origin shouldn't be enough to, by itself, weed out one potential immigrant or guarantee entry to another to another.

9. The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction. The fact that there is need and poverty in this country that doesn't receive sufficient aid is an argument against importing more need and poverty from abroad.

10. There are far more people who would like to immigrate to the US than we allow into the US. Given that, it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US.

I note that none of these points are new. I have stated them all before, but not all in one place.

[Nov 30, 2016] Welcome to the world of Europes far-right - Al Jazeera English

Notable quotes:
"... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
"... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
"... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
"... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
"... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
Nov 30, 2016 | www.aljazeera.com
Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.

An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile, and anti- Western.

New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time." Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?

Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties.

Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.

There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending the so-called "European civilization".

The future of Europe?

The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament, declared.

Another fellow party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.

The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.

On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.

She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a " pan-European Union " including Russia.

At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.

Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins - and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate" far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.

Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

See also:

rickstersherpa November 30, 2016 11:35 am

I note that some of your factual assumptions e.g. "Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare" appear to be wrong and may be drawn from corrupt sources (FAIR and/or AIC, in particular Steve Camarota). See https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it .

Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and drug gangs and associated violence.)

I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths), particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people, citizens and non-citizens alike..

rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am

Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants) and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S. culture. http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle, or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker that Mr. Kimel is using.

Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm

To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their parents on welfare, None.

This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.

I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting them for him and crediting him with the posts.

In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as Breitbart.

But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really jarring.

The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm

Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within" and using the state to develop talent.

"right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground railroad for immigrants in the US.

The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm

Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.

You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.

Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Kimel,
Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country. Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't make that distinction.

Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks going forward again.

Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm

Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand, The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm

CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

(Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked "Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)

Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm

I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed. We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.

"The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction." What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?

" it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.

"To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference to? Then why only from non Western countries?

[Nov 20, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

Notable quotes:
"... The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
"... Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. ..."
"... Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
Nov 20, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
Stillgrizzly 3d ago

The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.

RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago

Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense.

Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.)

greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution.

Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago

Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house.

[Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

Bruce Wilder @102

The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

Thomas Pickety

" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

The Guardian

kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

--

Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

.

This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

Eventually something is going to break.

dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

Does anyone notice a pattern here?

This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trumpism tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-trumpism

efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

Faustusnotes @147

You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

[Nov 19, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

Nov 19, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
Stillgrizzly 3d ago 85 86 The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago 48 49 Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.) Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly greenwichite 3d ago 9 10 The liberals "horror" at Corbyn is because he is bringing out reactionary "hard" left elements amongst other things, which are destroying what was a kind of consensus.

This is fracturing the opposition and driving people towards the right or "protest" parties. Corbyn is the best recruiting tool UKIP never had. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report icansee Stillgrizzly 3d ago 6 7 If you think that this was a universal backlash to the effects of immigration on jobs , then you are missing the point .
My advise is for you to check the archives of mother jones and other blogs to find out how this faux rage developed .
Trump's primary voters have an average income of $70,000. They are not affected by mass migration .
This is a rage against Marriage equality ,Seperation of the church and state ,continuation of the war against affirmative action ,environmental protection ,union etc .

The faux rage was engineered by l

1 Remnants of Koch brothers tea party
2 Fox news
3 Alt right
4 Evangelicals
5 Gun manufacturers

They created an hurricane and carried other unwilling groups like blue collar democrats with them .
However , they wouldn't have stand any chance if progressives had turned up . Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago 0 1 Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly icansee 3d ago 2 3 Trump is allied with the Republican party, people seem to have overlooked that. Therefore, shock horror, a lot of Republican voters voted for him.

Also in the US, the level of non voting is huge, suggesting a level of ignorance / disillusionment with either of the choices. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly Jaisans 3d ago 3 4 You're arguing for protectionism, just like Trump, effectively state subsidy of the incumbent population via tarriffs / subsidies / buy British / American campaigns / increased welfare etc, the net effect is the same.

If you're arguing for better "welfare" for the incumbents also, you'd have to discriminate between the incumbents and migrants, something which is anathema to the left in particular and the EU. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 2d ago 0 1 You're arguing for protectionism

isn't controlled immigration also protectionism? employers exploiting foreign workers at the expense of local labour is just plain wrong, it's not market forces. and it's not the fault of freedom of movement. and it causes trouble...even keir hardie saw that

better welfare would be a good idea. a better one would universal credit. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Its_me Stillgrizzly 2d ago 3 4 Yep, they hate Corbyn because he's rocking their cosy boat where they could wear Red while having Blue policies. The people who hate Corbyn are the same ones who were vociferous against UKIP, for the same reasons - they threatened to disrupt their LibLabCon club and the opportunities they think they deserve.

[Nov 18, 2016] A "Grand Bargain" on Immigration Reform - The Unz Review

Ethnically divided population is easier to control. This is what identity politics is about...
Notable quotes:
"... In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10. ..."
"... The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere. ..."
"... Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox ..."
"... These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
www.unz.com
I think this one short paragraph provides a better clue to the unexpected political rise of Donald Trump than would a hundred footnoted academic articles.

In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10.

Demographic changes so enormous and rapid on a continental scale are probably unprecedented in all human history, and our political establishment was remarkably blind for having failed to anticipate the possible popular reaction. Over the last twelve months, Donald Trump, a socially liberal New Yorker, has utilized the immigration issue to seize the GOP presidential nomination against the vehement opposition of nearly the entire Republican establishment, conservative and moderate alike, and at times his campaign has enjoyed a lead in the national polls, placing him within possible reach of the White House. Instead of wondering how a candidate came to take advantage of that particular issue, perhaps we should instead ask ourselves why it hadn't happened sooner.

The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere.

Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox's Ezra Klein, and explained that "of course" heavy foreign immigration-let alone "open borders"-represented the economic dream of extreme free market libertarians such as the Koch brothers, since that policy would obviously drive down the wages of workers and greatly advantage Capital at the expense of Labor.

These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox colleague joined in the attack, harshly denouncing the candidate's views as "ugly" and "wrongheaded," while instead pointing to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as the proper font of progressive economic doctrine. Faced with such sharp attacks by young and influential Democratic pundits less than half his age, Sanders soon retreated from his simple statement of fact, and henceforth avoided raising the immigration issue during the remainder of his campaign.

[Nov 16, 2016] Trumps Opponents See Normal Americans as Deplorables

Notable quotes:
"... Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists. ..."
"... Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense. ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
I guess we have all noticed that the holier-than-thou groups who whined that Trump wasn't going to accept the outcome of the election refuse to accept it themselves.

Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists.

And it is unbelievable. The entirety of "the other America" refuses to accept the people's decision. They think that their concerns are more important than the concerns of the American people, who they regard as nothing but a collection of racist homophobic rednecks.

Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense.

Yet "the threatened people" see it as fascism. Who are "the threatened people?" As always, the most powerful. Tell me, what lobby is more powerful than the Israel Lobby? You can't. But the Jewish Lobby, J Street, has sent me a hysterical email at 5:11pm on 14 November. Unless "we all come together and oppose Trump's appointment of Breitbart editor Stephan Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor" a "wave of hate will sweep across the land," consuming "Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, LGBT peoople (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered), immigrants, Hispanics, women and other groups."

Really now! So is Trump's chief strategist, whatever position that is, going to attack the Jews and those with unusual sexual impulses with drones and cluster bombs, like the Zionist neoconservatives who controlled the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes did to millions of slaughtered and displaced peoples in 7 countries, and like Israel does to Palestinians? Or is the former Breitbart editor going to round them all up and torture them in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo like Bush and Obama did. And like Netanyahu does in Israel?

Or will Trump simply shoot them down in the streets like Netanyahu does to the Palestinian women and children.

How come J Street and the Oligarchy-funded fronts are only concerned with nonexistent threats and ignore all of the real threats?

... ... ...

We must hope that Donald Trump understands the state of moral, cultural, legal, and political collapse that America is in. Two years ago at the Valdai International Discussion Club, Russian President Vladimir Putin said:

"Many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities, national, cultural, religious, and even secular. They are implementing policies that equate families with same-sex partnerships, worship of God with worship of Satan. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis."

Ordinary Americans know what he means. They are forced to accept blasphemous films about Jesus Christ and shameless newspaper caricatures of the Virgin Mary, but if one of them calls a homosexual a pervert, he has committed a hate crime.

America is a country without an honest media. A country without an honest judiciary. Without an honest government. Without an honest legislature. Without honest schools and universities. A country whose morals are confused by propaganda. A country whose elites believe that they are entitled to all the income and wealth and that normal American people are the "deplorables," to use Hillary's term for ordinary Americans.

(Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

[Nov 16, 2016] The economic case for immigration may be attractive-and, for the moment at least, persuasive-but it is essentially a conservative argument, suggesting that human beings ought to be treated in a certain manner because it generates economic benefit, and not necessarily because it is morally required.

Notable quotes:
"... Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners. ..."
"... demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is, a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism. ..."
"... They very likely in our current regimes will not show up in the same places. Neoliberalism and neoimperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation. ..."
"... And elites are fighting over the spoils. ..."
"... But there are also people who either liked Trump's economic rhetoric and just disregarded the racism/sexism stuff the same way Clinton voters like me disregarded her warmongering (Republicans:domestic minorities::Democrats:foreigners), and other people who didn't have their resentments channeled at all and just stayed home. ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

WLGR 11.15.16 at 3:40 pm 115

@ Chris Bertram , Brianna Rennix in Current Affairs (an altogether excellent rag) is quite right in warning us to be suspicious of such "obvious" points :

The economic case for immigration may be attractive-and, for the moment at least, persuasive-but it is essentially a conservative argument, suggesting that human beings ought to be treated in a certain manner because it generates economic benefit, and not necessarily because it is morally required. Of course, liberals don't really want to look a gift horse in the mouth: with the political climate hostile to the humanitarian plight of even the most sympathetic of migrants, liberals are thrilled to have statistics and pie charts and suchlike to lay before a skittish American public. It isn't every day that the right thing to do is also the rationally self-interested thing to do, and we should certainly celebrate those joyous occasions when they arise. However, it's important not to lose sight of the moral dimension of the argument, and in that context there are a few questions worth asking.

