I'm sure the NYT must notice the dissonance between the editorial content and its own readers' response.
December 31, 2016
A screen-grab from the NYT gives a good hint why Trump won.
Click to enlarge:
I'm sure the NYT must notice the dissonance between the editorial content and its own readers' response.
I'm sure the NYT must notice the dissonance between the editorial content and its own readers' response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
142 comments:
The facts have never gotten in the way at the NYT.
A good hint it might well be but I'm not picking up on it.
Because Richard Cohen does a good job of channeling Al Pacino in And Justice for All?
Doncha care, Warren?! Doncha even CARE!????!!!!!!!
A land that can not control its borders is not a country...
This was said about the Irish a hundred years ago.
This was said about Catholics and Jews when they were emigrating here. Nativism of that period led to the same kind of backlash and hatred that we are seeing now.
Ann supports that and is just another huckster fanning those flames of hate.
Ann, less than a year from now you will be embarrassed that you did not write one post critical of Trump during his rise in 2016.
Yeah,we all remember how Catholics and Jews rejected democracy and our national values regarding women's and gay rights violently. It was exactly the same. Especially the way that even second generation immigrants shot up Americans for expressing their freedom at dance clubs, for example.
When I was in Australia prior to our election I was talking to a wealthy, elderly woman who was bemoaning Trump and his "wall". As she was my host for the evening I kept my mouth shut, but I wanted to ask if Australia could control her borders why couldn't the U.S.
Someone needs to reset the Once bot. It's stuck on stupid.
Sudan has an average IQ of 72. Perhaps Australia doesn't see this immigrant flood being to Australia's advantage.
There's no question it's to the immigrants' advantage, which is the NYT point.
But a mutually advantageous exchange has to benefit both sides. That's how the standard of living increases.
It may not even be to the immigrants' advantage, living in a society where they're consistently at the bottom, where they'd be in the middle at home.
They wouldn't be living with a grievance motivating their lives.
Althouse has written plenty of posts critical of Trump and I don't really remember too many which outright supported him. Mostly they examined the dishonesty of a lot of the media regarding Trump. Had the press been more honest,she would have had to write about something else.
Not to mention the fact that Wikileaks clearly showed that the Clinton camp wanted to run against Trump and urged their allies in the media to write about him to raise his profile.
Hillary brought us Trump, she is the one who will have to live with it.
New York Times reports on the bad luck in Venezuela. The death of a starving boy.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/world/americas/venezuela-hunger.html
No interest in the policy choices that led to the misery there though
To channel bigots of another era, "the Irish are constantly getting drunk and fighting. They, along with the Jews, and especially the Italians, have overridden our cities with organized crime and created cesspools of illegality. They have also used their numbers in our cities to take them over to create political machines that are lubricated with graft and corruption."
This was said about Catholics and Jews when they were emigrating here. Nativism of that period led to the same kind of backlash and hatred that we are seeing now.
...So we stopped all immigration, assimilated the millions who came, and then started allowing people to immigrate again. We also banned the immigration of Muslims and Asians at the time.....
The United States is, and has always been a generous nation. That does not mean we have to let everyone come here for all of eternity.
But IQ is an actual test, by people with no particular animus. In fact whites don't come out on top, but East Asians, by a good amount.
A good quick test is whether the people wish the group well or not. There's your big difference.
List Ann's three most critical posts of Trump from 2016. What is Ann's most critical post of Trump from 2016? She didn't even post critically of Trump for declaring that he was going to see personally that his political opponent would be locked up.
The violence that Italians brought to this country during their period of great migration outstripped that of muslims by at least a factor of ten.
"Once written, twice... said...
Ann, less than a year from now you will be embarrassed that you did not write one post critical of Trump during his rise in 2016."
Despite the fact that she hasn't taken the bait the first 478 times you've posted this, I wouldn't get discouraged.
She didn't even post critically of Trump for declaring that he was going to see personally that his political opponent would be locked up.
Who...Cruz? Rubio? Walker? .....
Oh that's right...he was talking about the corrupt lying evil bitch who actually broke the law.........
The violence that Italians brought to this country during their period of great migration outstripped that of muslims by at least a factor of ten.
So we stopped allowing Italians to immigrate and assimilated the ones here......exactly what we want to do with the Muslims......
This country was built by LEGAL immigrants. Progressives always leave out the legal part.
Also Italians and other Catholics look to Rome and have their allegiance there and not to this country. Everyone knows that. Jews are worse. They will not be happy until they control everything and have enslaved us all. They are in a secretive manner taking over the workings of this Christian nation!
On a per capita basis in 2015, Nebraska is number one for refugees. That was the story in Breitbart but the OWH had a feel good human interest story without the numbers. Trump won Nebraska with 65% of the vote.
