Trump understands this, perhaps you do not

Given the very negative baseline views that respondents have of immigrants, simply making them think about immigration in a randomized manner makes them support less redistribution, including actual donations to charities.

That is from research by Alesina, Miano, and Stantcheva.  And don’t forget this:

We also experimentally show respondents information about the true i) number, ii) origin, and iii) “hard work” of immigrants in their country. On its own, information on the “hard work” of immigrants generates more support for redistribution. However, if people are also prompted to think in detail about immigrants’ characteristics, then none of these favorable information treatments manages to counteract their negative priors that generate lower support for redistribution.


This is one political strategy heuristic that is probably accurate - it's what you are talking about, not what you are saying about it.

If you are a US Democrat and talking about immigration, you are losing.
If you are a UK Conservative and talking about the NHS, you are losing.
If you are a UK Labour Party member and talking about the economy, you are losing

Not sure what the US Republican equivalent is, interested to know

In the current environment - free trade.

> Not sure what the US Republican equivalent is, interested to know

Gay marriage? I don't feel strongly about gay marriage but when I think about it, it makes me view Republicans more negatively.

"Gay marriage" was the right answer for about a decade, but I think that's over now. Most people were opposed to gay marriage, and then it happened, and the world didn't end, so most people are okay with it.

If you are a US Republican and talking about compassion, you are losing.

No one cares about compassion. The Democrats expell a lot of hot air virtue signalling about it, but few care about it as an election issue.

You put the bread & meat and people put their own mayo & ketchup. In his own way, Trump is a successful politician.

@Matthew: If you are an US Conservative talking about large infrastructure investments, you are losing.

No, definitely not. Talking about infrastructure is a winning or neutral, no matter who talks about it.

A conservative is losing when he talks about overturning Roe v. Wade, or some other virtually unwinnable social issue, to the exclusion of issues where he might win, such as immigration, gun control, or taxes.

He is also losing when he implicitly accepts a leftwing frame, by touting his compassion. Conservative leaders are supposed to demonstrate strength and resolve. That is how they win votes, not by praising their enemies or showing them compassion.

Should we blame Democrats for the "very negative baseline view" of immigrants?

Deliberately attempting to conflate illegal and legal immigration, selling your working-class citizen base for an imported one, discouraging integration and assimilation and refusing to cooperate on sustainable and reasonable immigration reform have consequences.

Yes. Ted Kennedy led the effort to rework immigration law in 1965, ending free migration in North America, creating the immigration problems since.

Of course, it was Republicans that first limited free migration a century after the USA came into existence.

Trump thinks Jackson was a great president, but according to Trump, no one could walk the streets when he was president because of the infestation of immigrant murderers, rapists, drug gang members. Of course, according to Sessions, there was no nation until a century after the Constitution was ratified because there were no controlled borders.

And illegal immigration was promoted by the US Army. After illegal immigrants committed crimes against the state, and Mexicans struck back, repelling illegals from invading Mexico. The US Army invaded Mexico to usher in illegals to take over Mexico. The City of Houston is named for a leader of illegal immigrants, most killed by Mexican border control.

Houston and other future Texans were welcomed into the Mexican territory - slavery was not. That is what sparked the fight. Southern Democrats fought for the right to keep slaves.

Credit for getting one thing right:

Ted Kennedy led the effort to rework immigration law in 1965, [...] creating the immigration problems since.

It's all water under the bridge ...

So having a ruling class that fecklessly imports people who hate and loath you somehow makes you less likely to give said immigrants who hate you your money?

It is hard to see why that might be.

Immigrants mostly love me, especially Brazilians. If they loathe and hate you, your personality might be the problem.

No, Trump argues the highly educated, skilled, or attractive women be brought in to takes all your money, while middle and unskilled labor be kept out so US born people are forced to do the hard labor under the thumb of their immigrant overlords.

Irrelevant. In addition, citation is needed. Note the use of the singular. Zero is singular.

For Alexandria Ocasio-Cruz fans: From Instapundit: “'In 1820, 94% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. In 1990, 34.8%, and in 2015, just 9.6%.' But socialism can reverse that with surprising speed."

Instapundit has never heard of sub Saharan Africa apparently.

More like its understood that Africa isnt worth mentioning in this context.

"While all respondents have misperceptions, those with the largest ones are systematically the right-wing, the non-college educated, and the low-skilled working in immigration-intensive sectors."

The abstract goes on to say that these poorly educated people have misconceptions about the income and education level of immigrants. Could that be because the immigrants that this segment of the population deals with tend to be less educated and poorer than highly-skilled immigrants that end up in the larger cities and economic hubs?

The gravest misconceptions are encountered in the Democrat Party. Such so-called studies are produced mainly to misdirect attention from that truth.


Sshhh ... let the Dems keep talking. MAGA 2020! 😈

"Immigrants" are fungible geniuses who pay at least $25,000 a year in taxes and never get old or sick and step off the plane asking for directions to the Club For Growth. This delusion will be maintained right through the adjustment of US means toward those of the Global South. Economists' wives will continue to scrutinize ESOL and free-meal statistics for school districts.

Don't believe your lying eyes.

Millions on Medicaid/welfare and tens of thousands of murders and other violent crimes are outrageous exceptions. Migrants are "potential valedictorians, Medal of Honor winners and Nobel Prize recipients." See Ann Coulter

If the authors can’t distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, that’s a sure sign of deliberate deception.

There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”

No human being is illegal. Maybe you missed the Vox and NPR language series on dehumanizing language and its consequences (spoiler alert: the Holocaust).

It changed from illegal immigrant to undocumented immigrant to undocumented migrant to now just migrant.

They’re called migrants Rich “the Racist” Berger. And they deserve refuge (S8), SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid.

You’re a funny guy. No, really.

