Check out this remark from US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
31 comments:
"Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers."
This is definitely not the case. The current elderly population is the generation before the baby boomers. Baby boomers are only now starting to retire in any significant numbers (someone born in 1946 is 68 now), and it'll be another 10-15 years before the bulk of the baby boom is retired (the boom peaked in 1957-1958).
Baby boomers are the ones who protested the war in Vietnam. They were the hippies, the draft dodgers and the counterculture kooks, remember? They fought for civil rights alongside African Americans as college students during the 60s. They stood beside Cesar Chavez during the grape boycotts.
Yes, some baby boomers are opposed to immigration, but it's more of North-South, East-West, urban-rural, educated-uneducated thing rather than a generational thing.
The current crop of elderly folks that provide the bulk of the Republican base were born during the Depression and WWII, people who are now in their 70s and 80s. They're not baby boomers. Some of them still call Japanese people "Japs" (they were children during WWII), and they learned to call all Asians "gooks" (probably from "Hanguk", the Korean word for South Korea). They were done with school before Brown vs. Board of Education was decided.
This is why the next few years are going to be particularly hard on the Republican Party. A significant portion of their base is going to be dying every year for the next 20 years. At the same time many new Latino voters are coming of age, and many of them are native-born Americans, and consider themselves to be the "real Americans." They may not speak much (if any) Spanish, but they don't like the way the Republicans treat their relatives.
Well, when I say elderly, I mean people over 65. That includes a lot of people born in 1946-1949 or early boomers.
Immigration is not the burning issue you believe it to be - that you want it to be (which wouldn't even be a Democratic partisan advantage if it were).
I disagree and agree. It should be a burning issue because fixing our immigration problems would improve our economy. But I do agree that it would not be a partisan advantage if we did fix it. In fact, it would clearly help the GOP in many ways.
It should be a burning issue because fixing our immigration problems would improve our economy.
How would it improve our economy?
It should be a burning issue...
But it isn't. That is reality - nice that you have a passing acquaintance with it.
...would improve our economy.
Not nearly as much as cutting back on progressive/liberal regulation and crony-capitalism.
How would it improve our economy?
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge
We should reconceptualize immigration as recruiting. Assimilating immigrants is a demonstrated core capability of America's political economy — and it is one we should take advantage of. A robust-yet-reasonable amount of immigration is healthy for America. It is a continuing source of vitality — and, in combination with birth rates around the replacement level, creates a sustainable rate of overall population growth and age-demographic balance. But unfortunately, the manner in which we have actually handled immigration since the 1970s has yielded large-scale legal and illegal immigration of a low-skilled population from Latin America. It is hard to imagine a more damaging way to expose the fault lines of America's political economy: We have chosen a strategy that provides low-wage gardeners and nannies for the elite, low-cost home improvement and fresh produce for the middle class, and fierce wage competition for the working class.
Instead, we should think of immigration as an opportunity to improve our stock of human capital. Once we have re-established control of our southern border, and as we preserve our commitment to political asylum, we should also set up recruiting offices looking for the best possible talent everywhere: from Mexico City to Beijing to Helsinki to Calcutta. Australia and Canada have demonstrated the practicality of skills-based immigration policies for many years. We should improve upon their example by using testing and other methods to apply a basic tenet of all human capital-intensive organizations managing for the long term: Always pick talent over skill. It would be great for America as a whole to have, say, 500,000 smart, motivated people move here each year with the intention of becoming citizens.
Oh I see.
I thought you were in favour of the Rubio plan. Now claim this, that the Rubio plan does not address.....
Soooooooo, what exactly is your end game plan on immigration reform? Since you've obviously left something back for later.
M's only opinion on immigration is it must benefit Democrats. He can't even begin to reconcile all of the other conflicts.
Why do you think that Manzi and Rubio are incongruent? If you studied and reflected on both ideas, you can see how there are many similarities. For example, we do need to recruit the best talent from around the world and not the lowest skilled workers.b
Why do you think that Manzi and Rubio are incongruent?
we do need to recruit the best talent from around the world and not the lowest skilled workers
Except the Rubio plan doesn't do that. While it increases STEM visa's, that's not what the Manzi piece aims for - actually changing immigration policies.
For example, we do need to recruit the best talent from around the world and not the lowest skilled workers.
So, how do you or them plan to stem the flow of low skilled workers at the southern border?
And why exactly are hard-working people to be turned away - just because they will do low skill, low wage work? If they don't do it, who will?
Say M - what on earth makes you (or Manzi) think that we aren't importing enough skilled/talented workers and that somehow that is related to the glut of undocumented workers (i.e. illegal immigrants)?
You aren't even talking about the same immigration issue as Rubio claims to be (but doesn't actually in his proposal - or have you read all 1100 or so pages and can point me to it?
Then there is this where Rubio backs away from the monstrous mound of paper.