See? You guys are just part of a long tradition of bigotry. You got your hillbilly President now. He's yours. The disgrace that he will bring on this great nation will be yours. And yes, I will be here to point out that Ann did not write posts critical of Trump during his rise to power in 2016.
That Roman Catholic religion was founded by that Jesus Christ guy. You know, the war lord and head chopper guy.
See? You guys are just part of a long tradition of bigotry
It is not bigotry if it is true you idiot...
Once written, twice... said...
List Ann's three most critical posts of Trump from 2016. What is Ann's most critical post of Trump from 2016? She didn't even post critically of Trump for declaring that he was going to see personally that his political opponent would be locked up.
One of them was certainly when she asserted that Trump's recorded words amounted to criminal behavior. Plus you are forgetting that Althouse pretty much started out thinking that Trump was a joke --"od plant rum" etc. -- but essentially evolved on Trump with an open mind.
Now crawl back in your hole.
Once written, twice... said...See? You guys are just part of a long tradition of bigotry
You remind me of downtownlad. Can you see yourself in that light?
@Once - No matter how many immigrants we have already, we can always have more! How many are living in your house or yard? How many are you personally supporting? Have you offered them your wife or daughters for their sexual gratification if they have them? Can't you do more? Can't you?
Bigotry or not is decided by whether you wish the affected group well or not.
You might be wrong about the group and wish them well both, and then it's a mistake, not bigotry.
Once written, twice... said... [hush][hide comment]
See? You guys are just part of a long tradition of bigotry. You got your hillbilly President now. He's yours. The disgrace that he will bring on this great nation will be yours. And yes, I will be here to point out that Ann did not write posts critical of Trump during his rise to power in 2016.
Ahh, but no matter how terrible things become, and how bad we feel, we may always take pleasure in the fact you will always feel even worse.
Your tears are chicken soup for the soul.
Trump has whipped up his idiot followers (like you clowns) by demonizing muslims and hispanics. See the difference?
Trump has whipped up his idiot followers (like you clowns) by demonizing muslims and hispanics
You mean like the way you are demonizing Trump and us?
Original Mike: When I was in Australia prior to our election I was talking to a wealthy, elderly woman who was bemoaning Trump and his "wall". As she was my host for the evening I kept my mouth shut, but I wanted to ask if Australia could control her borders why couldn't the U.S.
She may very well have been one of those nice progressive Australians who disapproves of Australia's migrant policies, too.
I strongly suspect a lot of people like your wealthy, elderly acquaintance don't quite grasp the reality of the size (absolute or relative to the First World) of many Third World countries.
Someone needs to reset the Once bot. It's stuck on stupid.
Which is probably why they, like the Once-bot, can be relied upon to produce the same mindless platitudes about immigration anywhere they are found in the West: "bah bah but that's just what they used to say about the Irish and the Italians bleat bleat but your grandfather was an immigrant baaaah baaaah baaaah colonialism buh buh buuut bleaty bleaty Hitler..."
The population of Nigeria is 22 times the size of pre-famine Ireland's (and growing). The population of Pakistan is 6 times the size of Italy's in 1900 (and growing). The population of Bangladesh is over 5 times the size of Germany's in 1840 (and growing). Rinse and repeat with comparisons for the rest of the "global south" with high percentages of people with a desire to migrate to western Europe and European-diaspora nations.
And take into account that it is 2016 and not 1840 or 1900 anymore. But yeah, all them that wants to ought to be able to move here, and it wouldn't cause any problems if it weren't for the bigots and xenophobes.
FullMoon, what you wrote well encapsulates the nihilism that now guides conservatives. "We are happy to see the fall of this nation as long as you suffer more."
. Rinse and repeat with comparisons for the rest of the "global south" with high percentages of people with a desire to migrate to western Europe and European-diaspora nations.
Now the obvious and unasked question is: "Why do they all want to come here?" The answer is because their counties are corrupt shitholes run by robber barons taking all of the wealth out of the country and depositing it in Swiss bank accounts.
The unpleasant but necessary answer is to re-colonize the shitholes, remove the robber barons from power and build institutions to provide good government and services to their people.
But that will never happen because "racism".
Speaking of editorial dissonance, the WaPo which loved Obama's Russian reset and scoffed at Mitt Romney's Russia comment is now busily telling us how dangerous Trump's approach to Putin is. (Ignoring ,of course, that Trump is not even in office yet.) It really is laughable that so much of the MSM falls into line with whatever the Dems have to say. As so many here have pointed out ( and the DHS report indicates) it was the phish on Podesta that may have done the most harm in the end - being the straw, etc. Any hacker can run a phishing scheme - especially if it is run on an egomaniacal idiot.
No one yet has presented any real evidence - other than Wikileaks - of who hacked the DNC. Personally I don't think they ever will. I believe the people who say it was an inside job.