He's a nut but let him keep talking - he's campaigning for Republicans!!!! 😂

Human beings can perform illegal acts. Immigration is a controlled process throughout the world and throughout the ages.
The OAS should respond to the crime ridden, corrupt, dysfunctional societies south of the border which are causing so many to flee their homelands. They aren't fleeing to the Socialist paradises of Venezuela and Nicaragua- except maybe some Cubans. Venezuela and Nicaragua are quickly becoming basket cases due to the political segragation of those with different political views. Socialism/Communism starved, slaughtered, enslaved, imprisoned, disenfranchised, and forcefully reeducated hundreds of millions during the 20th Century. The U.S. pulled China out of the economic dark ages. Unfortunately, China is going back to the Sociopolitical dark ages. We should avoid that in the Western Hemisphere. The OAS and the U.S. should help stabilize the dysfunctional societies south of the border by establishing safe, economic renaissance zones in the troubled countries the "migrants" are fleeing from.
Only legal immigrants should qualify for the benefits you list. Canada and the U.S. should not be forced to bear the burdens of dysfunctional societies south of the border or dysfunction will increase in our countries.

And why are Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua economic basket cases?

Cuba - US tried to overthrow the regime in the BoP fiasco and has embargoed the country for decades. also tried to assassinate Castro.

Nicaragua - US invaded the country and occupied it, overthrowing the government. Then caused a civil war by supporting the Contras. By the way it was in civil war and chaos for 30 years due to US interference.

Venezuela - Currently in a short term crisis due to lack of food and toilet paper. No ones fault really.

Doesn't the US have pretty strict economic sanctions on Venezuela?

You should go stand outside the White House and hand out Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets.

No time for that.

I’m in charge of the Toilet Paper for Venezuela drive at my Unitarian Church.

I'm donating used toilet paper as a bonus.

'There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”'

Of course there are, just as there are legal immigrants.

'No human being is illegal.'

Actually, the German is better - 'Jeder ist Ausländer, fast überall' And of course, considering German history, you just might want to consider what happens when humans are declared illegal, as compared to the actions of people being illegal. Spoiler alert - the Holocaust. Which is not considered a punch line in Germany, actually.

Agreed. Using the term illegal immigration is literally Hitler.

How about a fresher, more relevant comparison? It's literally FDR, who in 1939 denied admission to 900 European Jewish refugees on a crowded ship named the St. Louis -- they previously had been denied admission to Cuba. The ship returned to Europe, where hundreds were killed by the Nazis. There's also that little business about the internment of American residents of Japanese descent, 2/3s of whom were citizens, which also happened on FDR's watch.

Are the refugee claimants now, who come with children to avoid detention while waiting for court dates, facing certain death in Central America? Are they skipping 90 percent of the court dates to examine their claims because we are literally Roosevelt?

Personally, I like the Hispanic immigrants I have met, and no doubt some are "people without papers." They're nice people, hard workers and family-oriented, unlike the thousands of white, able-bodied young American homeless men who prefer to smoke meth and camp near the beach in Southern California. What they have in common is that either group works on the books, and both soak up a lot of "services."

I have at least one very employable friend with an American science PhD who is working in his home country, has relatives in the US and is working toward a green card. Process takes three to eight years.

Long story short, we are refusing to discuss the terms of an immigration policy that we are willing to enforce and that puts American interests somewhere into the decision mix. Calling each other inflammatory names doesn't help.

I'm sick of it.

I rate this comment as .375 Hitlerals.


The number of screaming children taken from their parents and put in Jail for Tots.

As a substitute teacher I sometimes worked in the school district's daycare facility. Jail for Tots is right. It's cool that the left is beginning to see that. 7:30 AM to 5:59 PM - the kids got maybe an hour an a quarter total spent outside of the classroom, which seemed to me very much like a box, devoid of much stimulation, though the ladies were kind. They ran through a lot of crackers and Clorox.

The mothers and tots seemed ill at ease with one another, unsurprisingly.

I hope that's not a dis.

JosieB says, "I'm sick of it."

The Hispanic immigrants you met were meagerly education, grew up in a impoverished, backward culture and now live in a first world culture.
The white able-bodied men had fathers who had factory jobs, owned two cars and their own homes.

These white guys now qualify for minimum wage temporary jobs with little career potential.

Each passing month genetic researchers discover more human genes that govern IQ and OCEAN ; (the Big Five personality traits)

The Hispanic immigrants have an average IQ of about 90 and the white able-bodied men have an average IQ of about 102.
East Asians have an average IQ of about 105-107.

Do you understand why Japan, China, and South Korean want nothing to do immigration or refugees into their countries and why we should reject open borders?

When you look at a photograph of an Hispanic immigrant can you determine his IQ or must you actually observe that person for a few moments?

No need for photograph. Just tell me their legal status. If theyre illegaly crossing the border, its pretty clear which side of 100 their IQ is on.

I am unwilling to generalize as you do, but what are we going to do with my PhD friend who is running a research laboratory overseas and waiting many years to get a green card? His IQ is definitely at the top end of your target range.

Is he a sucker for playing by the rules, or are we really that stupid?

We should buy your friend an airline ticket and give him a green card.

And yes, the left is that stupid.

Every new low skilled Hispanic immigrant to the US potentially lowers existing wages of existing low skilled Hispanic, black, and white Americans.

Read the review of "The War on Normal People"

If and when medical specialists are able to determine the IQ of a fetus ( which they surely will be able to do, since it's genetically determined) would you be in favor of aborting those that don't measure up to your intelligence standards?

The US has already been doing that in one form or other since 1990.

If there's a relevant IQ distinction between Hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal) and the white tweakers at the beach, I don't see it.
Hispanic men are rapidly taking over the building trades jobs in many states; they have years of experience, do very good work and are paid well (at least in my large condo complex.)
This has led to a reaction by the unionized trades members who now want legislators to grant them exclusive rights to all projects, public and private, and to guarantee "prevailing wages," ie exorbitant rates. (To hell with affordable housing.)
None of this has motivated the better-educated homeless guys on the beach to seek work in an economy with more jobs than unemployed people.
IQ, SchmyQ.

Contractors like to hire wetbacks because they ay them cash/no benefits, they pick them up only when they need them, and they can dump them anytime. After 20+ years of this illegal hiring, the WBs now have an experience advantage.

'Using the term illegal immigration is literally Hitler.'

No it isn't, and of course there is both legal and illegal immigration.

Why anyone would think using the term illegal immigration is somehow wrong or inaccurate escapes me entirely. As a matter of fact, this is a perfect example of a criminal who can be fairly classified as an illegal immigrant, and deserves to be punished both for his actual criminal acts, and for being an illegal immigrant - 'In Colorado, more than 2,500 homes were under evacuation orders as firefighters battled more than half a dozen wildfires. Most of the evacuations were tied to a 78-sq-mile (202-sq-km) wildfire in southern Colorado that led to the arrest of a Danish man on arson charges.