Well, I can see where this conversation is going. What a sad world the two of you must live in...eternal critics with nary a stance of your own. Are you both that insecure that it always has to be about tearing down anything that might make people realize you offer nothing of your own?
I'd rather spend more of my time in forums like Quora where there are a greater variety of people...people who actually converse as opposed to sqawking one loaded question after another because they have an inferiority complex. I have to say I have found it enormously entertaining to watch how TSM commenters interact outside of the bubble. It gives new meaning to the words "socially awkward."
Well, I can see where this conversation is going.
Yep - you've been asked a simple question or two and that's it, you have no answers because you can't think. If it isn't handed down to you as a talking point - well then, you just can't manage your end of a conversation.
eternal critics with nary a stance of your own.
I gave you what I think we should do about immigration. You can't read or think?
Are you both that insecure that it always has to be about tearing down anything that might make people realize you offer nothing of your own?
Tear down what? Something you haven't read? How do you I know I'm tearing it down - other than I object to any legislation that exceeds the length and density of War and Peace. It is actually perfect that you say you support Rubio's plan - because you have no real idea what is in it. Since he is pulling back from his plan are you still on board with it?
So explain to me M exactly why you think more legal immigration of highly skilled people is going to stop low skilled immigrants from coming here. You always brag about how smart you are - surely you can explain that in terms I or anyone else can understand. Can't you?
A: Pointing out how a particular thought, plan, action, etc. is wrong DOES NOT require a detailed alternative be presented.
B: Plans, thoughts and ideas have been presented. YOU have ridiculed or ignored them. You don't even bother to argue against us.
Oh, and C:
You made a statement. I asked you to expand upon it. You did, but that expansion was in conflict with your earlier statements. I wished for more information to give YOU the chance to put your own statements in line.
Your reply didn't do that. I pointed that out.
Now you get butt hurt.
You know what the solution to not getting butt hurt when someone points out to you your own inconsistencies? Stop having such inconsistencies.
Now you get butt hurt.
You know what the solution to not getting butt hurt
Do you not see the adolescent nature of these comments?
Sorry guys, but unless you change, I'm not going to be paying much attention to you anymore. I'm having far more interesting exchanges with a much larger audience on Quora...more interesting, more intelligent, based in critical and evaluative thought and minimal adolescent baiting (amusing to see what happens when the latter happens:))
Perhaps you could maybe reflect a little and grow up?
Calling you getting butt hurt is adolescent.
The wording is silly, yes. But unless you also call the nature of your own action adolescent then the nature of your name calling IS JUST AS ADOLESCENT. And is the origination of the entire problem.
Now you get offended.
You know what the solution to not getting offended when someone points out to you your own inconsistencies? Stop having such inconsistencies.
Better?
How about addressing the ACTUAL nature of the comment rather than getting butt hurt over shallow details?
I'm having far more interesting exchanges with a much larger audience on Quora...more interesting, more intelligent, based in critical and evaluative thought and minimal adolescent baiting (amusing to see what happens when the latter happens:))
That's because you are running into people who have not had the 'pleasure' of repeated contact with you. They are therefore ignorant of your true nature. I have found it interesting to watch what happens during these exchanges and how these evaluative people treat you after being the victim of your 'style' of conversation.
But they aren't inconsistent, GD, and I've had enough conversations with you to know how all this plays out.
I show you this from Rubio's plan.
Highly Skilled Workers: After educating the world’s brightest and most innovative minds, we will no longer send them
home to benefit competing economies like China and India; we will instead staple green cards to their diplomas. We will
also expand the highly skilled H1-B visa program from 65,000 to 110,000 to fill jobs Americans can’t do. To accomplish
the move to a more merit-based immigration system, we eliminate certain categories of family preferences that have
allowed for chain migration and completely eliminate the diversity visa lottery, among other reforms.
and note how it juxtaposes nicely with what Manzi wrote. You will ignore this because the anger will rise due to the fact that I might be right about something (see: boiling pit of sewage).
Because of this, the next step in our conversation will be for you to ask more questions and act like an asshole with more baiting...all the while not offering anything of your own. It will be one long "grilling of Mark session" and it happens simply because you are that childish and fucking insecure about your own ideology.
In short, you can't have an honest or fair conversation. I have them now on Quora. Care to join me and see how you do there?
I have found it interesting to watch what happens during these exchanges and how these evaluative people treat you after being the victim of your 'style' of conversation.
Examples?
Great quote Mark. You could have at least gave it a link. You also could have said that several DAYS ago when I said the Rubio plan doesn't address this.
Oh, wait, it doesn't actually address increasing IMMIGRATION of highly skilled workers. It especially doesn't address it in the manner SPECIFIED in the Manzi piece where he said "Assimilating immigrants is a demonstrated core capability'
Assimilating. Think about that. Does a green card holding 'resident' assimilate? Does a visa holder assimilate? No. An immigrant is a citizen, a green card is not a citizen and is not an immigrant. A visa is not an immigrant.