As my Mom always said, don't waste your time arguing with a nut.
In NYT World it's the job of journalists to tell people what to think and feel. Otherwise, how could they possibly know?
Those who accept what they are told are considered smart and virtuous. Those who say, "Hey wait a minute" are stupid and deplorable.
Apparently "Once written, etc." either believes he is God sitting in judgement or a broken record. Ignoring such an individual saves everyone a lot of energy and angst.
This country was built by LEGAL immigrants.
Except for specific, blatantly racist laws (e.g., the Chinese Exclusion Act), our borders were open to all comers (as long as they passed a rudimentary health exam) until after WWI. To compare the restrictive immigration policy (and our immigration rules are in desperate need of updating) we have now with what occurred during nineteenth and early twentieth century, is ridiculous, and simply lying.
Also note that a good chunk of the country was built by immigrants who were kidnapped from their country of origin, shipped across the Atlantic against their will and sold into chattel slavery.
It's a fair framing of the question. Perhaps if we burned fossile fuels just as fast as we could, killed off a few bait fish, let LA look like Beigjing, became very very rich again as it was when America was great, we could teach these lost souls how to do the same. A small sacrifice for all those dying horrible deaths. we could have said the same about the communists and their pogroms gainst others. We have numervous such challenges. Every 100 years when one can match the output of 100 we vind ourselves pushed into an argument between the makers and takers, as impolitely phrased as that is. On one road comes horror, on the other wealth and life even if very low quality along the other axis. Which fairer? Perhaps death for all is fair. Sadly that is the choice, death for all vice death for a few and life for most. Now if we were to become extremely rich, perhaps Bill Gates is correct, wealth and technology and cheap energy can cure all ills. but this means putting those who worship dirt on then dung heap of history. In this particular case prior to natural borders and lack for ships solving this problem for us, perhaps we should train and arm the best and the brightest of those on these ships on the condition they return to their country and kill their existing leadership and try to do better. Or after a few have been made examples other will accept a Marcos solution of being paid to leave, and take their shoes with them. Especially since all these countries have far more natural resources per head than most. Where all it takes is property rights, freedom, and respect for a free person and their free enterprise and the necessary inequality of outcomes, rewards going to the hardest working, the smartest, even best family strength to match first world prosperity. A hard problem, but one that works. I'd also recommend that the ships carrying or likely to be carrying refuges be sunk by drones before use, and sadly if filled, a warning shot, then destruction before they move away from the coast line they have been sold for a great deal of money will promise a much better life. We can use technology to contain the virus until they overthrow their existing leadership. Sad, but it's the only way to improve their lot. Else we all die. Choose wisely.
'Apparently "Once written, etc." either believes he is God sitting in judgement or a broken record'
I wish it would either live up to its name or get a new one.
Also note that a good chunk of the country was built by immigrants who were kidnapped from their country of origin, shipped across the Atlantic against their will and sold into chattel slavery.
Bull shit.
First of all, the slaves were bought, not kidnapped. The slave traders were not running around in the jungle with nets, they were shopping the slave markets run by African kings.
Secondly, slavery was confined to a small area and actually retarded the development of that region.....which is one of the reasons the South lost the civil war.
" dissonance between the editorial content and its own readers' response. "
Dissonance made allthe more graphic because the NYT readership laslost conservative readers by the thousands.
But, no, I don't think they notice.
Once written is sounding hysterical. He/she/other should stay away from sharp objects. He/she/other deplores the deplorableness of the Deplorables.
Roger Cohen, he's a fool for the mullahs, Richard who on e upon a time, boasted if putting spire Agnew as a trophy is another fool.
I'm sure the NYT notes the dissonance, and blames these xenophobic ignorant commenters for being wrong, Wrong, WRONG.
I was going to say what Sam L. already said. The NYTimes editors pay no attention at all to the comments, which by and large are an echo chamber anyway.
The real surprise is that they let the dissenting opinions through.
Oso Negro: @Once - No matter how many immigrants we have already, we can always have more! How many are living in your house or yard? How many are you personally supporting? Have you offered them your wife or daughters for their sexual gratification if they have them? Can't you do more? Can't you?
Rational citizens need to start ignoring the "Ellis Island hysterics" like Once - i.e., Americans who have an emotional over-investment, for whatever reason, in being "immigrants" (or the descendants of immigrants) rather than, you know, Americans. They are (or appear to be) incapable of thinking rationally and dispassionately about immigration policy in terms of what best serves the interests of all citizens, socially and culturally as well as economically. They can be the cynics who talk twaddle because they personally benefit from open borders, the ideologues and ethnic hustlers who have attempted to make "immigration" the essential, defining feature of "who we are" (it isn't), their sentimental useful idiots, or some combination of the above. They do nothing but degrade the debate.