Jesper Joergensen, 52, initially said he had started a fire to burn trash but then said he had been grilling in a permanent fire pit the day before the blaze began, according to a court document.

Joergensen, who reported the wildfire, said it started about 20 ft (six meters) away from the fire pit Wednesday and he tried to put it out, an arrest affidavit says. It says about 25 buildings had been destroyed as of Thursday, when he was arrested. Authorities have not released other details on damage.

Joergensen has been living in the country illegally, the document says, and federal immigration officials have requested that they be allowed to take custody of him if he is released from jail.'

And to the extent that Hitler has anything to do with illegal immigration at all, it involved illegal German immigrants in the search of Lebensraum in Nazi conquered countries to the east.

This distinctly has nothing to do with the U.S. in any way, shape, or form in the 21st century.

The only difference between legal and illegal immigration is dependent on arbitrary human constructs - laws. If the laws against immigration are unjust, or just plain economically dysfunctional, then the people breaking them ought to be adjusted to a normal legal status.

The longstanding problem is of course there there is effectively no legal path for unskilled laborers to come to the US to work. So there is always going to be a black market for "illegal" labor. You can't stop it, even with draconian enforcement, and that leads to increasingly untenable immoral and inhumane situations, as we are now seeing at the border in the case of family separations. The more you try to stomp down on "illegal" labor crossing the southern border, the more inhumane you have to become. This is no different than the "War on Drugs", except it's worse because the "War on Illegal Immigration" is not even a war involving some dangerous substances - it's a war on people simply doing work - simply living and working and exchanging money. The fundamental activity you're trying to suppress is simply basic economic exchange - which is normally not wrong and even socially positive but for the pieces of paper.

And for what purpose, exactly are these laws put in place? So that working class Americans face less competition - for that you want to have this draconian border enforcement that treats Hispanic laborers are subhumans not deserving of the right to just engage in basic commerce with willing American employers. You want American employers to be some captive market that is forced to purchase domestic labor, and you're willing to treat other people like animals to achieve that.

"You want American employers to be some captive market that is forced to purchase domestic labor . . . ."


And they also want American consumers to be a captive market forced to purchase the products made by domestic labor.

It's hardly shocking that the present immigration laws were written in 1965 when the labor unions were at the peak of their power politically.

Before 1965 it was very difficult for people to immigrate from Latin America to the US.

We have the right, as per the Constitution, to determine, via Congress, who gets to enter.

If anyone violates our border laws they should be arrested and deported asap.

All laws are arbitrary human constructs. Your property line is an arbitrary human construct but I'm certain you still take it very seriously.

True, but not all laws are equally just. Morality isn't just whatever we want it to be. You can't just pass a law and say "It's the law, therefore it's moral!" Individual property rights are grounded in a valid moral theory of human rights, and immigration laws aren't. Immigration laws are just domestic labor trying to use violence to get an economic advantage.

Immigration laws are just domestic labor trying to use violence to get an economic advantage.

That's an absurdly reductionist view of human society. What do you think would happen to Israel if it allowed free migration of Palestinians, or Sioux who allowed free migration of Anglos.

Even at the arms-length distance of the workplace employers will discriminate with qualifications and arbitrary decisions on who is and isn't a good fit. Try just wandering into a repair shop and accusing the current employees who haul you out of using violence to maintain their economic advantage.

That was incoherent. I'm advocating that employers be ALLOWED to hire who they want. You're the one telling them they MUST hire an American, even if he is not the most qualified. The immigraiton laws are explicitly about forcing employers to prefer Americans over more qualified foreigners.

All of these domestic employers are already allowed to hire foreigners in their home countries. The US is not using violence to prevent this; on the contrary, it has willingly given away more high technology in this and related ways than any other major power in history.

Granted, there are some Americans who are hostile to both offshoring/outsourcing and low-skill immigration, but not enough to win elections with. The median American does not object to America-based organizations helping foreigners get rich; only to them making America poorer.

It's a perfectly coherent position to allow open migration while simultaneously scoping (and enforcing) law within one's borders. Your laws apply within your territory, both to people who were already there and to people who just wandered in.

What do you think would happen to Israel if it allowed free migration of Palestinians, or Sioux who allowed free migration of Anglos.

Intentions are key here. If it is known that a significant subset of Palestinians desire to cause mayhem in Israel, then Israel has an interest in controlling Palestinians' access to enter the country. Why don't you take an example of a different country instead, one whose people have no ill-intentions towards Israelis, and ask yourself the same question? In this case, Israelis are perfectly capable of enforcing laws within their borders, but the cost of successful terrorist actions would be too high, so controlling access (only to Palestinians) is just prudent.

Similarly, the Anglos clearly had no intention of subjecting themselves to Sioux law when they entered Lakota territory. And the Lakota had no capability to enforce their law on Anglos, who wanted to steal the land and build homesteads. If the Sioux had effective means of law enforcement and the Anglos were willing to subject themselves to Sioux rule, there would be no reason to control migration.

Try just wandering into a repair shop and accusing the current employees who haul you out of using violence to maintain their economic advantage.

This is idiotic. The employees of a repair shop have every right to practice their trade in their premises. They don't have a right to prevent a competitor from setting up shop across the road, and definitely don't have a right to thwart the competitor using violence. Your example makes no sense whatsoever.

Are you so sure everyone who wanders into the USA does not have ill intentions toward this country? That seems rather silly.

No, but you can always run security screenings on migrants. That's part of thee effective law enforcement I was talking about. (Hazel too, further below.)

And it's also about numbers. Anglo settlers far outnumbered the Sioux, both in numbers and arms. (Also in Texas, by the way.) More control over who can be let in and at what rate would do the trick. Anti-vagrancy laws, reduced or minimal welfare, out to dampen the appetite of freeloaders too. So you can keep your intact polity even while conceding to the open borders (or open migration) in principle.

To the person who yesterday stated that no one is for open borders, here you have Exhibit A, Hazel Meade the libertarian. I’ll leave you to judge the coherence of the supporting arguments.

That was me, maybe. I see Hazel as an outlier. I don't think her ideas are remotely mainstream, nor remotely politically possible.