The left has something to learn from the moral clarity of the libertarian case for immigration, which asserts that human beings simply have a natural right to migrate freely. The moral argument is far more robust than the economic one, because it is true universally regardless of changing economic conditions. One doesn't need to prove that immigrants grow the GDP or that they will never compete for the same jobs as Americans. The better point is that there is no good moral reason for putting up walls and keeping people out. And just as Americans feel entitled to the freedom to go anywhere in the world they please (and would be surprised to be turned away at a border), so everyone else should be granted the same basic entitlement. It's also worth emphasizing the inherent arbitrariness of global inequality. Given that the earth's resources are unevenly apportioned, and people's life circumstances depend on the geographic accident of their birth, shouldn't we understand this to be a moral evil, and strive to correct it where we can? Perhaps such arguments will fail to persuade. But they are far more sound, and ultimately, far more honest. Increased immigration should be allowed because it is morally right, not because it is in our narrow economic self-interest.

Point being, Dipper @ 108 has hit the nail quite squarely on the head.

Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners.

(Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal"; notice how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of the most brutally exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more liberal societies like the US or EU.)

It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves liberal progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination and subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will - demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is, a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism. Is that easier to understand?

bob mcmanus 11.15.16 at 4:31 pm

I liked WLGR's at 115 a little better than Dipper, but there are many comments coming better than anything I can do.

It may be that global manufacturing jobs are declining due to automation, but my recent reading has convinced me that capital is now able to move low wage low skill manufacturing jobs so fast that it is hard for analysis to keep up. LTV says that as long as the profits and wealth and accumulation (and political power) are showing up, somewhere there is superexploited labor. They very likely in our current regimes will not show up in the same places. Neoliberalism and neoimperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation.

And elites are fighting over the spoils.

Consumatopia 11.15.16 at 3:54 pm

There's a weird disconnect between the debate among online leftists/liberals and the debate among Democratic politicians now. Online it's socialists saying "they hate neoliberalism, reach out to them!", social justice activists saying "they're racists, screw them!" In party institutions, it's the same except the second group is saying "they're racists, we must avoid antagonizing them!" Seriously, they're arguing that Bernie would have lost because he's Jewish and his ally Keith Ellison shouldn't lead the DNC because he's Muslim.

So I just hope the people saying "they're racists!" understand that if the Democratic party comes to agree with you then the party will move to the right on race–or at least it will pull back from some of the rhetoric Chris (merian) described at 76.

Anyway, from the OP, "These have indeed failed people, and policies of austerity coupled with bailouts for the banks have enraged the voters, so that many people, nostalgic for a more equal and more functional society but confused about who to blame, have channelled their resentments against immigrants and minorities. "

I think this is almost but not quite correct. There definitely exist some people for whom this is true. But there are also people who either liked Trump's economic rhetoric and just disregarded the racism/sexism stuff the same way Clinton voters like me disregarded her warmongering (Republicans:domestic minorities::Democrats:foreigners), and other people who didn't have their resentments channeled at all and just stayed home.

More that that, I just don't think anyone has a good understanding of what moves the white working class to the right. It isn't just racism and sexism, and it ends up playing out differently in different regions. It's not necessarily true that they're ready for Sanders–look at Kentucky voting for a governor promising to end Medicaid expansion in 2015. This is a poor but very white state. Lower middle class whites turned against further downscale whites. Poor whites didn't show up. It wasn't racism that drove this, but it wasn't hatred of neoliberalism either–it may be a response to pain neoliberalism caused, but they haven't been prepared to point the finger there.

Chris Bertram 11.15.16 at 4:14 pm

@WLGR: I do not believe that the case for free movement depends on economic arguments; I do believe that when its opponents advance bogus economic arguments they should be rebutted.

[Nov 14, 2016] Clintons electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation

Notable quotes:
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
Nov 14, 2016 | www.wsws.org
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states, the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20 points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).

The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012 by 2 points.

The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.

Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans (3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).

Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender.

[Nov 11, 2016] Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
Ed209 5h ago 2 3 Good article, but it fails to mention immigration as a further factor hammering the working class. Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

Of course, in the case of the UK it hasn't been one million, but more than three million. And in the case of the USA, untold millions (illegals alone are thought to number 10 million).

It's because economists, journalists and politicians never have to face this kind of competition for their own jobs that they are so keen on mass immigration. But low-skill/no-skill workers face this reality everyday. Nika2015 Ed209 4h ago 0 1 Telling it like it is...Bravo! Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Dana Todd Ed209 4h ago 0 1 There's a pretty in-depth analysis of immigration's effect on economy and workers/wages here http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature
Bottom line is, it's complicated, and not all immigrants are the same - or the same value to a country. Immigrants with college degrees definitely add to the GDP of their new home, typically estimated in six figures cumulative per individual contribution. Immigrants without college degree do place a drain on the country, through depressed wages, because there's parity (and since we haven't invested as much in our educations here, we are not as competitive to outside labor). Illegal immigrants cause a definite deficit, albeit not so big as to threaten an entire economy - but by creating an artificial competition they drive wages down.
I am by all measures a liberal and very open to immigration - I think we can't measure in dollars what we get in new ideas, new energy, culture, art, food, music - but for those who take a hard line look at the return/impacts, it's worth taking the time to understand the more complex story in the data.

[Nov 03, 2016] Trump will simply pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies

www.washingtonpost.com

Thiel also criticized the media's coverage of Trump's bombastic remarks. He said that while the media takes Trump's remarks "literally" but not "seriously," he believes Trump supporters take them seriously but not literally. In short, Trump isn't actually going to impose religious tests on immigrants or build a wall along the Mexican border, as he has repeatedly said, but will simply pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies.

"His larger-than-life persona attracts a lot of attention. Nobody would suggest that Donald Trump is a humble man. But the big things he's right about amount to a much needed dose of humility in our politics," Thiel said.

While the Silicon Valley tech corridor and suburbs around Washington have thrived in the last decade or more, many other parts of the country have been gutted by economic and trade policies that closed manufacturing plants and shipped jobs overseas, Thiel said, reiterating a previous talking point.

"Most Americans don't live by the Beltway or the San Francisco Bay. Most Americans haven't been part of that prosperity," Thiel said Monday. "It shouldn't be surprising to see people vote for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump, who is the only outsider left in the race."

Thiel later said he had hoped the presidential race might come down to Sanders and Trump, two outsiders with distinct views on the root cause of the nation's economic malaise and the best course of action to fix it. "That would have been a very different sort of debate," he said.

Thiel's prepared remarks seemed more of an admonishment of the state of the country today than a ringing endorsement of Trump's persona and policies. He decried high medical costs and the lack of savings baby boomers have on hand. He said millennials are burdened by soaring tuition costs and a poor outlook on the future. Meanwhile, he said, the federal government has wasted trillions of dollars fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East that have yet to be won.

Trump is the only candidate who shares his view that the country's problems are substantial and need drastic change to be repaired, Thiel said. Clinton, on the other hand, does not see a need for a hard reset on some of the country's policies and would likely lead the U.S. into additional costly conflicts abroad, he said.

A self-described libertarian, Thiel amassed his fortune as the co-founder of digital payment company PayPal and data analytics firm Palantir Technologies. He has continued to add to that wealth through venture capital investments in companies that include Facebook, Airbnb, Lyft and Spotify, among many others.

[Nov 02, 2016] Cory Bernardi warns One Nation will rise if migration not halved

Notable quotes:
"... Actually there is a point about reducing migration that can be rationally made. It's not about racial purity or demonising refugees but the prospect of high population growth brings great challenges and a. Need to assess what population Australia can reasonably sustain. ..."
"... It's interesting that Australia has benefited greatly by migration since WW2. The enriching of our economic and cultural fabric has been incontestable. But maybe we've reached the safe limits of population growth. Even the Bernadis and Abetz clans have reached here relatively recently. ..."
"... Call me old fashioned but I thought it was the responsibility of Governments to develop sound policies in the interests of the country and EXPLAIN them to the voters so that they can get understanding and support. This seems to be way beyond our politicians now, they throw anything up in the air and abandon it when there is opposition. So much for integrity and conviction. ..."
"... This morning an economic think tank recommended doubling the immigration intake, saying it would "increase per capita GDP" despite the fact that per capita GDP has gone backwards due to increased migration. ..."
"... If you halved the current migration rate it would return to historical levels, and be better for the economy and for the well being of the people already here. ..."
"... The problem is not with migration in this country, but with the 457 visa program where employers, like Caltex and 7Eleven, pay below award wages and provide poor working conditions. ..."
"... This flows on into the broader community festering discontent amongst Australians who see their jobs and employment conditions disappearing. ..."
"... Rather than focusing on immigrants, how about a thoughtful discussion of growth: what it means, how it ought to be measured, what's good and bad about it, and moving forward, what we as a society want in those terms. Immigration will assume a far more meaningful place in the context of a discussion of that kind, which would hopefully incorporate a strong environmental focus. But even in terms of the latter, issues of sustainability are not simply about raw population numbers but ultimately about lifestyle, modes of consumption, and energy use. ..."
"... What's really interesting here are the telling contradictions within the governing party between its fundamental commitments to neo-liberalism and ever-increasing growth in GDP as absolute goods, and its stumbling attempts to also embrace political reaction against the economic consequences of both policies. ..."
"... In that sense Bernardi is a useful idiot - plays to reaction through the red herring of prejudice (plus allowing the extreme right in the LNP to vent a bit of steam) while remaining rock-solid behind neo-liberalism and free markets -- at least, when it comes to the free movement of capital anyway (though the LNP has very astutely used various categories of working visa as an attempt to gradually entrench the movement of labour also, though not in any 'free' sense, just in the interests of maximizing profits). ..."
"... Yes it has, but Australia is now a vastly different place to what it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Back then there was plenty of land and housing, jobs available to anyone who wanted them, and the roads and hospitals were virtually empty. ..."
"... Australia isn't like that anymore and anyone living in the major cities knows how overcrowded they currently are. The 2 bedroom flat opposite me is being rented out and 7 people are living in it. Also, one of the garages downstairs is being occupied by a small family of three.. ..."
"... We need pro family policies if we wish to reduce migration. Working women must be given bigger incentives. ..."
www.theguardian.com

Liberal senator, who has reiterated his support for Trump while on taxpayer-funded secondment to the UN, calls on government to 'reconsider' refugee intake

quintal -> MadDuck

Hi mad duck

Actually there is a point about reducing migration that can be rationally made. It's not about racial purity or demonising refugees but the prospect of high population growth brings great challenges and a. Need to assess what population Australia can reasonably sustain.

We are, Antarctica aside, the driest, ,soil poor of all the continents. To put further pressure on our resources by too great a population increase is not wise.