Ow,t: It is her blog, she can write about what she wants to write about. You on the other hand, can go somewhere else. She could come out and state Trump is the devil incarnate and then you would bitch that she didn't call him Hitler and that she waited too long. Leftists are never satisfied. They can't be - they live for discord and division and if someone is happy, it can only be because the person is evil and took advantage of some poor, helpless victim. It gets old for the other normal people of the world who just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace from the constant nagging and whining the left brays.
"The violence that Italians brought to this country during their period of great migration outstripped that of muslims by at least a factor of ten."
Bullsh*t
To channel bigots of another era, "the Irish are constantly getting drunk and fighting.
"Whiskey was invented to keep the Irish from ruling the world."
Said by an Irishman related to me.
our borders were open to all comers (as long as they passed a rudimentary health exam) until after WWI.
My great, great grandparents came via Canada and made their own lives in upstate New York. What you ignore is that there was no welfare state. The immigrant lived or died by his/her own efforts.
The biggest story of 2016 is the media and how it became an arm of the democrat party.
A land that can not control its borders is not a country...
The Emergency Quota Law of 1921 was the first time the United States placed a numerical limitation on immigration. I guess you think the United States was not a country until then.
Once written, twice... said...again and again and again and...again...
Ann, less than a year from now you will be embarrassed that you did not write one post critical of Trump during his rise in 2016.
Never change, once written. Never change.
"The Emergency Quota Law of 1921 was the first time the United States placed a numerical limitation on immigration. I guess you think the United States was not a country until then."
Choosing to allow unlimited immigration is a not a lack of control.
Muslims in this country, except for a very few (maybe two dozen?) who have carried out horrific attacks (though qualitatively not that different than those done by Timothy McViegh and gun rampages like those at Sandy Hook, etc.) have created extremely law abiding immigrant communities.
Italians, on the other hand, had much more crime associated with their communities. In fact it was quite well organized.
Should all Italians been smeared with that fact? No. Just as all Muslims should not be smeared with the acts of maybe two dozen here in the United States.
Hey Once - you do realize Trump is a native New Yorker? Don't you?
This country was built by LEGAL immigrants. Progressives always leave out the legal part.
Maybe that's because prior to the Immigration Act of 1917, it was nearly impossible to be an illegal immigrant. The only restrictions on immigration before that barred “imbeciles,” “feeble-minded” people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of “moral turpitude."
See? You guys are just part of a long tradition of bigotry. You got your hillbilly President now. He's yours. The disgrace that he will bring on this great nation will be yours. And yes, I will be here to point out that Ann did not write posts critical of Trump during his rise to power in 2016.
Interesting insult to Trump, maybe the richest President elected since maybe Washington. Maybe even richer (though I have seen it claimed that he (or actually his wife) was the richest Virginian at the time). Not exactly my idea of a hillbilly, living in a luxury penthouse in a building named after himself (and not some rickety shack in Appalachia), and flying around the world in his own personal jumbo jet. And, his predecessor has set a pretty low bar for disgrace, with his destruction of Libya and Syria, almost single handed creation of the immigrant problem in Europe, ignored lines in the sand, and, now, the sanctioning of Russia, through forcing 30 or so intelligence agents to rotate home, for the release of emails that embarrass the DNC and the Crooked Hillary campaign, that the Russians may have had nothing to do with. 20, 30 years down the road, Obama is likely to be still known around the world as the worst, most inept, American President in a century or so.
Freder: Except for specific, blatantly racist laws (e.g., the Chinese Exclusion Act), our borders were open to all comers (as long as they passed a rudimentary health exam) until after WWI.
No, they weren't. "Blatantly racist" immigration rules were, well, pretty much the rule, rather than the exception until the '60s.
(Aside: It's remarkable how so many people who are apparently so insanely butthurt about the existence of majority-white countries, so retroactively insanely butthurt about past policies tailored to keep those countries majority-white, and such vociferous proponents of policies tailored to make those countries minority-white, are yet living in majority-white countries, or migrating to majority-white countries.
I don't get it. If these people believe that being majority-white is what makes countries suck, and that making whites a minority (or getting rid of them entirely) is what will make a country better, what are they doing staying in or moving to places full of honkeys - when, after all, the vast majority of humans are delightfully not-white, forming delightfully not-white majorities, in the majority of countries on the planet. The white-o-phobes are spoiled for choice, and yet here they are (or here they come). Masochists?
To compare the restrictive immigration policy (and our immigration rules are in desperate need of updating) we have now with what occurred during nineteenth and early twentieth century, is ridiculous, and simply lying.
Oh, I quite agree that our immigration policy should be adapted to current conditions, not based on what worked in the past, or on sentimental or historical-revisionist myths.
Once...."Should all Italians been smeared with that fact? No. Just as all Muslims should not be smeared with the acts of maybe two dozen here in the United States."