Real politics should be about real prospects.

My positions on most issue are actually pretty doctriniare from a libertarian standpoint, at least as far as libertarian intellectuals are concerned (maybe not the commentariat). Maybe the one area where I diverge from mainstream libertarian doctrine is that I'm more in favor of having strong social norms against racism sexism and other kinds of bigotry. And that is in part because I want to broaden the appeal of libertarianism beyond the white male cohort - and that project is inhibited by the presence of alt-right racialist types in the movement.

Here's a tangent. You would think for people who believe in economic liberty, who complain about regulation and it's effect on human lives, that they would recognize, for instance, people like the dreamers as "Exhibit Number 1" in the horror show of how big government destroys liberty and crushes human dreams. People who have lived their lives under the thumb of ICE, having to work illegally because they don't have the correct papers - you would think those people might just be natural libertarians, wouldn't you? Because they have personally experienced what it is like to live in an oppressive regime where you can't get a job without explicit state permission and documents proving you are allowed to work.

And yet, somehow, it hasn't occurred to many libertarians that those people are our natural allies.

You could make similar points with respect to other groups out there who have kind of experienced the boot on their neck in one way or another. I mean, really, black people have seen what the state can do you you, good and hard - so why aren't we making them out allies?

Libertarianism is a white political movement.

Literally. I'm talking whiter than Augusta National.

The vast majority of libertarians are white, but that does not make it a "white movement". There is no intrinsic racial component to the ideology.

That wasn’t his point, obviously, and you are one stupid bitch.

"You could make similar points with respect to other groups out there who have kind of experienced the boot on their neck in one way or another. I mean, really, black people have seen what the state can do you you, good and hard - so why aren't we making them out allies?"

One reaction might be to be fair and say: "Hey this state thing can blow up in our faces sometimes. Maybe we should reduce the power of the state!"

Another reaction might be more like: "Hey, this state thing kicked our ass. I want to kick ass too! Let's take over the state!"

Why pick one over the other?

Hazel is libertarian to the point that muscular, centralized government is needed to enforce the diversity and Open Borders which are our strength and perfectly natural and organic, and to stomp out any subversive free association among employers and employees.

What are you talking about? I am for having social norms regulate discrimination, not government.

Ideally I think we should have free economic migration with security screening, no eligibility for welfare, but no limits on the numbers. Is that "open borders" ?

There are plenty of ways you can enforced ineligibility for welfare if you bother to try to think about it. You could actually take the sponsorship requirements seriously and require sponsors to post bonds to cover the risk that the immigrant will become a public charge. You could revolk their green card if they end up on welfare.

Why is the response of the anti-immigrationists always "oh, well, we have welfare, so I guess well just have to not have any immigration then!" without even giving two seconds of thought to how we might be able to restrict access to welfare? Why is that? Hmm.... maybe it's because your reason for opposing immigration isn't actually that you're worried about the welfare they'll consume?

This Hazel thread now follows the usual pattern of calling opponents to illegal immigration “anti-immigration”, saying implicitly then explicitly that such people are racists, endless pages on DACA, with a number of f-bombs thrown in as the sense of injustice rises. Seems a bit pathogical (OCD?).

And the usual respond of "woe is me, someone called me a racist! That's offensive!" Instead of actually addressing the merits of my argument.

In related news ...

"Incredible statement about a sitting president: In harshest possible phrasing to test, new @QuinnipiacPoll finds a 49% plurality of US thinks Trump "is racist" including 79% blacks, 58% Hispanics, 56% 18-34, 50% col + whites, 50% of indies, but only 36% of non-college whites"

"free economic migration with security screening, no eligibility for welfare, but no limits on the numbers."

Sounds great. Did you just drop in from 1868, when my luckless, malnourished Irish ancestors arrived and began their family's 80-year journey as miners from Pennsylvania to Colorado to Montana and then to North Idaho? They lived without running water, home insulation, indoor toilets, electricity and, for a long time, with ice boxes (not refrigerators.) The men worked in and came out of hot shafts, soaking wet, and into freezing weather without clothes stored in changing lockers. They sucked it up because it was better, barely, than starving. Their kids got basic instruction from Catholic schools and continued into the same nasty work lives.

Along the way, one was rendered unable to work and without VA benefits fighting as a conscript in the Battle of the Argonne Forest. His nephew, whose father died when he was 7, earned a Bronze Star as a sharpshooter in the Pacific theater after enlisting at 17. He was a good man and a respected miner, but he never really got his life on track.

After many generations, my grandmother got out in the middle of the last century. She married the son of another immigrant, a bitter, nasty man. Together, they raised a family whose children got college degrees and good careers.

So it all worked fine, eventually, but it took more than a century to achieve. The results would make my sainted ancestors proud, but is that really the offer you describe?

What do our newer immigrants expect of us, and what do we owe to them?

I oppose open borders for the same reason the Iroquois should have opposed them - cultural annihilation.

Ir I properly recall, Hazel Meade has said they are Canadian, not American, so no, her position does not reflect that of an actual American citizen.

Which is fine, she is entitled to her opinion, and my memory may be incorrect. Nonetheless, assuming it is accurate, keeping searching.

I was born in Canada, but am a naturalized US citizen. I immigrated via a family sponsorship. Took me 17 years total, partially because I had no idea how long it would taken when I came here on an F-1 student visa in 1992. If I had known I would have started right away and it would only have taken 11 years.

Well, my memory was certainly less than accurate.

And obviously, as an American citizen, you are fully entitled to enjoy all the blessings of the 1st Amendment when expressing any opinion at all.

Yes, even a stupid opinion

"If the authors can’t distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants,"

Recall the President declared a judge in a case over him ripping people off (most of them non-immigrant Americans) was unfit because he had a Mexican grandfather. Who exactly conflates legal and illegal immigrants? Don't pretend for a second the right isn't the side doing most of the negative conflating here.

And legal.v.illegal ceases to have meaning if we are talking about what the law should be. When the NRA calls for states to legalize concealed carry, do we talk about "illegal gun owners" when referring to those who want concealed carry?

Likewise any discussion of decriminalizing pot....

"benefiting illegal drug users"....well technically until there is any provision for any type of legal use pot users would be 'illegal'.

