Besides Trump has already solved the border crisis. Border crossings are down nearly 70% from their level a year ago. A few months from now, Trump can point to this decline as evidence of the success of his anti-immigrant policy.
In Australia the e-verify thing is everywhere. You even need one when you're staying at a hotel or renting. I'm surprised that it's not that common or even mandatory in most of America. I guess that's typical of Americans - all bark and no bite.
I would argue that by not requiring E-verify for such things Americans are living up to our essential nature, if not our political rhetoric. We are libertarians and though we acknowledge that we need rules for society to work, we always kind of resent those rules. We bite when it's an issue we actually care about.
Strongly disagree. I think it’s just a combination of laziness and greed. Most Americans have no idea how many employers don’t use e-verify and how easy it is for illegals to operate right out in the open with absolute impunity. As they’ve gained awareness, there’s been a major backlash.
If there's such a big backlash, why aren't Greg Abbot and Ron Desantis in hot water over their failure to act? Why is Trump allowed to just say e-verify isn't going to happen federally and and most people aren't even aware? Instead, these guys are lauded and re-elected for being so tough on immigration. If people sincerely care, why are they satisfied with these insanely limp solutions to the issue?
This shrewd essay reminds me, for all the complaining that America no longer assimilates its immigrants, keeping millions of people in an unauthorized status without summary deportation enables a pretty ruthless program of assimilation in all but name.
As I read Sam Huntington's 2004 book on immigration, his fears of a Quebecois scenario but with Mexicans in America rings the hollowest two decades forward. He admits this was not the first risk; we came near this problem with the German Midwestern presence before WW1 extinguished it. But how then to prevent Mexican sectional political activity if we permit millions of them to immigrate so swiftly and close to their home country? Huntington wasn't crazy to see a gamble at play.
The answer ended up being too crude and simple for Huntington to anticipate. We sustained a limbo for decades. Attempts to create grand bargains for legalization have largely fallen apart in Congress. The risk of deportation pushes towards getting your American kids an education in English, keeping your head down in political fights, and generally not provoking the Anglophone majority through any mass organizing the way Germans pushed for neutrality in WW1.
Even if a WASP like Huntington protests their kids may transform politics in a more populist direction (politicians like Sanders and Trump are not unfamiliar to Latin America), it is tricky to separate this from what a more Anglo population would lurch towards under a reserve currency equilibrium of easy debt anyways. Plenty of strange equilibriums abound. And America's immigration situation seems more stable than Australia, the UK, or Canada, where formalized law played a larger role in ramping the number up to an actually noticeable degree for middle class life.
Mexicans don't have a strong political ideology I am aware of from their home country, so any political conflict that doesn't involve Mexico probably isn't affected much by their presence. Interestingly, it's the Cubans who came here to escape communism who are more inoculated against it even than the average American. I think a lot of people assume that immigrants will want to make America like their home country (and therefore tolerant of dictators), but that doesn't seem to fit. Mexicans may be somewhat ambivalent towards political ideologies because they are mostly just getting away from poverty and corruption, but I would imagine that Venezuelans will mostly act like Cubans.
I would have generally assumed the opposite. Most immigrants appear to want America to NOT be like their home country, which is why they left that country and came to America. Large immigrant groups who came to America from socialist/communist countries tend lean right.
To be cynical, living in metro Boston it seems to me that there are real, direct, negative effects of immigration, especially unregulated immigration, like the recent wave of asylum-seekers and fully unauthorized immigrants. Viz., sudden influxes of non-English-speaking (ESL) students into the public schools, who are decidedly expensive to educate. Much of that cost seems to be quickly reflected in local property taxes, and many voters are very sensitive to the local property tax rate.
Considering the recent to-do in Springfield, Mich. There was an influx of Haitian asylum-seekers and TPS people. The employers loved them. (No doubt the immigrants loved the employers; federal minimum is about 10 times average wages in Haiti.) But the influx of ESL students puts a substantial burden on the local schools, and if people in Springfield are typical, anybody there "on a fixed income" would have a very negative attitude toward any increase in school expenditures.
I've seen similar things in metro Boston. Massachusetts has a right-to-shelter for families with children, and it turns out that a lot of the people that Texas bussed away were Haitians with children headed for Boston where the state runs a set of shelters. But placing shelters is difficult, partly because towns don't want sharp influxes of ESL students.