It's interesting that Australia has benefited greatly by migration since WW2. The enriching of our economic and cultural fabric has been incontestable. But maybe we've reached the safe limits of population growth. Even the Bernadis and Abetz clans have reached here relatively recently.

It's also instructive that those countries with relatively small populations that invest in people as opposed to mines are economically more successful than are we. Think Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland. Taken together they have about half of Austrlias population and are amongst the strongest economies in the world.

So there's an irony that Senator BErnadi, detestable in so many of his statements, makes some common purpose with environmental groups .

Ironic but I suppose that it is what it is and the issue needs some careful thought.

Cheers

Alpo88 1h ago

"Cory Bernardi warns One Nation will rise if migration not halved"....

Liberal Civil War- Dispatch from the front N. 22:

General Bernardi, commander of the Third Infantry Division of the Confederate Army of the Australian Conservatives has sent an ultimatum to the besieged contingent of the Army of the Waffler in Canberra warning that an all out assault, with a taking-no-prisoners rule is being prepared unless the Waffler's Army surrenders immediately and unconditionally.

Commander in Chief Gen. Turnbull is reported to be in his bunker, frantically thinking how to respond to the ultimatum: a task that he has described to his entourage as "squaring the circle in a way that nobody notices I have failed in the task"....
A review of the young stormtroopers deployed to protect the bunker is planned for this afternoon....

Facebook Twitter

McMurdo 1h ago

What an intelligent approach, there is criticism of policy so drop it quickly.

Call me old fashioned but I thought it was the responsibility of Governments to develop sound policies in the interests of the country and EXPLAIN them to the voters so that they can get understanding and support. This seems to be way beyond our politicians now, they throw anything up in the air and abandon it when there is opposition. So much for integrity and conviction.

Of course Bernardi is being opportunistic here and using scare tactics to get a policy change he wants for other reasons. That he even tries this stunt indicates the very low point our
politics has reached. In a healthy system his views would be disowned and rejected instantly.
Our brave pollies will spend days wafting in the wind waiting to see how much support he gets before they declare a position, if they manage that at all. Pathetic.


ajostu 1h ago

OK I loathe Bernardi, but it's time to look at a bit of history.

John Howard has admitted that his "Stop The Boats" policy was a bait-and-switch scheme to soften the public's resistance to higher immigration. Other ministers from the period (Costello, Vanstone) have supported this version of history.

So while pushing the we-hate-boat-people line, Howard doubled the regular immigration intake. Rudd, Gillard and Abbott have all gone along with this in a completely bipartisan fashion.

Why? Because it's what lazy, uninnovative Australian business wants. More people, business expands, CEO bonus, that's all that matters.

Meanwhile people (particularly in Sydney and Melbourne) are noticing that their quality of life has gone down. Cities are crowded, traffic appalling, and young people can't buy a house (though immigration is a small factor in that last one).

Both Labour and Liberal have completely buggered up regular immigration. The 457 scheme is a disaster, below-minimum-wage pseudo-slavery is widespread, and "students" are rorting the system left right and centre.

And the Greens do SFA because they'd have to choose between genuine sustainability (which is, you know, what Greens are supposed to be on about) and an open migration policy (because they don't have the political skills to separate refugees from the overall intake).

This morning an economic think tank recommended doubling the immigration intake, saying it would "increase per capita GDP" despite the fact that per capita GDP has gone backwards due to increased migration.

If you halved the current migration rate it would return to historical levels, and be better for the economy and for the well being of the people already here.

Of course Bernardi doesn't care about any of that he only cares about One Nation. But if One Nation is the only party proposing a reduction in immigration, they'll get a lot of votes.

FredLurk 1h ago

I hate to agree with Bernadi, but he's dead right. Look at what is happening in Paris right now. Ask yourself, do we want this here?

www.express.co.uk/news/world/727862/Migrant-crisis-club-wielding-refugees-running-battles-Stalingrad-Metro-Paris

Suziekue

The problem is not with migration in this country, but with the 457 visa program where employers, like Caltex and 7Eleven, pay below award wages and provide poor working conditions.

This flows on into the broader community festering discontent amongst Australians who see their jobs and employment conditions disappearing.

But Bernadi and his ilk choose to distract from corporate malfeasance by playing the racist card, and thereby protecting the vested interests of the Coalition.

Filipio 1h ago

I happen to be a fan of immigration to Australia. It's enriched Australian society enormously. At the same time can we please move on from seeing GDP as some kind of sacred measure of all that is holy and good, even in economic terms?

Rather than focusing on immigrants, how about a thoughtful discussion of growth: what it means, how it ought to be measured, what's good and bad about it, and moving forward, what we as a society want in those terms. Immigration will assume a far more meaningful place in the context of a discussion of that kind, which would hopefully incorporate a strong environmental focus. But even in terms of the latter, issues of sustainability are not simply about raw population numbers but ultimately about lifestyle, modes of consumption, and energy use.

What's really interesting here are the telling contradictions within the governing party between its fundamental commitments to neo-liberalism and ever-increasing growth in GDP as absolute goods, and its stumbling attempts to also embrace political reaction against the economic consequences of both policies.

In that sense Bernardi is a useful idiot - plays to reaction through the red herring of prejudice (plus allowing the extreme right in the LNP to vent a bit of steam) while remaining rock-solid behind neo-liberalism and free markets -- at least, when it comes to the free movement of capital anyway (though the LNP has very astutely used various categories of working visa as an attempt to gradually entrench the movement of labour also, though not in any 'free' sense, just in the interests of maximizing profits).

jack1878 -> Filipio 43m ago

"I happen to be a fan of immigration to Australia. It's enriched Australian society enormously."

Yes it has, but Australia is now a vastly different place to what it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Back then there was plenty of land and housing, jobs available to anyone who wanted them, and the roads and hospitals were virtually empty.

Australia isn't like that anymore and anyone living in the major cities knows how overcrowded they currently are. The 2 bedroom flat opposite me is being rented out and 7 people are living in it. Also, one of the garages downstairs is being occupied by a small family of three..

Is this what we really want? Just because a policy worked well 50 years ago doesn't mean it should be retained for eternity.

jack1878 1h ago

I hate to say it, but I agree with Bernardi on the issue of immigration--but not much else.

To still be carrying out a policy of mass immigration in these disastrous economic times ie. no jobs, shortage of housing, overcrowded roads, hospitals etc. is a recipe for social unrest.

To cause such social unrest merely to prop up an overheated housing market and create a large pool of cheap labour for the benefit of wealthy elites is about as irresponsible a policy as you can get.


James Graham 45m ago

We need pro family policies if we wish to reduce migration. Working women must be given bigger incentives.

Abolish the tax breaks for novated lease vehicles for a start. Lift the GST on cars to 15%. And lets offer even higher incentives to have the 2nd and 3rd child.

SisterRhino -> NambuccaBarry 34m ago

I note even CNN ( Clinton Network News!) that has championed the same views of Donald Trump that you have just outlined, is starting to distance itself from Hillary.

She's so tainted that she will be of no use to her benefactors if she does squeak across the line. Who'd be dumb enough to be asking for the favours they've paid for given the scrutiny she'd going to be under from hereon in?

Just watch....as her backers desert the ship, one by one, then all at once.

[Oct 20, 2016] Elites generally control or dominate the dissemination of information and knowledge and employ that control to their own advantage

Notable quotes:
"... Antonio Gramsci addressed these issues in great detail during the 1920s and 1930s. Elites generally control or dominate the dissemination of information and knowledge and employ that control to their own advantage. They foster narratives that justify their own position, blame the poor for their own condition (sloth, fecklessness, etc.), and divert blame from the capitalists (the actual culprits) onto other disadvantaged groups (women, minorities, immigrants, etc.). Conservatives, who seek to preserve elite privilege, aggressively push these narratives. ..."
"... Today liberals don't have the appeals to public opinion of FDR, or even Sanders, don't have someone as tough in passing legislation as LBJ, or the mobilisation of voters of the New Deal coalition. Sanders recognised these problems all along. ..."
"... I also suspect that with all the rhetorical celebration of "small businesses", a lot of people don't really want to have "jobs" but would prefer to be small business owners, with all of the attached narratives of autonomy ("be your own boss") etc. ..."
"... Visions about workers, jobs, etc. may not appeal to them as much as imagined, aside from decades of hearing promises of jobs etc. that never materialized for a lot of people. ..."
"... I used to think when "small businesses" is mentioned in e.g. election ads or messaging to convince people to vote yes or no on a proposition, it means "right wing". I'm no longer sure that's universally the case. ..."
"... When I think of "small business" I usually think of marginally competent management (one step ahead of bankruptcy) and brutal exploitation of low paid labor. ..."
Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... Reply Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 07:29 AM

Antonio Gramsci addressed these issues in great detail during the 1920s and 1930s. Elites generally control or dominate the dissemination of information and knowledge and employ that control to their own advantage. They foster narratives that justify their own position, blame the poor for their own condition (sloth, fecklessness, etc.), and divert blame from the capitalists (the actual culprits) onto other disadvantaged groups (women, minorities, immigrants, etc.). Conservatives, who seek to preserve elite privilege, aggressively push these narratives.

Liberals have been much less successful for several reasons. The firstly, because they have largely favored technocratic incrementalism, which is hardly soul stirring and whose impacts are modest at best. Secondly liberals also mostly represent the interests of the modestly affluent, who would be inconvenienced by more egalitarian interventions. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been a good examples of more effective kinds of approaches.

Adamski -> DrDick... , October 20, 2016 at 07:43 AM
Rightwing populism isn't just Trump. The entire conservative media ecosystem pushes the Us v Them narrative about the moochers and the Other. American liberals don't defend their economic interventions aggressively to public opinion. If you don't promote and defend policies, the conservatives win by default. Civil rights and Medicare weren't achieved by incrementalism, not to mention the New Deal.

Today liberals don't have the appeals to public opinion of FDR, or even Sanders, don't have someone as tough in passing legislation as LBJ, or the mobilisation of voters of the New Deal coalition. Sanders recognised these problems all along.

If you do what you can in the executive branch and then appeal to the public to give you more power in legislative elections, you may get it. Instead of making excuses like Obama and Bill Clinton and then losing the midterms, never to get Congress back.

It worked when he was mayor of Burlington where the council opposed him but he got a favourable majority elected in short order.

cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 20, 2016 at 08:04 AM
I also suspect that with all the rhetorical celebration of "small businesses", a lot of people don't really want to have "jobs" but would prefer to be small business owners, with all of the attached narratives of autonomy ("be your own boss") etc.