No, he said the judge would be prejudiced against him because the judge was a member of La Riza, a Hispanic superiority group.

Zero evidence of him being a member of a 'superiority group' . But thank you for clarifying his attack but your mistake is to assume Trump just made a single attack on him. He made multiple:
TRUMP: I'll tell you what it has to do. I've had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, OK? I've been treated very unfairly. Before him, we had another judge. If that judge was still there, this case would have been over two years ago.
Let me just tell you, I've had horrible rulings, I've been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans --
TAPPER: So, no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you?
TRUMP: Well, he's a member of a society, where -- you know, very pro-Mexico, and that's fine. It's all fine, but -

Reason #1: The Judge has Mexican heritage.
Reason #2: Membership in the group...only offered *after* the validity of reason #1 was questioned.

This was known already. All you show is that his reasoning is that he thinks the judge is prejudiced because he belongs to a Mexican racist group. I do appreciate the confirmation.

Show me one racist thing the group he belongs to has done or said?

La Raza ia a racist group. It literally means 'the race'. Trump clearly believed the judge was prejudiced against him for supporting building the wall.

So show me one racist thing the group has said or done. Is your argument simply that Hispanic people sometimes refer to themselves as a 'race' that makes them racist?
Raza also translates to 'people' or 'peoples and that was its origins as Hispanic is not a race but made up of numerous races.

It's human nature to avoid thinking about problems much less solving them. What about one's own problems? The phenomenon is even stronger. Describing someone as a "self-starter" is the greatest compliment. Few have that ability. Is it due to complacency? Fear of failure? Ignorance? Whatever the cause, the solution according to many is desperation: Let the saps experience desperation, and necessity will provide sufficient motivation to overcome human nature. The desperate will appreciate it in the long run.

Redistribution. Now that's a loaded, and negative, term. What is redistribution? Taking from the deserving and giving to the undeserving is the typical view. But what about corporate redistribution, paying labor wages that have remained flat for decades while executives pay themselves enormous salaries and bonuses, that's a form of redistribution. So is shifting production to China to lower the share of labor while increasing the share of capital. So is cutting taxes for the wealthy and cutting public spending on infrastructure and social welfare programs (or, even worse, redistributing the cost of cutting taxes to future generations by borrowing, including borrowing from the social security trust fund).

Associating immigration with redistribution is an old trick, as has been associating blacks with redistribution. It's also human nature to rationalize. Blacks, immigrants, redistribution, you get the idea. Humans are simple creatures and easily manipulated, especially when they are willing participants in the manipulation.

But what about corporate redistribution, paying labor wages that have remained flat for decades

Corporations are pro-immigration for a reason.

Naive fool.

What a shock that trump understands that racism works in the US. Course he was born by virtue of his father and his KKK relationship. He simply followed in the footsteps of George Wallace, who spawned the southern strategy, which every Gop president has followed.

The only difference is he took it from dog whistles(states rights, welfare queens, cadillacs, etc) and just stated it right up front. So clearly that even the alt right understood it and flocked to him.

Yeah, he understands racism works.

Slavery, racism, segregation, the KKK, and George Wallace are legacies of the Democratic party which Democrats continue in trying to scapegoat the Republican party with. Nixon realized that voters were appalled at the radical left's violence in opposition to the Vietnam War. He promised to correct the Democrat Johnson's escaltion into Vietnam with a demobilization of troops by obtaining a peace with honor. Nixon also initiated several programs equalizing the economic and educational conditions for Black America.
The Democrats continue playing the race card to the detriment of Black America. The Democratic party's Progressive/Socialist "blame America" and their neo-moral paradigm schtick has been a radical disaster.

Please. The Dems in the Dems in the South changed to Reps very quickly after the Civil Rights act. Did you know that of the Dems who dominated the of the original confederate states only 10% of the Congressmen voted for the Civil Rights Act? And became reps very shortly.

Shouldn't be hard to figure this out, if you actually want to.

Same thing in Congress.

LBJ knew more than 5 decades ago what would happen in the South. His only mistake was in the number of generations.

So EMichael, you are saying, rightly, that when the South had slavery, and then legal discrimination, it voted for the Democrats, but that the South without these abominations was for Republicans. And then you're considering that somehow this is an argument *in favor of* Democrats! As someone already said here: Shut up, Hitler!

Please, stop with the debunked Southern Strategy nonsense already. Not even the writers at the NY Times are able to keep that lie going any longer. The racists in the south stayed with the Democratic Party, the Republicans were the non-racists moving in, taking over the least racist states first, then eventually the others via non-racists voting. The Democratic Party's KKK auxiliary stayed loyal to them.

Yes the KKK votes Democratic, even David Duke. All the racists love Obama and Hillary

"When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays)"

Democrats have always been the party of the KKK.

History will judge who was better for blacks: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton & co vs. Donald Trump.

To be clear, I agree with what's implicit in Cowen's statement: that Trump is an expert in the art of manipulation. And it's not only the public that he is manipulating but more importantly the politicians in the other party that he is manipulating. Alas, it is the Democratic Party that is the party of the downtrodden, the sick, the old, the poor, the desperate, which might get Democrats into heaven but not into the White House. I'm reminded of the proverb "charity begins at home". People assume that means one is responsible for one's own family not others, but that's not the original meaning. The original meaning is that children learn charity in the home.

I still see Trump as a type, rather than someone consciously imitating or appealing to that type.

When Donald Trump gushed, “I love the poorly educated!” after winning the Nevada Republican caucuses in February, he had good reason for the romance. His win with a majority of the state's Republican voters included 57 percent of those with a high school education or less. That pattern has stayed consistent in the general election campaign, with national polls showing Trump ahead by 23 points with white voters age 24 or older who don't have a college degree.

“I love the poorly educated!” ....His win with a majority of the state's Republican voters included 57 percent of those with a high school education or less.

A telling statement about the progressive-controlled public education system.

That's funny. Maybe "progressives" go into education because they are the people who want more of it.

He won the white vote overall by 21 pts, so this is not surprising at all.

And Clinton wins the high school or less overall vote by 10 pts. So I agree with you guys, that's a telling stat.

Same link as above, he wins white vote in the general with 57% of the vote - the exact same percentage.

So Trump connected with those citizens most impacted by government policies and administration.