All Italians were smeared with that fact. And further, the smears led to self policing in the Italian community, faster assimilation, better citizens. Italians began to judge, yes judge, the behavior of the bad actors in their midst. Just as the Irish had done.
This kind of self policing and judgmentalism is sorely needed in the Muslim community.
Once written, twice... said... [hush][hide comment]
FullMoon, what you wrote well encapsulates the nihilism that now guides conservatives. "We are happy to see the fall of this nation as long as you suffer more."
Nope, 'tis you and your comrades hoping for disaster, simply so you can say "told ya so".
Pathetic in your narcissism.
We could square the circle of present versus the immigration policies of the past by excluding new immigrants from all Govt. benefits created since the golden years of immigration when the US was "open to all"
I have a pet conspiracy theory, er, political hypothesis, that there is a DNC memo written somewhere in 1998, that says, in essence, if we turn Texas blue, like we did California, we will win the electoral college for 40 straight years. And, our polling data suggests the best way to do this is to open the flood gates for illegal Mexican immigrants.
"This kind of self policing and judgmentalism is sorely needed in the Muslim community." Slight problem: Islam isn't like Irish Catholicism or Sicilian custom.
Jeff: Maybe that's because prior to the Immigration Act of 1917, it was nearly impossible to be an illegal immigrant.
So you're agreeing with David that the immigrants to whom he refers were legal...so, what's you're point? That God says it should be as easy to immigrate here now as it was then, so breaking existing immigration law is OK?
Can I apply the logic you're peddling here to paying federal income tax?
"Apparently "Once written, etc." either believes he is God sitting in judgement or a broken record. Ignoring such an individual saves everyone a lot of energy and angst."
What if God were one of us commenters?
"What if God were one of us commenters?"
What if he's one of your banned commenters?
"So you're agreeing with David that the immigrants to whom he refers were legal...so, what's you're point?"
I'm struggling as well to understand the point. I guess he and Freder are arguing for no immigration controls at all.
The "Once Written.." and Freders perfectly represent what Vaclev Havel wrote about the Communists and the forcing of people to actively participate in The Big Lies.
What is most interesting is how many individuals will knowingly "go along to get along" but a sizeable minority will embrace the lie and demand you do as well.
How many fenders are there? Well, how many do you need there to be to engage in political battle today?
Radical Islamists in the US? Oh, clearly only about a dozen according to "Once".
Lets just call it workplace violence and accelerate the influx!
Genders, not fenders.
Thanks auto-correct!
Drago said...
Genders, not fenders.
Slogan for downtown San Fran?
If God is commenting here, he is welcome. He must, however, abide by the rules!
I suppose I should have said he/she/it for God, but I am old enough to have formed the habit of using the masculine and I am not ready to give it up regardless of the accepted scientific evidence of God's gender.
"What if God were one of us commenters?" I thought my obvious omniscience had given everyone enough hints.
I have been seeing this a lot. It is becoming obvious that the people are not following what they are being told to believe, except for a few diehard believers like we see in these comments. (
God only communicates via angels.
"What if God were one of us commenters?"
Well, I think that He has his own purposes, which may well be inscrutable to us. We are mere mortals attempting to live our postlapsarian lives as best we can, and we have a remarkable record of disobedience to His law as revealed by the prophets, and, for those of us who are Christians, His son. He rarely speaks up in public forums like this these days.
We perhaps could agree on the Old Testament suggestion that what is required of us is to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. What that says about immigration controversies is complex. Surely Americans have a right to maintain our hard-earned prosperity and political traditions, and we can and do welcome immigrants who want to continue the traditions of equality of opportunity, individual responsibility, civic engagement, and equality before the law. We do not have the responsibility to open our borders to the whole world. People can embrace the values and traditions that have made the USA strong and prosperous at home, and they should do so. We have the obligation to maintain our nation and its traditions in supporting our citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I doubt that God will contradict me in these comments.
Sebastian said...
"What if God were one of us commenters?" I thought my obvious omniscience had given everyone enough hints.
We would've fingered it out if You hadn't been posting in mysterious ways.
First of all, the slaves were bought, not kidnapped.
To absolve white slave traders because they weren't the ones that kidnapped people from the interior but bought them on the slave coast is ignoring reality.
Secondly, slavery was confined to a small area and actually retarded the development of that region.....which is one of the reasons the South lost the civil war.
Slave states comprised of half the states and more than half of the land mass. And it did not retard the development of the region. Large cotton and sugar plantations fueled the growth of the the northeast and England which developed textile industries based on the availability of cheap, slave produced cotton. Granted, heavy industry was limited in the south, but without slavery, the southeast would have remained an underpopulated wilderness.
"I doubt that God will contradict me in these comments."