Many take jobs for lack of such opportunity, or because deep down they know they are not leadership material or don't have the stomach to deal with business management issues every day, which is closer to reality than living the dream. But maybe one day, they will open their own shop. This is basically the same argument as the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire", though it is not (primarily) about financial riches but personal fulfillment.

Visions about workers, jobs, etc. may not appeal to them as much as imagined, aside from decades of hearing promises of jobs etc. that never materialized for a lot of people.

I used to think when "small businesses" is mentioned in e.g. election ads or messaging to convince people to vote yes or no on a proposition, it means "right wing". I'm no longer sure that's universally the case.

DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 20, 2016 at 12:08 PM
When I think of "small business" I usually think of marginally competent management (one step ahead of bankruptcy) and brutal exploitation of low paid labor.
Tom aka Rusty said in reply to DrDick... , October 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM
Using $5M in gross revenue as a definitional cut-off, I could introduce you to dozens of exceptions to your rule.
DrDick -> Tom aka Rusty... , October 20, 2016 at 01:06 PM
And they represent exactly what percentage of "small businesses"?
DrDick -> DrDick... , October 20, 2016 at 01:27 PM
Never mind, I looked it up myself and about 90% of small businesses have 20 employees or less and revenues under $2 million. Even Forbes thinks the SBA's definition that you cite is BS.
Tom aka Rusty said in reply to DrDick... , October 20, 2016 at 02:02 PM
Ok, make it $2M, same applies.

By the way that 10% includes a good chunk of lite manufacturing and construction.

Tom aka Rusty said in reply to DrDick... , October 20, 2016 at 02:03 PM
And what evidence do you have they are largely incompetent and near bankruptcy?
DrDick -> Tom aka Rusty... , October 20, 2016 at 02:13 PM
typepad does not seem to like my link, but half of all small businesses fail in the first 5 years.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DrDick... , -1
Yep, that sounds just like the restaurant business.

[Oct 20, 2016] Immigration Reform and Bad Hombres

www.npr.org

Trump's promise to deport illegal immigrants and build a massive wall along the Mexican border has been one of his signature issues of this campaign. "They are coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she wants to have open borders," the GOP nominee argued.

And he also argued that the border problem was contributing to the drug and opioid crisis in the country by allowing them to pore over the border.

"We're going to get them out, we're going to secure the border, and once the border is secured, at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest, but we have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," Trump said.

Clinton said she didn't want to "rip families apart. I don't want to be sending parents away from children. I don't want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country." She pointed she voted for increased border security and that any violent person should be deported.

"I think we are both a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws, and that we can act accordingly and that's why I am introducing comprehensive immigration reform within the first hundred days with a path to citizenship," Clinton promised.

[Oct 07, 2016] The democracy problem

Notable quotes:
"... Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing new historically. ..."
"... The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things. ..."
"... How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it. ..."
"... So much for Democracy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html ..."
"... I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that. ..."
Oct 07, 2016 | stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

Richard | October 06, 2016 at 04:07 PM

I suppose immigration is particularly sensitive because the newcomers will likely settle and become British citizens, thus giving them the vote and a say in how the country is run. If the newcomers fail to assimilate then they may vote in ways that the "native" population object to and bring about changes that would not otherwise have occurred.

Imagine for example a referendum on the monarchy that is won by republicans based on the votes from first generation immigrants who, understandably, are less likely to have attachment to the institution. I suppose another way to put it is: do the original inhabitants of a territory have a right to prevent social/cultural/political/economic change brought about by newcomers?

AndrewD | October 06, 2016 at 06:29 PM
@Richard

Which "original inhabitants" do you mean? The welsh, Anglo-saxons, Norman French, Romans...

Dipper | October 06, 2016 at 07:07 PM
@AndrewD what is your point? That there are no such people as British people? That those who live here have no more rights than those who don't?

Brexit in a nutshell: decades of treating the population of the UK as if they are nobodies: ask them "are you happy to continue being treated as if you are worthless nobodies?" Answer "no".

AndrewD | October 06, 2016 at 08:02 PM
My point is that the concept of "original inhabitents" for any part of the world (save possibly a small part of East Africa) is meaningless in historical terms. Historically, immigrants came with "fire and slaughter". Justify your statement about the rights of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we were here first.
Ahmed | October 06, 2016 at 08:11 PM
The problem with an epistocracy is that it doesn't solve the problem of people voting their self-interest instead of what is good for a nation.

Intelligence is a good first step but you need more than that.

magistra | October 06, 2016 at 09:12 PM
The difference between Daniel Kahnemann and Jason Brennan is that Kahnemann talks about the biases we all (including him) have and Brennan talks about the biases that "they" have. Which is why I take Kahnemann seriously and not Brennan. What's more, Dan Kahan's work on motivated reasoning suggests that it affects Type 2 (slow) thinking as well and that the bias is greatest among the most educated. In other words, we're all prone to cognitive biases and there's no justification from that to restrict the franchise.

Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing new historically.

Jim | October 06, 2016 at 09:28 PM
The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things.

How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it.

Dipper | October 06, 2016 at 10:11 PM
AndrewD - "Justify your statement about the rights of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we were here first."

well that's just about the whole of human history. If everyone has rights to be everywhere then no-one gets to influence what happens in "their" area. I like my neighbours but they live in their house and I live in mine.

More specifically and recently, the switch of who "we" are from the UK to Europe has created a bonanza for some people and left others on the scrap heap.

gastro george | October 06, 2016 at 11:04 PM
"If everyone has rights to be everywhere then no-one gets to influence what happens in "their" area."

You might want to think about how this scales, or are you about to erect some barricades?

Dipper | October 06, 2016 at 11:13 PM
gastro george - it scales into countries with borders and has done for centuries. Not sure what your point is.
gastro george | October 06, 2016 at 11:16 PM
For example, you're relying on the idea of an in group and an out group. What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are they part of your in group or not? What about people in your street that like immigration? Where are your borders? Then think about Europe where, to put it mildly, there has been a recent history of "fluid" boundaries.
aragon | October 06, 2016 at 11:59 PM
So much for Democracy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

Not to mention the European elite. Tribalism is natural: http://www.theglobalist.com/tribalism-groupism-globalism/

Most people don't share your views on immigration.

In fact the public have experienced free movement/immigration from Europe, the result Brexit.

Of course you don't have limited rationality, knowledge and attention.

You support free markets but not the wisdom of crowds?

Tonybirte | October 07, 2016 at 07:11 AM
@aragon Ah good, I wondered how long it would be before the Appeal to Nature fallacy reared its head. Social Darwinism anybody?
How do you reconcile the fact that the areas of the UK that saw the most EU immigration were the areas that were the most tolerant of it, and vice versa?
Lastly your wisdom of crowds reference is a bit silly. What we saw in the referendum was crowd psychology rather than diverse collections of independently deciding individuals, because the media drip fed them their views over 20 years or more.Crowds can be made to behave stupidly too.
Dipper | October 07, 2016 at 08:34 AM
@ gastro-george

"What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are they part of your in group or not?" this is a critical question that recent referenda have thrown up, even more so than left/right and class. The scots are part of my group but I suspect increasingly I am not part of theirs.

"What about people in your street that like immigration?" well once out of the EU we can all vote for parties that reflect our views on immigration. While in the EU over 450 million people have the right of residence and our various opinions matter not a jot.

Dipper | October 07, 2016 at 08:36 AM
@ Tonybirte. so people who disagree with you have been drop fed views over 20 years and are too stupid to see the truth.

Are you sure its not you who has been drip-fed views over the past 20 years? Are you absolutely sure you are not the one behaving stupidly? Have you done your due diligence?

a random eman | October 07, 2016 at 09:08 AM
Gastro George, the Scots are not pro-immigration. Opinion polling suggests they are less opposed to it than the UK as a whole, but still opposed overall.

I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that.

[Sep 28, 2016] there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.:

Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Vatch September 28, 2016 at 3:45 pm

I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants. According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.:

https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/illegal-aliens-us

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the total immigrant population of the U.S. is about 42 million people:

http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-Second-Quarter-2015

[Sep 22, 2016] Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

Notable quotes:
"... I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth. ..."
"... As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo. ..."
"... And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants? ..."
"... Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America. ..."
"... Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today. ..."
"... U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region. ..."
"... The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population. ..."
"... Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily. ..."
"... Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor. ..."
"... most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out. ..."
"... It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it. ..."
"... I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization. ..."
"... So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth". ..."
"... H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. ..."
"... Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic. ..."
"... My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.) ..."
Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on September 21, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth.

By Mike Kimel. Originally published at Angry Bear

In a recent post , I showed that looking at data since 1950 or so, the percentage of the population that is foreign born is negatively correlated with job creation in later years. I promised an explanation, and I will attempt to deliver on that promise in this post.

I can think of a few reasons for the finding, just about all of which would have been amplified since LBJ's Presidency due to two things: the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and the launch of the Great Society. The Hart-Cellar Act may be better known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It phased out country quotas in existence since the 1920s. As a result of these quotas, about 70% of all immigrants were coming from England, Germany and Ireland, with most of the remainder coming from elsewhere in Western Europe and from Latin America. The Great Society, of course, included a number of welfare programs, many of which (or their descendants) are still in existence.

With that, reasons why the foreign born population is negatively correlated with subsequent job creation include:

1. Immigrants who are sufficiently similar to the existing population when it comes to language, culture, skillsets and expectations will integrate more smoothly. Slower and more imperfect integration necessarily requires more expenditure of resources, resources which otherwise could go toward economic development.

2. Naturally, skills and values that are more productive and efficient than those of the existing population are conducive toward growth. Conversely, bringing inferior technology and processes does not improve the economy. As the source of immigrants shifted away from sources of sources of high technology like England and Germany and toward the developing and not-developing world, the likelihood that a randomly selected new immigrant will improve productivity diminishes.

3. Eligibility for welfare can change the incentive structure for existing and potential immigrants. An immigrant arriving in the US in 1890 certainly had no expectation of being supported by the state. It may be that most immigrants arriving in the US now also don't have that expectation. However, it is no secret that welfare exists so some percentage of potential immigrants arrive expecting to be supported to some degree by the state. In some (many?) cases, the expectation increases post-arrival. (Like any great economist, Milton Friedman got a lot of things wrong about how the economy works but he had a point when he said you can have a welfare state or open borders but not both.)