Now, I'll grant you that reforming to a merit based system is leaning towards the Manzi ideal - but is not the same.
Further, since you didn't come up with this riposte several days ago I'd wager that you didn't even know this part existed in the Rubio plan until you just recently looked for it.
you can't have an honest or fair conversation
Nice projection. I've been telling you that for months now.
Examples?
I am wasting my time.
You won't defend your statements and you won't answer even the simplest questions about them.
Your conditions for even speaking with ordinary courtesy about or to a group of your fellow Americans is that they accept your characterization of them, and that they change their behavior according to your preferences....
...You're moving the goal posts and shifting the ground and bringing up things that weren't in your original post or any of your replies. I know that instructors are not always used to having their statements well and forcefully challenged; did I just make you mad by pointing out how unsupportable your first post is?...
...You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a caricature of gun owners. It's a waste of your time, too...
...It only took three posts for your bad faith and inability to argue to become obvious, so I consider myself lucky I didn't spend *more* time on you :-)
It is ironic that you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse pro-2nd Amendment people of doing: "intrasigence and emotions without thought"
Your knee-jerk reaction of insults and derogation is proof of that....
...You have no credibility, and all you have left is appeals to emotion, insults and derogations, when you do not indulge in outright lies and libel.
You are searching for any explanation you can find (or conjure up) to cast aspersions on gun owners. I suggest you go away for a while and re-examine your preconceptions, then come back when you're ready to consider this issue in good faith.
Sounds to me like your fishing to justify your prejudice.
Or you just can't deal with someone challenging your preconceived notions.
EDIT: Ah, of course. This is a Mark Ward question. I should have known.
It's now "asinine" to demand that you people back up your ludicrous statements?
I guess we can add the word "asinine" on the list of words you don't understand, right under "projection".
This passive-aggressive tirade disconnected from any actual offenders strikes me as the absolute pinnacle of maturity.
I warrant that would suit you?
and note how it juxtaposes nicely with what Manzi wrote.
No, actually it doesn't.
And you are tearing at your own strawman - again. The issue isn't about increasing the immigration of skilled, "high value" labor - it is what to do about the regular influx of low skill, low wage workers.
Brave sir Robin! Can't carry his end of an argument if he had a bucket.
C'mon M - explain how allowing more 'high value' immigrants is going to stop the 'low value' ones from coming. That is what you are insisting with your references to Rubio and Manzi, isn't it?
juris, I explained to GD in another thread that I am done wasting my time with games. I'm having far more interesting and adult conversations on Quora. Example?
http://www.quora.com/Is-the-level-of-financial-inequality-in-the-United-States-a-cause-for-concern
My responsibility to my commenters does not include encouraging adolescent behavior. So, you are going to have to change and grow up if you want to engage in dialogue with me. Otherwise, I'm gone.
Of course, you are always welcome to join in on Quora. I'd like to see how your behavior plays on there:)
I'd like to see how your behavior plays on there:)
Kevin seems to be enjoying himself there, so I doubt that you would have any more over me there than anywhere else including here.
But by all means, pick up your marbles and go home. Just don't cry to mommy, okay?
I'm having far more interesting and adult conversations on Quora...
...I'd like to see how your behavior plays on there:)
I'd like to see what type of reaction you'd get over there if you made an unsupported assertion and told those who wish you to cite it to "do the research themselves".
Talking about adolescent behaviour while doing that AND throwing this temper tantrum......
Talking about adolescent behaviour while doing that AND throwing this temper tantrum......
M is jealous of adolescents because he hasn't reached that level of maturity yet, that is why he is always bitching about that.
juris, Kevin doesn't really do all that much on Quora (votes up and a few short answers but no questions asked) and when he does, he behaves quite differently than he does on his own site. I challenge you (and GD) to do the same on here.
I also challenge both of you to join in the conversations on Quora in which I take part. Indeed, they would be a great test for your assertions:)
Speaking of taking marbles and going home, didn't Kevin quit? Someone sent me an email and said he retired from blogging. I haven't had the time to check his site.
Are you being a dick on purpose or is that your natural state?
Running away from a conversation because you don't like the direction it is going - taking marbles.
Retiring from blogging because your busy/tired - uhhhm not taking marbles.
he behaves quite differently than he does on his own site
Disagree. He posts, when he does, with reasoned thought and using copious amounts of facts and data. Just like he did on his site.
conversations on Quora in which I take part. Indeed, they would be a great test for your assertions
Heh, like the assertions that you:
You won't defend your statements and you won't answer even the simplest questions about them.
.You're moving the goal posts and shifting the ground and bringing up things that weren't in your original post or any of your replies
You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a caricature of gun owners
.It only took three posts for your bad faith and inability to argue to become obvious
You have no credibility, and all you have left is appeals to emotion, insults and derogations, when you do not indulge in outright lies and libel
Seems to me like our assertions have already been tested over there.
Post a Comment