Well, that eliminates Freder from consideration.
The "Once Written.." and Freders perfectly represent what Vaclev Havel wrote about the Communists and the forcing of people to actively participate in The Big Lies.
What exactly are the "Big Lies" I am propagating in this thread.
No, they weren't. "Blatantly racist" immigration rules were, well, pretty much the rule, rather than the exception until the '60s.
I said up until WWI. The immigration reform that held from the early twenties until 1965 was blatantly racist. I never said otherwise.
Freder Frederson: "The immigration reform that held from the early twenties until 1965 was blatantly racist. I never said otherwise."
I agree that Democrats created racist immigration policy.
Freder Frederson and I have found common ground!
I agree that Democrats created racist immigration policy.
Actually, that well known racist Wilson refused to sign the first act, it had to wait for the Harding administration for it to pass (and it was authored by a Republican).
For God's sake, do a little simple research before you make incorrect factual statements.
As the left continues to lose the ability to control the narrative and foist their #FakeNews down everyone's throat, we will see an acceleration of the nonsense put forth here by the usual suspects.
Remember, battle intensity increases to maximum pitch right before collapse.
"Blogger Once written, twice... said...
List Ann's three most critical posts of Trump from 2016. What is Ann's most critical post of Trump from 2016? She didn't even post critically of Trump for declaring that he was going to see personally that his political opponent would be locked up."
This is Ann's blog. We're just guests here. If you don't like what she posts on her blog, you can leave. You won't be missed. It takes a special kind of asshole to come into someone else's place and start making demands on them. Something tells me you're that kind of asshole on a regular basis.
"our immigration rules are in desperate need of updating"
How would you update them, Freder? Details. Discuss.
1933- 1965
Discuss.
Which is why I just signed up for 6 mos of the Wall Street Journal.
Freder Frederson: "...well known racist Wilson..."
Freder Frederson and I have again found common ground as we both agree Democrats are racist.
How would you update them, Freder? Details. Discuss.
Such a discussion is way beyond the scope of a blog post. But I don't think many people would argue that the current system is horrible and congress has abdicated its responsibility by refusing to even try to address the issue.
And Trump has not put forth a comprehensive plan, just a bunch of unworkable and thoughtless ideas that fit into a tweet.
Other Catholics look to Rome?
Since when?
Bwaaaaa I'm surrounded by RCs.
They may look to Rome. That doesn't mean they follow.
"the Irish are constantly getting drunk and fighting. They, along with the Jews, and especially the Italians, have overridden our cities with organized crime and created cesspools of illegality.
You know who used to run this country (e.g. 1880) in terms of being at the top of the educational & financial pyramid? People of English descent.
You know who runs it now in terms of being at the top of the educational & financial pyramid? The Jews & the Irish.
Now, there is a tale to be told there of how peoples can rise by education & hard work above poverty, prejudice, & misery to the point where their great- & grand-kids live like kings in the country where they barely washed ashore. On the other hand, if one is of English descent, there might be some real reasons for cultural introspection over that great social change.
I will start.
No dual citizenship.
Freder, Lolol.
It's too large to discuss.
BUT!
DJT needs to have a minutely-detailed plan!
Freder Frederson said...
Slave states comprised of half the states and more than half of the land mass. And it did not retard the development of the region. Large cotton and sugar plantations fueled the growth of the the northeast and England which developed textile industries based on the availability of cheap, slave produced cotton. Granted, heavy industry was limited in the south, but without slavery, the southeast would have remained an underpopulated wilderness.
Good grief, learn some history. The first Africans brought to VA were in 1619. Colonies were already established by then. By 1650 there were maybe 300 or so blacks with 30,000 or so English and other Europeans in VA. My ancestors were well established on VA by then. Europeans had colonized and were producing agricultural products in all the southern colonies well before chattel slavery was established in the areas. Indentured servitude was common- and many of my ancestors were indentured servants. With or without slavery, the area's population would have continued growing.
My great, great grandparents came via Canada and made their own lives in upstate New York. What you ignore is that there was no welfare state. The immigrant lived or died by his/her own efforts.
**************
One of my history profs used to tell his students that immigrants during the late 19th/early 20th centuries came to America believing that the streets were paved with gold. Once here, they learned three things:
* the streets were not paved with gold.
* the streets were not paved at all.
* THEY were going to pave those streets.
Those upvotes come from Russian bots. Very easy to create thousands of NYT logins and script this.
I doubt they really notice it, they just write it off as bigots and alt-right. That way they can continue to live in their gated communities, private schools with lots of police protection.
Hypocrites and limousine liberals.
Jeff said...
"A land that can not control its borders is not a country...
The Emergency Quota Law of 1921 was the first time the United States placed a numerical limitation on immigration. I guess you think the United States was not a country until then."