P.S. Based on the percentage of worthless college degrees I would question the wisdom of that base as well.

Democrats used to be the party of the poorly educated. The fact that the party now mocks those voters is one of the big recent shifts in American politics.

The working class in the US is too armed, too provincial, too male, too religious, and too white. The Democrats began tiptoeing away from the US working class after the New York City Hard Hat Riot in 1970, and culminating in the ethnic cleansing of working class whites--including Italian, Slavic, and Greek badwhites--from urban locations. The Democrats are pretty much the party of resentful non-whites, single women and sexual deviants at this point.

Put simply, they are the party of Jews.

You can believe in a big tent without thinking bad ideas are as good as good ideas.

You can also think that ideas that fall in support with rising education should be viewed with suspicion.

Because surely good ideas would not often have that correlation.

From earlier in the abstract: “in all countries, respondents greatly overestimate the total number of immigrants, think immigrants are culturally and religiously more distant from them, and are economically weaker – less educated, more unemployed, poorer, and more reliant on government transfers – than is the case.” So the real issue is how to correct this misperception. Making policy based on misconceptions seems misguided.

Also, most people on the right oppose redistribution, so they should support more immigration to weaken public support for redistribution, right?

Does Trump understand morals? I guess you are saying that doesn't matter- it's your blog to say whatever you want- but that headline is a bit disingenuous.

Those who support redistribution understand this headline well. It's why they try to make people feel bad about treating people poorly. It's obviously not working as well as it did which doesn't speak well for us as a people.

Again, Jonathan Haidt really nailed this:

If this argument is correct, then it leads to a clear set of policy prescriptions for globalists. First and foremost: Think carefully about the way your country handles immigration and try to manage it in a way that is less likely to provoke an authoritarian reaction. Pay attention to three key variables: the percentage of foreign-born residents at any given time, the degree of moral difference of each incoming group, and the degree of assimilation being achieved by each group’s children.

Legal immigration from morally different cultures is not problematic even with low levels of assimilation if the numbers are kept low; small ethnic enclaves are not a normative threat to any sizable body politic. Moderate levels of immigration by morally different ethnic groups are fine, too, as long as the immigrants are seen as successfully assimilating to the host culture. When immigrants seem eager to embrace the language, values, and customs of their new land, it affirms nationalists’ sense of pride that their nation is good, valuable, and attractive to foreigners. But whenever a country has historically high levels of immigration, from countries with very different moralities, and without a strong and successful assimilationist program, it is virtually certain that there will be an authoritarian counter-reaction, and you can expect many status quo conservatives to support it.

If we want higher levels of immigration to be acceptable to majorities, we need high levels of linguistic, moral, and cultural assimilation. People who favor more immigration but also favor immigrants preserving their distinctiveness (multiculturalism rather than a melting pot) are very much working at cross-purposes.

I didn't read Haidt's piece as attacking what you define as multiculturalism; rather, that groups need to assimilate. Moreover, if multiculturalism is framed as adding value to the culture then there is a gain--which, by the way, is what a melting pot is: that the host AND the immigrant create something new. You can't get an ethnic nationalist to accept this; but, if you define nationalism as a country of diverse elements, you can.

The "American Brand" in foreign markets--be it McDonalds, Nike, etc.--enabled the US to have both cultural and economic influence because it was viewed as a tolerant melting pot, accepting the cultural contributions of others.

A fabric of many colors or shades. Not monochrome. if you want to see a monochrome society, visit Japan.

Sorry, you can never get an ethnic nationalist to accept multiculturalism; but you can get a nationalist to accept it if it nationalism is framed as a melting pot where each contributes to make something better.

There are two competing definitions of multiculturalism. In one, we all have somewhat related and constantly evolving cultures. In the other, each culture is supposed to be a walled garden, unchanging, and protected from the others.

I like the first definition. I think it is what made America great. I think the second definition comes out of Europe and is a great mistake.

Yep. I got hit with the "Mosaic vs. Melting Pot" indoctrination in Canada, in which the captive audience of kids in the public schools were told that Canada was better than America, because our immigrants didn't have to assimilate into the evil, evil "melting pot". Instead they were a colorful "mosaic" of individual tiles separated by lines of grey concrete.
I exaggerate, but you get the gist of it - assimilation is BAD, m'kay? You don't want to be like the Americans with their evil assimilation do you?

I think the word "gumbo" is thrown around, to indicate that Nth generation Catholics don't have to be identical to Nth generation Shintos.

My thinking has gone in a similar direction, culturally distinct groups don't lead to stable equilibriums without the threat of a credible outside enemy.

Human nature seems to be vastly underestimated by the elite. Another thing that Trump understands well.

Do groups really stay culturally distinct when their kids go to the same middle schools and high schools? That just doesn't seem to be the way that teens operate (if you put them into proximity together they make their own culture, regardless of what their parents want).

I agree completely, and as a Canadian I believe I have experienced what integration looks like when it is operating correctly.

I went to a public high school which was diverse by virtually every metric - social class, religion, skin color, clothing, and even number of knives on ones person. In this kind of situation groups have a hard time forming hard boundaries, its too noisy to create clear seperations.

The problems arise when there is someone at the top cataloging students by race. Imagine the sorting hat in harry potter - cut the students into four groups with different colored shirts and all hell breaks loose.

The left thinks they are doing good with affirmative action, cultural appropriation, and sensitivity training; but all they are doing is telling everyone who their out-group should be.

"Cultural Appropriation" is one of the worst ideas that the far left ever had. But it is hardly universally supported by self-described liberals.

Similarly there are liberals who support income based rather than race based affirmative action.

Sensitivity training? Maybe in moderation.

"Moreover, if multiculturalism is framed as adding value to the culture then there is a gain--which, by the way, is what a melting pot is:"

Yes, I suppose you could define it that way, but nobody does. For example:

Advocates of multiculturalism certainly don't think it's another name for the melting pot. They think ethnicity is identity and destiny (along with sex and class). Hence intersectionality. They want immigrants to preserve their language, culture, and customs and maintain their connections to the old country and pass all this on to future generations, not to adopt American customs and let the old ways fade out.