4. Rightly or wrongly, reasons 1 – 3 above may combine to create resentment in the existing population. Think "my grandparents came to this country with nothing and nobody gave them anything " Resentment can break down trust and institutions necessary for the economy to function smoothly.

5. Over time, transportation has become cheaper and easier. As a result, the likelihood that an immigrant has come to the US to stay has diminished. Many immigrants come to the US for several years and then go back to their country of origin. This in turn leads to four issues that can have negative impacts on the economy:

5a. Immigrants that expect to leave often send back remittances, taking resources out of the US economy. For example, in 2010, remittances from workers in the US amounted to 2.1% of Mexican GDP .

5b. Relative to many non-Western countries, the US taxpayer invests heavily in the creation of a state that is conducive toward acquiring useful skills and education. Often, the acquisition of such skills and education is heavily subsidized. When people acquire those tools and then leave without applying them, the value of the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically; any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters.

5d. Immigrants who arrive with a non-negligible expectation of leaving are, on average, more likely to take risks which generate private gains and social losses. If the bet goes well, congratulations. If the bet goes bad, "so long suckers!" The bet may even involve a crime.

6. (This one is more conjecture than the others – I think it is true, but I haven't given it enough thought, particularly whether it is entirely separate from the previous reasons.) The non-existence of a lump of labor does not mean there isn't a population to labor multiplier, or that the multiplier cannot change over time. In an era of relatively slow economic growth, economies of scale, and outsourcing abroad, the number of new employment opportunities per new customer (i.e., job creation per resident) can shrink. We've certainly seen something resembling that since about 2000.

None of this is to say that immigration is good or bad, or even that it should be opposed or encouraged. In this post I simply tried to explain what I saw in the data. I will have one or more follow-up posts.

financial matters , September 21, 2016 at 6:13 am

I think one of the best things the US can do re immigration is to develop policies that make it easier for people to stay in their country of origin which many probably want to do. Our policies have tended to have the opposite effect such as

NAFTA "An influx of highly subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market has displaced millions of rural farmers" ( http://economyincrisis.org/content/illegal-immigration-and-naftaz )

and Syria/Libya etc "An estimated 11 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011. Now, in the sixth year of war, 13.5 million are in need of humanitarian assistance within the country. " ( http://syrianrefugees.eu/ )

We are also very much in need of a job guarantee paying a living wage which would put pressure on major employers such as Walmart and McDonalds and get their executives off of government subsidies. (they pay a wage so low their workers are forced into food stamps and medicaid) (One of the major beneficiaries of the nation's food-stamp program is actually a hugely profitable company: Walmart .) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/walmart-food-stamps_n_4181862.html )

Hayek's Heelbiter , September 21, 2016 at 6:15 am

Another great post, read word-for-word, and I very much look forward your subsequent ones.

You've cogently explored the "yin" of immigration, but what about the "yang"?

As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo.

And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants?

IMHO

Jim Haygood , September 21, 2016 at 7:25 am

'As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts.'

After a mere ten years, NAFTA succeeded in reversing net immigration from Mexico.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America.

Increasingly Mexico will focus on its own southern border with Guatemala, as it becomes more of a destination country rather than simply a transit country, as detailed here:

https://www.wola.org/files/mxgt/report/

Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today.

Mark John , September 21, 2016 at 9:20 am

Yes. It is a pernicious cycle with something like these dimensions. . .

  1. U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region.
  2. The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population.
  3. Native population sees the contours of its society change with the influx along with a lessening in quality of living standards, which leads to dangerous, xenophobic mental associations. Xenophobic politics begin to take root and thrive.

The real solution is for our country to stop doing step 1.

tony , September 21, 2016 at 8:03 am

Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily.

Its clear that the emigree benefits, and the receiving country receives a subsidy in the form of valuable human capital. But how does the originating country develop? Invest in education and the best leave. Invest in industry and you compete with the products of the developed countries.

And of course, the rich in unstable countries have little reason to care about the long term consequences of their actions if they can take their loot and run. There is a reason so many rich Chinese are emigrating.

David Harvey once told a story about how he warned investment bankers that if things keep getting worse, the US could end up a failed state like Mexico. In typical Wall Street fashion they asked Harvey if they should buy villas in France.

Mark John , September 21, 2016 at 2:12 pm

And now climate change will only increase the numbers of those seeking refuge, most likely fueling xenophobia in the west further.

fresno dan , September 21, 2016 at 7:16 am

I think this is the first article I have EVER read that even supposes there might be negative ECONOMIC effects of immigration.

I would note that if there ever was a jobs program with the explicit goal of reducing unemployment to 4% (and not pretending the people who have dropped out don't want a job because they CAN'T get a job) and providing a job to any and all applicants – well, I think the immigration from South America that has slowed would amp right up again – of course.

You know, I have been reading some of the Davos Man class going on and on about how they didn't really do enough to ameliorate the negative effects of "free" trade on those who don't benefit from trade. But NAFTA is going on a quarter of a century – and in every subsequent trade deal such promises are either never kept or never effectively implemented.

I suspect that to REALLY provide jobs of equal pay and equal benefits is not economically feasible. Think of it this way – people who worked as landscapers, when displaced by immigrants, may not have the aptitude, skills, or even desire to change careers – if you work outside, why in the hell do you want to have to start working indoors???
Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .

What are you gonna do keep these people employed – have the same lawn mowed twice every week? Have the same computer code written twice?????

Again, the whole scenario has struck me as not being ever critically thought through. The benefits to consumers getting low prices are endlessly pointed out, but the negative effect of fewer jobs at low pay are glossed over or NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. The whole deal is that less income to workers and more income to capital – is it REALLY unforseeable that eventually there will be a demand dearth?? Decades of experience of jobs shipped overseas and not replaced are not acknowledged. Ever growing inequality. We have been sold a load of bullsh*t because it benefited a very, very narrow slice at the top only.

Northeaster , September 21, 2016 at 7:38 am

Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .

Over 100K H-1B Visas issued so far for 2016 alone, over 10% of those were issued in my state of Massachusetts. The Mathworks Inc. of Natick was given a $3 million dollar state tax subsidy in return for "creating" 600 new jobs – they created jobs alright, 386 H-1B jobs so far, Americans need not apply.

nowhere , September 21, 2016 at 1:41 pm

Hmmm a reason to stop using MATLAB?

timbers , September 21, 2016 at 7:27 am

The HB-1 Indian workers that have flooded Boston's labor market seem to fit this part because they get on and off Public transportation enmass at stops with clusters of rental buildings -- "5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically; any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters."

gardener1 , September 21, 2016 at 8:04 am

Some first person anecdotal observances –

As a lifelong blue collar worker for nearly 40 years, I found my ability to remain employed competing against a never-ending influx of 22 year old immigrants to be a sinking, and finally sunk quagmire. I lost. I cannot be 22 forever.

Coming up in the 1970's many of my acquaintances and I were skilled laborers, we got up in the morning and went out everyday to work hard for a living. None of us would even be considered for any of those entry level positions any more. They all go to immigrants from somewhere else or another. As a native born white American you don't even get a chance at those jobs anymore, no employer would even bother talking to you.

The US has all but done away with apprenticeship programs for the skilled trades. We just bring in exploitable people from all over the world to build our stuff, and then when we're done with them, they go back to where they came from. I know this is true because I've asked them, I've worked with them – they have no intention of staying in America longer than it takes to educate their kids, build up a nest egg, and go back home. A lot of them don't really like it here.

But we Americans don't have those options. We can't go to Guatemala or Germany or the Philippines to work for 10 or 20 years to return to America with saved money on which we can survive for the rest of a lifetime.

This deal is a one-way street.

As an American, I challenge you to get a job abroad. I challenge you to get a foreign residency visa or a work visa. I challenge you to do any of the things that immigrants do in our country. You can't.

I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm pro- our people first. Us first, and then when we need other folks they're welcome too. But that's not what has been happening in my work lifetime of the last 40 years.

Carolinian , September 21, 2016 at 8:31 am

Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor.

For example most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out.

In any case the below author does talk about how the notion of "illegal" immigrants is a more recent phenomenon and in earlier periods Mexicans were freely allowed to come across and work.

http://mondediplo.com/openpage/is-trump-an-aberration

financial matters , September 21, 2016 at 9:07 am

I think it's also useful to consider private prison labor. This article notes that half this revenue comes from undocumented immigrants but that means the other half comes from US citizens. private prisons

""Private prisons bring in about $3 billion in revenue annually, and over half of that comes from holding facilities for undocumented immigrants. Private operations run between 50% to 55% of immigrant detainment facilities. The immigration bill battling its way through Washington right now might also mean good things for private prisons. Some estimate that the crackdown on undocumented immigrants will lead to 14,000 more inmates annually with 80% of that business going to private prisons.

The prison industry has also made money by contracting prison labor to private companies. The companies that have benefited from this cheap labor include Starbucks (SBUX), Boeing (BA), Victoria's Secret, McDonalds (MCD) and even the U.S. military. Prison laborers cost between 93 cents and $4 a day and don't need to collect benefits, thus making them cheap employees.""

Ping , September 21, 2016 at 10:11 am

It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it.

Now that they are here and have settled with families, it is deplorable to speak of mass deportation. As has been noted with the Walmart expample, those that massively profit from this abberation should bear the major cost of public services required for a 'Shadow Workforce'.

And Hillary Clinton and her neocon crowd, whose policies have created chaos resulting in mass immigration of refugees offers no apology but more of the same. Insanity doing the same thing over and over for a different result?

Huruyadzo Chikwanha , September 21, 2016 at 10:17 am

I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization.

I argue that the theory is self contradictory because it is normal human nature being selfish hence anti competition. When threatened by the influx of seemingly hard working, creative and passive immigrants, I tend to gravitate towards conservatism. I start taking necessary steps towards protecting myself, my immediate family and hence my domestic market. These rules are typically borrowed from nature. How to balance the impulsive theory of free market economics vs the reality of limited resources and opportunities is a unique challenge to governments, policy and decision makers worldwide hence globalization in the short run presents unique challenges (conflicts) sometimes.

Vatch , September 21, 2016 at 10:22 am

Johnson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Private_prisons

Johnson supports private, for-profit prisons. As Governor of New Mexico he dealt with overcrowded prisons (and approximately seven hundred prisoners held out-of-state due to a lack of available space) by opening two private prisons, later arguing that "building two private prisons in New Mexico solved some very serious problems – and saved the taxpayers a lot of money."

He could have saved the taxpayers even more money by releasing non-violent prisoners convicted of minor crimes. But that would have offended some of his campaign donors.