Well, originally it was more just a sort of random mix of tribes. The Indians didn't actually *allow* all those Europeans to move here, they just didn't have any very effective way of stopping them. A few times they tried to organize one, once they realized the awful mistake they had made. But the Europeans bred like rabbits. The Indians who weren't killed outright ended up on reservations. Here in Oregon they actually asked to be put on reservations, to be protected from the white people. I have been reading about what happened to the people who used to live here, because they couldn't control their borders. It makes grim reading.
That may be what you wish for your descendants, but it is not what I wish for mine. Over your dead body, is how I would put it.
I saw the same thing with Krugman's latest column defending Obamacare. The funny thing is the comments that were "recommended" largely criticized Krugman and Obamacare.
"We would've fingered it out if You hadn't been posting in mysterious ways."
See, I always thought I made Myself perfectly clear, but notwithstanding My omniscient omnipotence I hadn't realized that in heaping al that sin on you I had also made you slow on the uptake.
Roger Cohen has occasionally written a coherent and truthful sentence, but he has never produced an entire paragraph that was not tendentious in the extreme or outright false. He has a very limited talent, consisting largely of a knack for using a thesaurus without making it obvious. He has a glancing knowledge of a few random and unrelated subjects, but somehow imagines that he is an eminent authority on whatever happens to catch his eye. He mistakes his superficial sentiments for cogent reasoning. It is not necessary to read anything he writes. It will profit you nothing.
Freder: "And Trump has not put forth a comprehensive plan, just a bunch of unworkable and thoughtless ideas that fit into a tweet"
Old hotness: "Hope & Change" and "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it."
New hotness: we demand a comprehensive and detailed plan presented publicly before assuming office!
Lol
The progression from reconciliation to a global human crisis has revealed that "peace"-mongers' love redistributive and retributive change, social justice and mass abortion.
Gahrie @ 9:22am,
It's easy to say re-colonize, and that could hardly make things worse for the poor resident of the 3rd world disaster places you are talking about.
But.
Being a colonizer does exact a cost, too, and it's not one I think we're up to paying. (Read Orwell's essay "Shooting An Elephant" for a brief glimpse at some of that cost.)
Being a colonizer does exact a cost, too, and it's not one I think we're up to paying
Not being a colonizer is exacting a cost also......
Australia has an advantage in enforcing its immigration policies. The continent is entirely surrounded by deep ocean waters, with much of the sea unfriendly to small craft. Severe isolation makes immigration easily enforceable - so 'splain how this editorial reveals why Trump won.
If we cannot keep a true weirdo from being elected to our highest office, how can we win at anything as complicated as Trump's idea to isolate America. And why would we accept such shallow thinking from our President in the first place? Hint: The answer is not "Hillary."
Gahrie said...
"Being a colonizer does exact a cost, too, and it's not one I think we're up to paying
Not being a colonizer is exacting a cost also..."
The current immigration disasters in France and Britain are the direct results of their colonizing areas with Muslim populations. The Muslims wrecking Britain come from India and Pakistan, while the Islamic vermin terrorizing France come from North Africa. I don't know what got into the Germans. Merkel, maybe.
"The Emergency Quota Law of 1921 was the first time the United States placed a numerical limitation on immigration. I guess you think the United States was not a country until then."
We had restrictions on immigration from the very start. The 1793 allowed only white immigrants. The Chinese were excluded by immigration acts in the 1880s and the Japanese under the "Gentlemen agreement" of 1910. The 1882 immigration act excluded any immigrant who was a lunatic, or unable to care for themselves.
And Trump has not put forth a comprehensive plan, just a bunch of unworkable and thoughtless ideas that fit into a tweet.
Truth always fits into a zinger.
gadfly:
Sorry to read about your continued sad.
HINT: The answer is not "Trump".
Why not let in 400 million 'refugees'? After all the more the merrier according to leftists.
If FDR was in 2016 he would tweet - "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". See fits easily into 140 characters.
No one yet has presented any real evidence - other than Wikileaks - of who hacked the DNC.
All we have to go on are unnamed sources in the CIA and the FBI – or so says the MSM – which could be a lie in itself because I believe most if not all of the MSM whores’ “unnamed sources” are fantasy invented for the occasion. No official of either the CIA or the FBI wants to go on record with this fabricated Russian hack bullshit.
People I do not trust on this issue:
Obama, or anyone connected to Obama. ANY government source. ANY of the bedwetters in Congress – Paul Ryan and the rest of the fucking eGOP. ANY writer, journalist, talking whores or guest whores in that giant whorehouse, the Mainstream Media.
After Trump has taken office and investigated I will trust what HE says about it. No one else.
Just as all Muslims should not be smeared with the acts of maybe two dozen here in the United States.