Personally, I'm OK with a multi-ethnic society, but I'm also not a Trump voter and recognize that I'm not in the majority in this view. But also, immigration affects me lightly and positively. I live in a pricey university town. There are a lot of immigrants, but they're educated and have money and are really all members of the 'global educated professional class'. So it's all good. But in the unlikely even the place did change enough not to be to our liking anymore, we could pick up and move. We have the money and no long family history here, no collection of friends known since grade school, no extended family in the area.

Moderate levels of immigration by morally different ethnic groups are fine, too, as long as the immigrants are seen as successfully assimilating to the host culture.

Right, unusual and exotic foods, distinctive clothing in the correct context, graceful dances and music, those are all OK. What can't be allowed are 13 year-old brides, a husband socking his wife, substandard housing or connections to a "terrorist" homeland.

Take away the terrorist homeland, and you are describing families in rural Missouri.

Do you have any stats on social pathologies for rural Missouri? How about urban Missouri?

You'll have to scrounge to find a 13 year old bride among the native born population of rural Missouri (or anywhere else in this country). No clue how you got the idea that violent crime is a peculiar problem of rural areas. It isn't. As for 'substandard housing', I assume you are referring to trailers. Trailers vary a great deal in quality and a great deal in the size of the colony of which they are a part (about 70% of trailer dwellers live on their own land or in groups fewer than 7). About 18% of the non-metropolitan dwellings in this country consist of manufactured housing.

'You'll have to scrounge to find a 13 year old bride among the native born population of rural Missouri (or anywhere else in this country).'

True - Roy Moore had to settle for trying to find 14 year olds and up back in his 30s.

I agree. Emphasizing differences (i.e. "diversity") has been a mistake all along. We should celebrate what we have in common, not our differences.

I do think Hispanic assimilation is proceeding just fine though. The vast majority of second generation Hispanics do learn to speak English. Spanish speaking enclaves are just that: enclaves. Many Hispanics reidentify as white by the second or third generation, and there are high rates of intermarriage between whites and Hispanics. And on religion, no assimilation is necessary since they are already Catholic. (Actually on that point, the Church is likely helping assimilation, since Catholic churches in the US span Italian, Spanish, Irish and german ethnicities - and it's common for the Church to appoint a priest from a different ethnic background to a congregation - they don't have separate churches although they might perform mass in Spanish sometimes in a mixed area.

It is kind of funny to say Hispanic assimilation is going fine, because while it is, everyone loving Chipotle is part of it. As is a Spanish speaking table at the Phó joint.

Our American cultures, emphasis on the plural, continue to evolve.

Tex-Mex is as american as apple pie. I mean, literally, it's TEX-mex.

There are a whole raft of regional cuisines that come out of the Spanish period in the southwest. And it is always strange to remember that the big ol burrito was invented in San Francisco.

Hazel: "...Hispanic assimilation going just fine..."

It would be, but this dynamical system has a very large forcing - continual new immigration from Latin America, especially from the most pathological polities.

Unlike the historical patterns of immigration into the US, this one hasn't stopped. Instead, it has grown more intense over time. I don't see it stopping anytime soon and, short of strong enforcement of limts, there isn't anything you can do to stop the inevitable violence. History is on the side of violence.

No one has mentioned the words of the new Mexican president.

I support assimilation, but it is a two-way street. Immigrants must learn English, and take on aspects of American values and culture, but Americans must also accept immigrants as equals and combat discrimination against immigrants. It is a very common story that immigrants try to make headway in an American company, but always get passed over for promotions so they start their own business with their co-ethnics instead. Or Americans aren’t willing to marry immigrants (or their children), so they look to their home country instead. I think that most people who come to America want to be Americans, and only end up turning to their own ethnicity when mainstream America rejects them. Unfortunately, many people who speak of assimilation don’t have anything to say about how to reduce discrimination and exclusion against immigrants, which makes others begin to distrust assimilationist arguments in general.

Immigrants must learn English, and take on aspects of American values and culture

Why do they gotta learn English? If they so desire, OK, but why should it be required? So you can talk to and understand them? Or so the corporate media can sell them stuff? Or so the government educational process can turn them into passive citizen-voters?

And these aspects of American values and culture, what, exactly, are they? What are the commonalities between a 23 year-old hipster dancing the night away in some crowded Greenwich Village watering hole and a third generation Basque shepherd in the lonely hills west of Buffalo, Wyoming? Is there somewhere in the prescriptive writings of the country, the constitution, for instance, that requires all residents and citizens to embrace the same values and culture, whatever those might be? And, what, exactly, might they be?

It is a very common story that immigrants try to make headway in an American company, but always get passed over for promotions

Elon Musk, Satya Nardella, and Sergei Brin could not be reached for comment.

Or Americans aren’t willing to marry immigrants (or their children), so they look to their home country instead.

My sense is that the resistance is almost entirely the other way -- for example:

I have friend who had pretty much the text book negative response from her Indian family (which disowned her for a number of years after the wedding).

Is Tyler pulling a fast one? This is a six country survey for which (not paying $5) the US must be an outlier based on:

"About seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that undocumented immigrants living in the United States mostly fill jobs that American citizens do not want. Nearly as many (65%) say undocumented immigrants are not more likely than U.S. citizens to commit serious crimes."

But interestingly these views are backed by a factual error:

"Fewer than half of Americans know that most immigrants in the U.S. are here legally. Just 45% of Americans say that most immigrants living in the U.S. are here legally; 35% say most immigrants are in the country illegally, while 6% volunteer that about half are here legally and half illegally and 13% say they don’t know. In 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, lawful immigrants accounted for about three-quarters of the foreign-born population in the United States."


"Nearly seven-in-ten (69%) are very or somewhat sympathetic toward immigrants who are in the United States illegally. That view has changed little since 2014, when a surge of unaccompanied children from Central America attempted to enter the U.S. at the border. "

The average American has a visual experience that includes immigrants:

1. Busing dishes at an oriental buffet.

2. Brown men playing professional baseball.

3. Similar brown men replacing the roof on a house.

4. Still other brown men manicuring a lawn.

5. Brown women pushing baby carriages.

5. Darker brown women talking on mobile phones stuck between their ear and hijab while driving.

The average American has had an extensive conversation with an immigrant:


Is that the sort of "average American" who demands "a American doctor" when anyone darker shows up?