Clinton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html

Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you?

According to Lee Fang of The Intercept, Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton.

After pressure from civil rights groups, Vice News explains Hillary Clinton Shuns Private Prison Cash, Activists Want Others to Follow Suit.

The Huffington Post writes "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice."

Do you trust Clinton?

I guess this means that we should vote for Sanders in the primary. Oh gosh, there's a minor problem. The primaries are over, and Clinton is the nominee.

Trump: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/why-trumps-support-for-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration-should-worry-you/

"I do think we can do a lot of privatizations, and private prisons it seems to work a lot better," said Trump when asked how he planned to reform the country's prison system.

Stein: http://www.jill2016.com/fb_ad_cannabis_legalization_landing_page

As president, Jill Stein will:

3.) Abolish private prisons

So Stein of the Green Party is best on this issue.

no one in particular , September 21, 2016 at 11:19 am

For more research on the topic – I found the following very readable, gave me a lot of insight into the factors influencing whether or when immigration is good or bad from which point of view:

Paul Collier Exodus, ca. 2011 .

efschumacher , September 21, 2016 at 11:55 am

So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth".

Question is, how much of the pension and/or social security and/or investment gains do I owe to the US, and how much to the UK? I think I owe more there than I do here. Particularly in light of the fact that the UK paid for my college education, but my nephews and nieces have to pay for their own, so I have hitherto been a drain on the UKs social investment strategy.

I see it as much a moral question as an economic one that I should help support my family's education directly, and the UK social system through future taxes paid from pension. I have after all supported the US social and military-industrial systems through work done and taxes paid during my working life.

Adam Eran , September 21, 2016 at 11:56 am

1. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare they can barely get emergency room care.

2. H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. Could India actually make use of its intelligent people? Is it moral for the U.S. to, in effect, bribe them to leave their native country? (A point made by Ralph Nader in answering a libertarian at his Google talk )

3. Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic.

Anon , September 21, 2016 at 12:53 pm

Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia .

Got a link on this? My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.)

Gary , September 21, 2016 at 3:33 pm

I can only speak for Texas, but the nail salons, massage parlors, dry cleaners, restaurants, fishing boats and electronics refurbishing can't ALL be H1-B visas. And that isn't even counting all the people from India I see. Most of them are too old to be students.

Dave , September 21, 2016 at 12:02 pm

Trump's statement that he will issue an executive order forcing employers to use E-Verify for all new employees is a good start. While that program has a few flaws, the net effect would be massive for favoring citizens over illegals.

To be fair, employers should still have the option of using illegals, however, they should put their money where their mouths and labor savings are, by not being able to deduct the non E-Verifiable wages from their income for taxation purposes.

sgt_doom , September 21, 2016 at 3:50 pm

Add to the author's stuff from Johnson Administration: his Border Industrialization Program.

Interesting article.

[Sep 15, 2016] Trumps Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues

Notable quotes:
"... Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910. ..."
"... Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in. ..."
"... As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html ..."
"... "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians. ..."
"... I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants. ..."
"... Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. ..."
"... "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated." ..."
"... I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist. ..."
"... The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away. ..."
Sep 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
September 9, 2016 I have a new column:
Trump's Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues : Donald Trump would like you to believe that immigration is largely responsible for the difficult economic conditions the working class has experienced in recent decades. But immigration is not the problem. The real culprits are globalization, technological change, and labor's dwindling bargaining power in wage negotiations.
Let's start with immigration. ...
A Boy Named Sue said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 09:28 PM
Some Tom Petty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G17GOzyD2Y

A Boy Named Sue said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 10:18 PM
Some Boss.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAr5JRPc3g

I am not asking for the preservation, jobs, but

RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:16 AM
Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910.

http://monthlyreview.org/product/lettuce_wars/

Lettuce Wars: Ten Years of Work and Struggle in the Fields of California

In 1971, Bruce Neuburger-young, out of work, and radicalized by the 60s counterculture in Berkeley-took a job as a farmworker on a whim. He could have hardly anticipated that he would spend the next decade laboring up and down the agricultural valleys of California, alongside the anonymous and largely immigrant workforce that feeds the nation. This account of his journey begins at a remarkable moment, after the birth of the United Farm Workers union and the ensuing uptick in worker militancy. As a participant in organizing efforts, strikes, and boycotts, Neuburger saw first-hand the struggles of farmworkers for better wages and working conditions, and the lengths the growers would go to suppress worker unity...

Tom aka Rusty said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:04 AM
Mexican migrants were in Ohio 60+ years ago, making the vegetable circuit. (The biggest Campbells Soup plant is in Napoleon Ohio. The region has some of the best top soil on the planet). Some of them settled and are on the third generation. They even hang out with the white working class, who are their neighbors and co-workers. Some of them even marry Germans and Swedes.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:34 AM
Yeah, guest workers go way back at least 100 years in the US. And sure many stayed and, in that case, I am totally fine with actual immigration when they become citizens and pay taxes and buy or rent homes here as permanent residents. Green card workers and illegals are doing a lot of the farm work in VA on the Northern Neck and Eastern Shore and have been for thirty years. Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in.
kthomas -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:18 PM
My Grandmother loved Mexico and all her people. She used to say that in every American there is a Mexican trying to get out.
ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:49 AM
I understand the effect of illegal immigration, Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation, ...., in fact almost all working class Americans understand the effects of illegal immigration.

As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html

pgl -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:53 PM
"Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians.

Mark Thoma is suggesting a humane alternative to Wilson's two extremes.

reason -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:44 AM
If there was a basic income with a substantial residency requirement for immigrants - this would be a non-issue, since qualified residents could live better than immigrants on the same wages.
David : , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 09:33 PM
I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants.

I remember those old World War 2 movies where the squad is made up of diverse immigrants. You got the Italian, the Jew, the Irsh guy, etc. And they formed a team. E pluribus unim. Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. E

A Boy Named Sue said in reply to David... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 10:12 PM
"Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most"

Conservatives have been attacking immigrants for years. They hated JFK and Catholics. Being a Catholic Jew is not new to me, but Cons hated Catholics and then they used us Jews for their political gains. It never worked on us. Most Jews are too intelligent for conservatism. Take care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAr5JRPc3g

pgl -> David... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:31 AM
San Juan Capistrano is indeed an incredible town.
pgl : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:30 AM
Our excellent host gets to the heart of the matter:

"If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated."

Trump has nothing to offer except hate. Besides - who could object to more tacos. Oh wait - I need to do a long run before eating Mexican food tonight.

New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:05 AM
I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist.

The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away.

RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:21 AM
Excellent. Welcome to the revolution.
anne -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:22 AM
And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist....

[ Perfectly paraphrased from Dr. Strangelove. We are being siphoned, OMG. ]

anne -> anne... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:49 AM
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-presents-an-overly-simplistic-view-of-trade

September 10, 2016

Washington Post Presents an Overly Simplistic View of Trade

It is unfortunate that it now acceptable in polite circles to connect a view with Donald Trump and then dismiss it. The result is that many fallacious arguments can now be accepted without being seriously questioned. (Hey folks, I hear Donald Trump believes in evolution.)

The Post plays this game * in noting that the U.S. trade deficit with Germany is now larger than its deficit with Mexico, putting Germany second only to China. It then asks why people aren't upset about the trade deficit with Germany.

It partly answers this story itself. Germany's huge trade surplus stems in large part from the fact that it is in the euro zone. The euro might be properly valued against the dollar, but because Germany is the most competitive country in the euro zone, it effectively has an under-valued currency relative to the dollar.

The answer to this problem would be to get Germany to have more inflationary policies to allow other countries to regain competitiveness -- just as the other euro zone countries were generous enough to run inflationary policies in the first half of the last decade to allow Germany to regain competitiveness. However, the Germans refuse to return this favor because their great great great great grandparents lived through the hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany. (Yes, they say this.)

Anyhow, this issue has actually gotten considerable attention from economists and other policy types. Unfortunately it is very difficult to force a country in the euro zone -- especially the largest country -- to run more expansionary countries. As a result, Germany is forcing depression conditions on the countries of southern Europe and running a large trade surplus with the United States.

The other part of the difference between Germany and China and Mexico is that Germany is a rich country, while China and Mexico are developing countries. Folks that took intro econ courses know that rich countries are expected to run trade surpluses.

The story is that rich countries are slow growing with a large amount of capital. By contrast, developing countries are supposed to fast growing (okay, that doesn't apply to post-NAFTA Mexico), with relatively little capital. Capital then flows from where it is relatively plentiful and getting a low return to developing countries where it is scarce and can get a high return.

The outflow of capital from rich countries implies a trade surplus with developing countries. Developing countries are in turn supposed to be borrowing capital to finance trade deficits. These trade deficits allow them to build up their capital stocks even as they maintain the consumption standards of their populations.

In the case of the large trade surpluses run by China and other developing countries, we are seeing the opposite of the textbook story. We are seeing fast growing developing countries with outflows of capital. This largely because they have had a policy of deliberately depressing the value of their currencies by buying up large amounts of foreign reserves (mostly dollars.)

So the economics textbooks explain clearly why we should see the trade deficits that the U.S. runs with China and Mexico as being different than the one it runs with Germany. And that happens to be true regardless of what Donald Trump may or may not say.

By the way, this piece also asserts that "Germany on average has lower wages than Belgium or Ireland." This is not true according to our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/u-s-politicians-love-to-attack-china-and-mexico-for-stealing-jobs-germany-could-be-next/

-- Dean Baker

ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:02 AM
The myth of the "white working class", even before undocumented immigration it was fairy tale.

On the military build up the only country doing it is US.

EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:40 AM
Wrong.

China is building its military at a huge rate. Double digit growth per yer over almost 20 years. They are at $150 billion a year(if you believe their figures).

Maybe someone can apply PPP to that number?

ilsm -> EMichael... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:06 AM
If you believe CIA figures it's $150B per year!

You have a point with China at $150B a year going to real engineering and not inept Lockheed you need to worry. Those PLA re-education camps might make you another McCain.

US' Pentagon welfare trough: $500B "core" per year even with the sequestration.

Paying for DoD part of drones delivering collateral damage justified by its military utility*: $80B in FY 16 (was $150B in FY 12).

CIA contracted drones and contractor (See the guys killed in Benghazi) run wars we can know nothing about $XXB a year.

*If Germany had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged.

ilsm -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:11 AM
Why you need to worry about what potential adversaries do:

F-35 at $1500B "through life" cost is 10 years of PRC military budgets spent over 30.........