(It turns out that housing discrimination in suburban Boston is largely price-based, so well-educated well-paid liberals can live in towns where such immigrants can't afford to live, leaving the schools to spend their money getting the kids into college.)
In practice, I think the federal government should be covering the costs of ESL students -- federal policy largely controls the number of ESL students, so it should pay the costs. OTOH, it's likely to significantly reduce the objection to unregulated immigration, and increasing that is good for the country in the long run.
Writing laws to please the hoi polloi which hurt your resource constituency and then not enforcing them is bad policy. If the other side ever takes power, they can just squeeze the moneyholders through enforcement to get them to comply with whatever they want.
I don't speak Spanish, so who knows what El Clarín means when they say ultraderetcha, but I am a big reader of Folha de São Paulo and they started using ultra-direita in 2023, to refer to then candidate Javier Milei. When Folha or any Brazilian newspaper says "extrema-direita", they mean fascist or neo-fascist. And it's widely regarded as the translation of far-right to Portuguese being extrema-direita: that's exactly what Google Translator does.
Folha started to use ultra-direita to refer to president Milei because it's the opinion of the editorial board that Javier Milei isn't fascist or neo-fascist. But as a libertarian, they came up with the ultra-direita name.
Google translator also translates far-right to extrema deretcha in Spanish. So I'd suppose a similar thing happening in Hispanic America.
“If Americans did not have access to media, it is unlikely that many would think about illegal immigration much in their day-to-day lives. Most people will never get robbed by an illegal immigrant or lose their job to one. So illegal immigration is largely an abstract concern for all but a minority.”
Laughably false, as someone who travels extensively across the country. Do you live in the U.S.? Illegal immigration has had tremendous impact on every American in very material, observable ways. This was true 15 years ago and it’s become impossible to avoid during Biden’s presidency. Even people living in rural flyover country are seeing ethnic shantytowns pop up. Every time you go to an airport, mall, or sports game you feel it. This is to say nothing of the broader demographic shift which was driven by both legal and illegal immigration that can be seen everywhere from political outcomes to casting on television.
And actually a huge number of Americans have lost jobs to illegals. I get that the PMC just doesn’t believe that Americans used to clean and built sh*t and work in restaurants.. but despite not being especially old I’m old enough to remember going into fast food restaurants or a hotel and everyone working there was either white or black. California was a functional red state until illegals immigration turned it into a punchline.
But my dad built his own house and works on housing.
My mom is a florist who creates wedding bouquets for young couples.
That doesn’t sound like “foreign invasion” right?
Also, for your immigration point. America has always embraced excellence over stagnation. She has attracted the best and brightest to make her greater. 🫡
But I believe excellence must be rewarded with prestige and pay. 🔬💰
That means illegal immigration must be discouraged.🙄
And legal immigration must be tailored to bring the best and compensate them well. It shouldn’t bring scab labor to prevent American workers from getting good paying jobs.🇺🇸
You only speak English? I find this hard to believe based on your syntax.
My ancestors would tell me to stand against foreign invasion and influence - of which you are a product. They did exactly that repeatedly over the course of our history. That your ancestors would tell you to do what is good for you and not your nation is what differentiates your ancestors and mine. We build, you take. That’s why i don’t want foreigners here.
We can live in a global reality without sacrificing our sovereignty and identity. India lives in a globalized world and yet it’s full of Indians. China and Russia the same.
Are you suggesting I give up and move to Idaho until the foreign horde of locusts follows me there too?
My options are binary.. and if you peruse the H1B forums you’ll see that solutions for slowing that program are already emerging whether anyone announces it on Twitter or not.
Besides Trump has already solved the border crisis. Border crossings are down nearly 70% from their level a year ago. A few months from now, Trump can point to this decline as evidence of the success of his anti-immigrant policy.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
In Australia the e-verify thing is everywhere. You even need one when you're staying at a hotel or renting. I'm surprised that it's not that common or even mandatory in most of America. I guess that's typical of Americans - all bark and no bite.
I would argue that by not requiring E-verify for such things Americans are living up to our essential nature, if not our political rhetoric. We are libertarians and though we acknowledge that we need rules for society to work, we always kind of resent those rules. We bite when it's an issue we actually care about.
Strongly disagree. I think it’s just a combination of laziness and greed. Most Americans have no idea how many employers don’t use e-verify and how easy it is for illegals to operate right out in the open with absolute impunity. As they’ve gained awareness, there’s been a major backlash.