OTOH, almost every American with a graduate degree has availed themselves of brown skinned immigrants to take care of their children, and as cleaning people. And in most cases has had numerous conversations and got to know these people personally. One reason why the elites feel so much more positively about immigrants. The fact that having immigrants doing your domestic work for you is a mark of status probably increases the antagonism among the 70-80% of Americans who can’t afford to do that.

As someone who was educated and worked in science and engineering, that seems odd. Those majors and fields are more populated with immigrants and children of, not less.

To only experience "browner people" as laborers and athletes, it seems you need a very particular and regional upbringing. And a peculiar graduate program.

I agree, as someone who is college educated, and I majored in accounting, and there were a number of people in the accounting program from East and South Asia, and at least a couple of people from the Mid-East. Also a couple of people from the Caribbean in my program as well. Additionally, it would seem odd to me not to have run into a least one MD from a foreign country living in the US.

@Mr. Akuleyev

How many Americans work in the building trades, and hence know a bunch of immigrants? How many work or have worked in restaurants? How many work or have worked in retail? How many in hospitality? How many in healthcare? My point being that whatever views Americans take on immigration, for the most part people aren't forming their views without personally knowing immigrants or people with immigrants in their families, and that is true up and down the socio-economic spectrum.

The only area where immigrants and Americans mingle, though very superficially, is in the various levels of education. Most American construction workers hold immigrants in contempt and generally don't associate with them. Immigrant restaurant employees are employed at the lowest levels.
The rare individual that does have some personal experience with immigrants is likely to look at them as individuals, like any sane person would. It's the most cloistered and provincial that enthusiastically embrace the myths and stereotypes.

You’re off your game today, this is clearly nonsense. Travel to LA or New York or wherever and you’ll encounter recent immigrants all over e.g., taxi drivers, hairdressers, bank tellers, waiters, and longer term immigrants in every field of work — in IT my department had Indians, Iranians, Lebanese, African, various European. And so on. I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

How well do you knowthe Tunisian driving your cab, the Latina that cashes your check, the Ecuadoran that sells you a rose or the brown guy that brings the menus to your table?

You’re weird. I know the many different immigrants I work with (and the many different immigrants who live within 2 blocks) very well. I really don’t know what you’re taking about.

Even Chucky doesn't know what Chucky is talking about.

Chuck, here in CA almost everyone works side by side with immigrants, whether in low or high skill jobs. I have been in both situations and have worked with people all over the world. The immigrants in high skill jobs tend to be from different countries than those in low skill jobs. Construction in particular has both immigrants and natives working side by side.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think it is YOU with little experience. You are projecting.

You are also assigning characteristics to people based upon your mood-affiliation. In other words, you are a bigot.

Final point. Most people are frustrated by ILLEGAL immigration. The left conflate the two in order to muddy the water and make them look like bigots.

You are the bigot.

My progressive neighbors left their previous neighborhood because 1) They were tired of having to make noise complains against various neighbors -- who I later learned were Mexican immigrants. 2) They decided to have a child and wanted better schools (the other schools were quite, um, diverse).

As you might imagine, they complain about our current neighborhood not being diverse enough.

Um. Million dollar houses have loud parties on the street as well.

Yes, but they tend to be further apart, so the noise isn't as loud, and they play music I like.

"Um. Million dollar houses have loud parties on the street as well."

Not on your average work night.

The results of this paper are very similar to work on how priming people to think about money causes them be less charitable.

Here's the experiment: Two groups perform a computer task and are both rewarded with money. One group is primed to think about money during the experiment: dollar signs float on the computer screen; the other group gets a standard screen.

Both groups get the same amount of money and each are given, after the experiment and after having received money, to contribute anonymously
to a student cause on campus as they leave the room.

The group primed to think about money gives substantially less to the charity.

Priming people to think about money kills charitable giving.

Similar messaging problems surround political messaging: Which do you think would be a more popular message: 1) I feel your pain; I'm here to help you improve your life and your family; or 2) There are other people suffering even more than you and we should help them (primed to think about your own condition).

How about: We all do better when we work together and then we'll all be better together.

I do love the funhouse mirror quality of Tyler's posts.

July 2--Here are my thoughts on civility and why it's such a good thing.

July 3--Here's what Trump understands and you don't (that on issues like immigration, merely talking about it matters, not what is said; leaving the strong implication that civility doesn't matter)

Everyone *understands* this. Nativist tribalism is the most instinctive thing in the world to understand.
We're just going to ignore it until the power held by the nativists dwindles away, and a few hundred years later they're written off like the Luddites.

In a few hundred years, ethnic groups will be fighting over who gets to live where and run things. I expect the Jews and the numerous different Asian ethnicities will be the best at it, and still around.

Trump's America. Sadly, when well meaning pundits aim higher in their commentary, they ignore what it is. See also:

Trump's America.

Human history. Which hasn't ended, by the way.

Ritwik, In the long run, you may be correct

You can tell this directly: which states have more anti-immigrant hostility: those with significant immigrant populations in mixed communities or those without immigrants or few immigrants in them.

Compare the hostility towards immigrants in rural Georgia or rural American (generally little immigrant contact) to attitudes towards immigrants in urban New York city or Chicago.

What the paper should have done is compare within a country attitudes towards immigrants based on the number of immigrants in a community and the interaction between immigrants and other members of the community.

My guess would be that those who are more hostile towards immigrants have fewer immigrants they interact with, and probably chant MS-13 without knowing whether it is a fuel oil additive or a gang.

Burnished to a gleaming shine - who knew that quoting Lee Atwater would be a problem?

In other news, I see a bunch of pols, celebs, and other people with a lot of free time have organized a 24 hour hunger strike to protest the policy of departing kids at the border (which ended 2 week’s ago). Such self sacrifice, such skin in the game! So au courant. Next up is skipping dessert to protest slavery.

The kids remain separated, and there is some question about the degree to which the Presidential order changed actual procedures.

More on this

No, Tyler, you complete ever-loving dipshit.

Stop trying to tell everyone that "people hate immigrants, so that's why Trump is popular!!!"

Start focusing on the fact that the USA needs and wants to have an actual border.

Can you do that?

Of course not. Doing so would hurt your tribe. It would do wonders for your sense of reality and self-esteem, but I've seen little evidence that this matters to you. Your life is going well, so who cares, right?

Comments for this post are closed