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html

US has spent itself to disarmament in its welfare trough.

USMC and USAF declaration of combat ready is for an recondite definition of combat.

EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:11 PM
No.

Those are chinese numbers.

Now, figure out how much their labor costs are versus out labor costs.

They are arming, and they are going after gas and oil they do not have.

Ya' think they built that island cause they wanted the fish?

I understand the hatred of US foreign policy.

Time to grow up and realize that the Russians and the Chinese are at least as bad as we are.

Tom aka Rusty said in reply to New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:56 AM
Globalization was designed, promoted and sold by economists, so it cannot possibly be a problem, right?
pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:33 AM
Rusty - your usual confusion. Economists only advise. Lawyers make these decisions. And most lawyers either do not listen to economists or if they do they get really confused. But will a lawyer ever admit they are confused or not listening?
mulp -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:39 PM
I don't see your call to take America back to the 60s and tube radios and TVs because they are cheaper than semiconductor manufacturing because all the tube electronic factories already exist.

Nor do I see you extolling the virtue of $8 gasoline and heating oil thanks to the total ban on fossil fuel imports.

I'd love someone to ask Trump if he would ban imports of oil and iPhones and Samsung electronics in his first 100 days as president.

If he says yes and doesn't lose popularity, I'll make sure to buy all the electronics I'll want for a few years. I've already sworn off gasoline.

cm -> mulp ... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 09:52 AM
Tube radios had great sound but they weren't portable, not only due to size but also power consumption.
Pinkybum -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:44 PM
"The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. "

Who is peddling this false paradigm?

Paine -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:24 AM
"Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run "

That requires certain assumptions about macro policy

Assumptions that may be likely but are not certain

Recall the US is huge diverse in resources
and defines the technical frontier

An America closed to most trade could be its own world
Not my recommendation of course
But this either or is both simplistic and mis leading

Paine -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
Surely fuller then full employment
and a largest possible share of net income
going to primary producers isn't precluded by external trade restrictions

Economies of scale ?
Adequate competition between producing units ?

North America is plenty big for most optimal "plant sizes "
And at least three firms for each product

See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure

Paine -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
We are blessed
anne -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:57 AM
See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure

[ Of course, that will take reading through the last 30 years or so of work by Joseph Stiglitz since I am not going to give a reader a clue as to how to find such a reference. No problem though, just start reading. ]

DrDick -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
There will be no relief until we "euthanize the rentiers". Raise top marginal rates to confiscatory levels on income over $1 million, treat all income the same, prohibit corporations from deducting executive compensate over $1 million, eliminate all tax breaks for individuals that do not widely apply to those in the bottom half of the income distribution and all corporate tax subsidies.
Tom aka Rusty said in reply to DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:06 AM
That would be a great plan to push companies and jobs overseas.

A little overkill?

DrDick -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM
"A little overkill?"

Not even close, just a return to the 1950s, when the economy boomed. The idea that the wealthy and large corporations will physically move to countries with more favorable tax regimes, most of which are in the third world, is pure fantasy, which is why most of the super rich live in New York, California, and other high tax states.

EMichael -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:14 PM
Dick,

Love you brother, but thr US had an incredible advantage in the 50s that does not exist any more. to think they are coming back is nonsense.

DrDick -> EMichael... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 07:56 AM
I understand the differences, but was merely addressing Rusty's nonsense implying this was somehow outrageous and unprecedented. In addition to the trade advantages the US had, the emergence of new industries in electronics, aviation, and petrochemicals, which all needed a lot of highly skilled workers and paid very well, was vital as well. Nonetheless, the policies I mentioned would go a long way to addressing our current problems, including reducing the incentives to offshore production (contrary to Rusty).
ken melvin -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:54 AM
Bill Clinton explains how rentiers cause such as Carrier's move to Mexico:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?308089-1/former-president-clinton-obama-campaign-rally

ken melvin -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:36 AM
Ooops, should have been the one in Pittsburg yesterday:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?414998-1/former-president-bill-clinton-campaigns-pittsburgh-pennsylvania
mulp -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 03:00 PM
You don't understand the point of tax dodges, do you? The tax dodges are rewards for paying workers to build capital assets. But they need high marginal rates to justify paying workers.

Capital gains needs to return to the hold for five years or more to get the incentive. It isn't really "capital" if not held because it's productive.

However, if inflation in the price of productive capital that barely retains its value is taxed as income, you punish building productive capital. Asset basis price can be inflation adjusted reasonably well these days thanks to computer technology making detailed calculations simple for humans.

I'd have loved to pay workers to install solar and batteries to dodge 50-70% marginal tax rates in the 90s. Much better than the best case 30% tax credit for paying workers these days. Of course, given the penalty for paying workers due to low tax rates, I have no high wage income to be taxed at high rates.

As Milton Friedman pointed out in the 60s and then later in the 80s as I recall, the 50-70-90% tax rates never raised much revenue because the tax dodges rewarded paying worker to do wasteful things, in his opinion, like production too much cheap energy, producing too much innovation which ended up in too many new consumer products the wastefully overpaid workers bought.

David : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:26 AM
This is an irrelevant aside. Friday was a minor bloodbath for investors inequities and bonds. Thing is, I was like okay, I lost paper money, why.? I could not find a reason the market was tanking other than Fed fears. Now I realize equities markets can behave like crack addicts or lemmings. But 2.45 percent based on Fed fears of a rate hike?

Usually when the market is down I go to Calculated risk to see what must be some bad data. Friday is a profit taking day. But as a small investor that was a really bad day.

Also, Los Lobos version of Hotel California via the Big Libowski is essential.

Dog Days of the DOW said in reply to David... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:49 PM

Final trading session before the 15th anniversary of 9-11 disaster! Would you guess that lot of folks hedged with ultra-short-ETF earlier in the week? Lot of folks took profits before labour day?
David -> Dog Days of the DOW... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:03 PM
A day like that is why there needs to be a micro tax on trades. I get it if people sell based on fundamentals. Everyone hedges, too, that's why you diversify. But the ultimate purpose of investing is to provide companies with the capital to make productive investment.

A good part of the market is just short term bets. How is that socially useful. And the funny thing, a lot of these guys don't make money for their clients, they just make money on the commission. Like a casino owner. Like the con man running for prez.

Paine : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:27 AM
Here's the IMFs

Model
Read it and rip it

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1034.pdf

Publius : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:29 AM
Technological change is definitely not an issue. Productivity growth is slower now than in 1945-1973 when we had a large middle class. Cross nationally the arguments that robots are taking jobs doesn't make any sense. If you traveled in both the non-industrial world (Africa, Haiti etc) and East Asia, you will be aware of this. In the non-industrial world formal sector employment is only 10-20% of the labor force; 80% of the pop. is involved in "gig" jobs selling candy on the street etc. In East Asia you have virtually no unemployment, but these are the places with by far the largest deployment of robots, much, much higher than the US. The robots argument is convenient politically, but doesn't make any sense to anyone whose traveled the world or knows anything about economic history.
ken melvin -> Publius... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM
Before, auto plants hired 5,500 @ and produced X vehicles; after, they hired 1,200 @ and produced 1.4 vehicles. You don't get to have your own reality.
ken melvin -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:37 AM
...1.4X ...
anne -> Publius... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:36 PM
Technological change is definitely not an issue....

[ Really important argument:

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/as-uk-productivity-growth-falls-to-zero-john-harris-at-the-guardian-tells-readers-that-technology-is-making-old-workplace-relations-obsolete

September 9, 2016

As UK Productivity Growth Falls to Zero, John Harris at the Guardian Tells Readers that Technology Is Making Old Workplace Relations Obsolete

-- Dean Baker ]

ilsm : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:32 AM
It has become Taco Truck versus Trumpistas are: racist, sexist and deluded.

The awesome effect of the crooked DNC!

Is there no reason to trust either "party"?

EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:38 AM
It was a lot nicer around here for those couple of days you were on your meds.

But if you are not going to take them, could you forward them to Peter K.?


ilsm -> EMichael... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:29 AM
ad hominem, eh!
EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:41 AM
Not at all.

Simply observation.

pgl -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:34 AM
And pray tell - what do you have against tacos?
ilsm -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:13 AM
I am a tamales person, especially from a roadside in Tx!
pgl -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:56 PM
I bet that tamales truck is run by a Mexican. I hope so as it would likely mean you are enjoying awesome tamales. Trump has no idea what good Mexican food is as it does not exist in Manhattan.
ilsm -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:14 PM
The best I had ever was by two Mexican Grandmas! Somewhere between Houston and San Antonio.
Chris Herbert : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:20 AM
I think we need to change the compound growth capitalism we've had since forever. It will not be sustainable much longer. We need 'de-globalization' not more globalization, in my opinion. The efficiency bookkeeping model that promotes globalization is deeply flawed. What about the pollution issues involved in global distribution of products that can easily be made at home? Again, Keynes said it best. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous--and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed." https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
ilsm -> Chris Herbert... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:30 AM
Yup, go back to Tesla and use DC.......
anne -> Chris Herbert... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:34 PM
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm

June, 1933

National Self-Sufficiency
By John Maynard Keynes

[ Terrific essay. ]

Enquiring Mind : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:33 AM
Taco Trucks and LA:

After the Berlin Wall fell, and defense budgets got cut, the SoCal economy changed as income and jobs drained out. Blacks occupied the lower end of support jobs and got underbid by Hispanics, so they moved away from LA. The same trend impacted lower income whites, who largely moved out of state. Middle and upper income whites adapted as the local economy transitioned to absorb the laid-off engineering talent, often through new business ventures along the 101 corridor and in the multi-media areas in Santa Monica and the south bay. What took a few decades in Pittsburgh and other cities impacted by major industry changes took about a decade in LA.

In southern California overall, the combination of illegal immigration and a higher total fertility rate among Hispanics has brought about significant population and employment changes, particularly over the last 25 years. As well-documented by demographers, blacks suffered significantly through those changes and were displaced from low end jobs by the burgeoning Hispanic population.

For example, south central LA has transitioned from majority black to majority Hispanic as a result of job changes and influx. Blacks moved to San Bernardino, Victorville and other areas where cheaper housing and potential employment were available.