If there's such a big backlash, why aren't Greg Abbot and Ron Desantis in hot water over their failure to act? Why is Trump allowed to just say e-verify isn't going to happen federally and and most people aren't even aware? Instead, these guys are lauded and re-elected for being so tough on immigration. If people sincerely care, why are they satisfied with these insanely limp solutions to the issue?
This shrewd essay reminds me, for all the complaining that America no longer assimilates its immigrants, keeping millions of people in an unauthorized status without summary deportation enables a pretty ruthless program of assimilation in all but name.
As I read Sam Huntington's 2004 book on immigration, his fears of a Quebecois scenario but with Mexicans in America rings the hollowest two decades forward. He admits this was not the first risk; we came near this problem with the German Midwestern presence before WW1 extinguished it. But how then to prevent Mexican sectional political activity if we permit millions of them to immigrate so swiftly and close to their home country? Huntington wasn't crazy to see a gamble at play.
The answer ended up being too crude and simple for Huntington to anticipate. We sustained a limbo for decades. Attempts to create grand bargains for legalization have largely fallen apart in Congress. The risk of deportation pushes towards getting your American kids an education in English, keeping your head down in political fights, and generally not provoking the Anglophone majority through any mass organizing the way Germans pushed for neutrality in WW1.
Even if a WASP like Huntington protests their kids may transform politics in a more populist direction (politicians like Sanders and Trump are not unfamiliar to Latin America), it is tricky to separate this from what a more Anglo population would lurch towards under a reserve currency equilibrium of easy debt anyways. Plenty of strange equilibriums abound. And America's immigration situation seems more stable than Australia, the UK, or Canada, where formalized law played a larger role in ramping the number up to an actually noticeable degree for middle class life.
Mexicans don't have a strong political ideology I am aware of from their home country, so any political conflict that doesn't involve Mexico probably isn't affected much by their presence. Interestingly, it's the Cubans who came here to escape communism who are more inoculated against it even than the average American. I think a lot of people assume that immigrants will want to make America like their home country (and therefore tolerant of dictators), but that doesn't seem to fit. Mexicans may be somewhat ambivalent towards political ideologies because they are mostly just getting away from poverty and corruption, but I would imagine that Venezuelans will mostly act like Cubans.
I would have generally assumed the opposite. Most immigrants appear to want America to NOT be like their home country, which is why they left that country and came to America. Large immigrant groups who came to America from socialist/communist countries tend lean right.
I had no idea that this was the case. It's breathtakingly cynical!
To be cynical, living in metro Boston it seems to me that there are real, direct, negative effects of immigration, especially unregulated immigration, like the recent wave of asylum-seekers and fully unauthorized immigrants. Viz., sudden influxes of non-English-speaking (ESL) students into the public schools, who are decidedly expensive to educate. Much of that cost seems to be quickly reflected in local property taxes, and many voters are very sensitive to the local property tax rate.
Considering the recent to-do in Springfield, Mich. There was an influx of Haitian asylum-seekers and TPS people. The employers loved them. (No doubt the immigrants loved the employers; federal minimum is about 10 times average wages in Haiti.) But the influx of ESL students puts a substantial burden on the local schools, and if people in Springfield are typical, anybody there "on a fixed income" would have a very negative attitude toward any increase in school expenditures.
I've seen similar things in metro Boston. Massachusetts has a right-to-shelter for families with children, and it turns out that a lot of the people that Texas bussed away were Haitians with children headed for Boston where the state runs a set of shelters. But placing shelters is difficult, partly because towns don't want sharp influxes of ESL students.
(It turns out that housing discrimination in suburban Boston is largely price-based, so well-educated well-paid liberals can live in towns where such immigrants can't afford to live, leaving the schools to spend their money getting the kids into college.)
In practice, I think the federal government should be covering the costs of ESL students -- federal policy largely controls the number of ESL students, so it should pay the costs. OTOH, it's likely to significantly reduce the objection to unregulated immigration, and increasing that is good for the country in the long run.
Writing laws to please the hoi polloi which hurt your resource constituency and then not enforcing them is bad policy. If the other side ever takes power, they can just squeeze the moneyholders through enforcement to get them to comply with whatever they want.
Tierra del Fuego does not mean End of the World, it means Land of Fire. Just a nitpick, good piece!