Now the taco trucks are supplemented by grilled cheese trucks, crepe trucks, Korean taco trucks and other variations designed to serve a more diverse population.

pgl -> Enquiring Mind... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:58 PM
That is actually a decent description of LA. And the diversity of food is why some sing "I Love LA". It has its issues but I do miss southern CAL .. especially during these harsh NYC winters.
Tom aka Rusty : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:33 AM
Offshoring in the land of fruits and nuts:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/m/e7f06fa0-faf3-3ea6-a2ac-9590fe150c38/ss_university-of-california's.html


Fred C. Dobbs : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:41 AM
Always energizing the base. (Smart tactics.)

Urbanites like Trump probably see
'taco trucks' frequently as their
limos whiz by. They appreciate
their visibility to likely
Trumpy supporters.

(Limos & trucks both?)

'Doing something about pesky
immigrants should garner a few votes!'

Except The Donald didn't start the tweet storm.

'Taco Trucks on Every Corner': Trump Supporter's
Anti-Immigration Warning http://nyti.ms/2bIeFyw
NYT - NIRAJ CHOKSHI - SEPT. 2, 2016

"My culture is a very dominant culture, and it's imposing and it's causing problems. If you don't do something about it, you're going to have taco trucks on every corner."

That was Marco Gutierrez, founder of the group Latinos for Trump, issuing a dire warning to the United States in an interview with Joy Reid on MSNBC on Thursday night.

America's response? Mmm, tacos! ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:46 AM
Trump campaign manager repeatedly grilled about
candidate's false proclamations on Iraq War
position http://read.bi/2bZ6iyG
via @BusinessInsider - Sep 9

Donald Trump's campaign manager was repeatedly pressed Friday as she attempted to explain inconsistencies in the Republican presidential nominee's statements on the Iraq War.

On two separate morning shows, Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time.

On CNN, anchor Chris Cuomo pressed Conway on Trump's Iraq War flip-flops.

"He doesn't want to own that he wasn't against it before it started," Cuomo said. "Why not? Why not just own it? And as you like to say, he was a private citizen."

Conway insisted that despite Trump responding "yeah, I guess so" when Stern asked if he supported the invasion of Iraq, his statement wasn't equal to then Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the war. ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:57 AM
(At least, 'Trump has acknowledged that
Clinton's vote (for the war - *) was a mistake.')

... "The point is, as you know, he constantly says 'I was always against the war,'" host Charlie Rose said to Conway. "Here he says 'I guess' I would support it. That's a contradiction."

Conway pushed back, offering a similar defense to the one she gave CNN.

"Not really, Charlie," she said. "And here is why: He is giving - he is on a radio show. Hillary Clinton went into the well of the United States Senate representing this state of New York and case a vote in favor of the Iraq War."

Rose said that "this is not about Hillary Clinton."

"She has acknowledged that vote and acknowledged it was a mistake," Rose said. "He has not, and he wants to have it both ways."

Conway said that Trump has acknowledged that Clinton's vote was a mistake, to which Rose replied, "No, but he has not acknowledged that at one point he said he was for the war.

"Why can't he simply say that?" Rose asked. "'At one point I was, and then I changed my mind." ...

(When Trump criticized the Iraq War in 2004,
it was because we hadn't seized their oil
assets as spoils, ostensibly.)

*- Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization
for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:01 PM
Any real news person who either ban this lying woman from his/her show and hammer her every time she lies. Which is about every other word.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:00 PM
"Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time."

Of course Kellyanne Conway lies even more than her client.

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Limousine Liberals for Trump!
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:07 PM
Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables' ...
http://nyti.ms/2c1UlbC
NYT - AMY CHOZICK - SEPT. 10

... Mrs. Clinton's comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" she said to applause and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

By Saturday morning, #BasketofDeplorables was trending on Twitter as Mr. Trump's campaign demanded an apology. His supporters hoped to use the remark as as evidence that Mrs. Clinton cannot connect to the voters she hopes to represent as president.

"Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the polls!" Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ...

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:16 PM
I guess she needs her clones to have just one word for racist, sexist, nativist, know nothing,.....

She can call me deplorable and all her clones too.

Denis Drew : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:50 AM
Immigration PLUS the "demobilization" of labor unions (the discontinuance of collective bargaining with the concomitant dismemberment of middle class political punch) EQUALS the impoverishment of low skilled workers ...

... equates to reducing what should be $800 jobs to $400 jobs ...

... which is the alpha and the omega of today's income inequality -- at least lowest income inequality; the folks who work fast food and supermarkets (the wrong end of two-tier supermarket contracts, gradually going low tier all the way). I'm not especially concerned that more low skilled jobs add more higher skilled employment.
********************************
Why are 100,000 out of something like 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males in street gangs? Where are the American raised taxi drivers? Could be $600 fast food jobs imm-sourced to Mexico and India -- could be $800 taxi jobs imm-sourced to the whole world? $1000 construction jobs imm-sourced to Eastern Europe and Mexico?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.
*****************************
Even zero immigration would only (as in merely) keep American labor from hitting rock bottom -- or at least hoping to find non-criminal employment w/o collective bargaining.

Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.

OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.

New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal level.

Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise the issue.

IF SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD JUST RAISE THE ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!

Denis Drew said in reply to Denis Drew ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:30 AM
Wanna stop the shoot-em-ups in Chicago and elsewhere? To paraphrase a line from Superfly: It's the American dream dog: flush toilet down the hall, AM radio, electric light in every room.

Let's call that $200/wk job level -- in today's money. And the year is ...

... 1916 ...

.. and today's gang members, not to mention my American raised taxi driver "gang" would be willing to put in a hard week's work for it ...

... in 1916.

But today's "gangs" are not going to work for $400, 100 years later. Hell, about 50 years later ...

... 1968 ...

... the federal minimum wage was $440 in today's money -- at half today's per capita income!

I read James Julius Wilson's book When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor and Sudhir Venkatesh's book American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto, at the same time -- and the projects only descended into gang infested hell as the bottom dropped out of the minimum wage.

Beautiful thing about collective bargaining is: you know you have squeezed the most practicable out (of your fellow consumers -- not the boss) of the economy and technology of your era.

Just don't forget Centralized bargaining so the Walmarts of the world can't squeeze better contracts elsewhere. Walmart closed 88 big boxes in Germany which has centralized bargaining.

cm -> Denis Drew ... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Wal-Mart's "advantage" is not in low labor cost, but logistics and market dominance allowing it to boss around suppliers.

German labor laws may have contributed to its "problems", but the primary issues were its US-centric logistics operation and having to compete against local incumbents who were at least its equals, and had the home turf advantage. And competition as well as labor relations in German retail are at least as cutthroat as in the US. Most recent (few years ago) scandals involving treatment of workers and systematic intimidation were in large chain retailers.

cm -> cm... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:14 AM
There were also stories about how they were trying to sell US bedware sizes which are different from the German sizes, and similar market research goofs, which seems to indicate a certain arrogance, and that they probably underestimated the effort and sunk cost that had to be invested to become successful.

Some of these stories also had a background of a general anti-US sentiment as neoliberal safety net "reforms" and (labor) market "flexibilization" were prominently justified with US comparisons (by officials). But I doubt this had much practical impact on the decision to cut the experiment.

DeDude : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:12 AM
From Matthew Klein at FTalphaville ( http://ftalphaville.ft.com):

"A staggering 96 per cent of America's net job growth since 1990 has come from sectors known to have low productivity (construction, retail, bars, restaurants, and other low-paying services were responsible for 46 percentage points of total growth) and sectors where low productivity is merely suspected in the absence of competition and proper measurement techniques (healthcare, education, government, and finance explain the remaining 50 percentage points)".

So we are expanding jobs that produce services. With increased robotics and productivity, a smaller and smaller % of the workforce will be needed to produce all the food and merchandise people need (or can consume). So the future growth of the job market will have to be in producing services. The challenge will be to make sure that those jobs are paying sufficiently high salaries to ensure continuous robust growth in demand. Otherwise we will be entering a permanent period of low growth in the economy.

El Epicúreo Del Taco : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:26 AM
ensure that workers have more bargaining power so that the growth in output is shared rather than
"
~~MT~

Workers need to get a handle on bargaining power, need to realize that uncontrolled reproduction will inevitably bid down the price of labour. Look!

American family should find it cheaper to reduce child bearing to one child per female. The one child can then inherit the entire estate of the couple with no expense for legal battles with rival siblings. The one child will have more quality time with parents, grand parents, and aunts for mentor-ing and help with school work, be on the fast track of career path that requires quality education. Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills. Such jobs do not adapt easily to recent immigrants. Reduction in our birth rate cannot be completely de-fang-ed by immigration. Our birth control will remain a windfall to our workers in aggregate sprint as well as in separate family's economics.

Get
it --

DeDude -> El Epicúreo Del Taco... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:51 AM
One child per 2 parents would be an economic disaster. Unless productivity per worker exploded we would find that the total GDP would shrink rather than increase. The national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population either by birth or by allowing immigrants to come here is part of why US is doing better than Europe.
El Epicúreo Del Taco said in reply to DeDude... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:09 PM
national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population
"

Believe it! I just crunched approximate numbers to find that each child with only $2 in pocket owes $57,000 to public debt, each retired pensioner, each billionaire and each millionaire owe same thing, 57 K. But!

But 33% of Americans couldn't come up with $555 to handle an emergency. The answer to national debt?

Endless exponential population expansion until natural resources run dry, no air to breath, no water to drink, fug-get about food.

Population expansion is a social Ponzi scheme. Eventually it collapses -- we starve.

The remarkable instance of population control started when Deng Xiaoping crunched the numbers and decided to opt for a draconian return to a rational World. The one child tradition began with the most dramatic success at making folks rich enough to enjoy life and produce things for people around the World to enjoy. Let the good times roll and thrill your soul. Got soul?

Get
it --

cm -> El Epicúreo Del Taco... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:19 AM
"Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills."

The children of immigrants who grow up in the US have those. Also most jobs only require "adequate" language skills, which most immigrants have.

Most work requires the ability to communicate simple requests, not literary or philosophical discourse.

mrrunangun : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:18 AM
From my point of view as an employer, the Mexican and Caribbean immigrants have been good hires. They are generally reliable and good cooperators. Other employers seem to think so as well, judging by what I see when I go to the doctor or the dentist or the mechanic shop or just about anywhere else that low to intermediate skill personnel are essential to running the shop.

I would not say that immigrants' effect on wages is trivial except in the macro sense. The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. Unlike the doctors, where immigrant doctors don't seem to depress wages much, the scarcity value of trained tradesmen is substantially reduced by an influx of immigrants with similar skills. Auto mechanics, auto body men, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc are badly hurt by the competition. Perhaps because their skills are more easi