But it actually is the end of the world, just look at it on the map
Yeah, I know that, I think it's the part of the world closest to Antarctica.
I don't speak Spanish, so who knows what El Clarín means when they say ultraderetcha, but I am a big reader of Folha de São Paulo and they started using ultra-direita in 2023, to refer to then candidate Javier Milei. When Folha or any Brazilian newspaper says "extrema-direita", they mean fascist or neo-fascist. And it's widely regarded as the translation of far-right to Portuguese being extrema-direita: that's exactly what Google Translator does.
Folha started to use ultra-direita to refer to president Milei because it's the opinion of the editorial board that Javier Milei isn't fascist or neo-fascist. But as a libertarian, they came up with the ultra-direita name.
Google translator also translates far-right to extrema deretcha in Spanish. So I'd suppose a similar thing happening in Hispanic America.
“If Americans did not have access to media, it is unlikely that many would think about illegal immigration much in their day-to-day lives. Most people will never get robbed by an illegal immigrant or lose their job to one. So illegal immigration is largely an abstract concern for all but a minority.”
Laughably false, as someone who travels extensively across the country. Do you live in the U.S.? Illegal immigration has had tremendous impact on every American in very material, observable ways. This was true 15 years ago and it’s become impossible to avoid during Biden’s presidency. Even people living in rural flyover country are seeing ethnic shantytowns pop up. Every time you go to an airport, mall, or sports game you feel it. This is to say nothing of the broader demographic shift which was driven by both legal and illegal immigration that can be seen everywhere from political outcomes to casting on television.
And actually a huge number of Americans have lost jobs to illegals. I get that the PMC just doesn’t believe that Americans used to clean and built sh*t and work in restaurants.. but despite not being especially old I’m old enough to remember going into fast food restaurants or a hotel and everyone working there was either white or black. California was a functional red state until illegals immigration turned it into a punchline.
I appreciate your clarification.
But my dad built his own house and works on housing.
My mom is a florist who creates wedding bouquets for young couples.
That doesn’t sound like “foreign invasion” right?
Also, for your immigration point. America has always embraced excellence over stagnation. She has attracted the best and brightest to make her greater. 🫡
But I believe excellence must be rewarded with prestige and pay. 🔬💰
That means illegal immigration must be discouraged.🙄
And legal immigration must be tailored to bring the best and compensate them well. It shouldn’t bring scab labor to prevent American workers from getting good paying jobs.🇺🇸
What makes you think I am an “invader?”
When I try my best to apply and work for a trade job so I may give back to this country that I love so much. 🇺🇸
I believe there should be no illegal immigration and limited legal immigration.
Again. What makes me an “invader?”😒
I said you are a product of foreign invasion. I didn’t call you as an individual an “invader.”
I appreciate you wanting to make this a better place - first step is to stop advocating for bringing more people over, legally or illegally.
So I should go back to “my country” even though I only speak English and always lived in America?
My ancestors would tell me to do what I feel is good for myself. That is the reality
America is stuck in a globalized world. It must either adapt or perish.
And you haven’t mentioned the article. What do you think?
You only speak English? I find this hard to believe based on your syntax.
My ancestors would tell me to stand against foreign invasion and influence - of which you are a product. They did exactly that repeatedly over the course of our history. That your ancestors would tell you to do what is good for you and not your nation is what differentiates your ancestors and mine. We build, you take. That’s why i don’t want foreigners here.
We can live in a global reality without sacrificing our sovereignty and identity. India lives in a globalized world and yet it’s full of Indians. China and Russia the same.
And you think Trump will solve it?
I say this truth.
Trump is a businessmen.
He only cares about a decision if it brings him money and branding.
To putt it simply.
He’s a sellout.
Like H1 b. And like his first term.
Are you suggesting I give up and move to Idaho until the foreign horde of locusts follows me there too?
My options are binary.. and if you peruse the H1B forums you’ll see that solutions for slowing that program are already emerging whether anyone announces it on Twitter or not.
I am saying that if Trump sells out.
Someone else must sell in.
You won’t find that on twitter, where dummies harass women about ancestors and bloodlines.
American must become a classist society. Not racist and certainly not sexist.
https://open.substack.com/pub/nonzionism/p/make-britain-a-class-based-society?r=3otlpe&utm_medium=ios
Your English makes it obvious you are a foreigner.
Also - ancestors matter and there are very few women to be harassed, much less about their ancestors, in our corner of twitter.