The problem is that Muslims immigrate to a Western nation and yes, only a few become terrorists right off the bat. However, those few can commit a LOT of murder. I think we have here a commentor who believes, as Obama does, that the USA can easily “absorb” a few Islamic terror attacks.
But the majority of Muslim terrorists in Western nations are 2nd, 3rd, even 4th generation. A certain percentage of the offspring of “tame” Muslims will “get religion,” experience a religious epiphany and will decide to follow the Koran and kill the infidel. We have Europe’s example to tell us what happens when a lot of Muslims are allowed in a Western nation and it is NOT pretty, if you haven’t noticed.
I do not want a bunch of these assholes to be sucking off on USA government benefits while they simultaneously murder innocent American citizens. Just funny that way, I guess.
"our borders were open to all comers (as long as they passed a rudimentary health exam) until after WWI"
A few years ago I visited Ellis Island where my grandfather passed through (I think). We were told that every immigrant was given not only a health exam but was asked questions like, "Why are you coming here?", "What are you going to do here?", "Do you know anyone here?" etc. So
- Everyone (or almost everyone) was being accounted for, no flood of "undocumented" immigrants
- Everyone was being sent a message they were expected to behave themselves and support themselves
- No welfare state to fall back on. In some years the outflow back to the mother country was as big as the inflow.
Ann, less than a year from now, you will be embarrassed that you did not tell all your Lefty readers to go to Hell.
for declaring that he was going to see personally that his political opponent would be locked up.
For her crimes. One felony for every email off a government server and at least one additional felony for every classified message handled improperly. There are dozens sitting in jail for the same crime on a much smaller scale--one error.
In response to my pointing out that there were no real restrictions on the number of immigrants back when many of our ancestors came here, some of you have asked "What's your point?" Why am I pointing this out?
I do so because you are pretending that immigration is some kind of moral issue, that immigrants coming here today outside of the legal immigration system are somehow less worthy than your ancestors and mine, who also came here outside of the legal immigration system. They were outside the system because there wasn't any system.
If you think our ancestors would have just stayed back in the Old World if rules like today's rules had been in place back then, you don't understand how desperate they were. Nor do you understand or have any sympathy for the desperation driving many of today's immigrants. Do you think it's easy for people to here, leaving behind their friends, their families, all of the social connections people use to get through life? Many are coming from cultures where the extended family is more important than it is to most of us, so these guys (and they are mostly men) are lonely as hell, and yet still they come, driven by the hope that they can better care for their families from hundreds or even thousands of miles away than they could in their home countries.
I think it takes a lot of courage for many of these men to come here, and they are mostly admirable people. I don't understand why so many of you want them to return to the places desperation drove them from. How are they harming you, personally?
One felony for every email off a government server
This is bullshit (I will grant you that classified emails on a private server are problematic). At most they are a violation of policy. You can get fired for it, but it is not a felony, or even a crime.
Jeff: I do so because you are pretending that immigration is some kind of moral issue...
No, Jeff, I'm not pretending anything, I (and others here) are stating that immigration policy should be based on the interests and welfare of American citizens. If policies more restrictive than ones in place in the past serve that goal, and less or equally restrictive ones don't, then there is no reason not to have more restrictive policies. That in no way undermines the insistence on legality.
Re-read your own comment. Obviously, *you* are the one making this a "moral issue", albeit one based on a very childish, sentimental sort of morality, entirely emotion-based and entirely unconcerned with reality. There are billions of poor people on this planet who would like to improve their lives by moving to the West. Billions, Jeff. Got that? Looked at population projection graphs for various countries lately, Jeff? Can they all move here? (Response: Crickets. Crickets chirping "but your grandfather was a poor immigrant"...)
We're already seeing the serious strain that uncontrolled mass migration is putting on Western countries, including our own, and yet there are people like you who appear incapable of any response to these problems (which are going to get worse) but moral hectoring that "but your grandfather was an poor immigrant!", as if that provided any answers or, indeed, implied anything necessary at all about sane policy. It's a stupid, heedless, morally self-congratulatory rejoinder that doesn't even qualify as an argument, as stupid as your apparent belief that we can let rule-of-law go to hell in one large policy area without its having negative effects on the rest of a functioning law-abiding society. Doesn't work that way, toots.
If you think our ancestors would have just stayed back in the Old World if rules like today's rules had been in place back then, you don't understand how desperate they were.
Uh, no. There were allowed to come here because most Americans of that time, particularly powerful and influential ones, thought mass migration from Europe at that time was a good idea. If that wasn't so, the U.S. would not have had any difficulty keeping them out by force, and wouldn't have been squeamish about doing so. They didn't have any trouble turning away the ones they didn't want, and I doubt those were any less desperate than the rest. The Indian tribes that were over-run by those brave, desperate Europeans were very brave, too, and eventually, very desperate. They still lost, because people with the will and the means to take their land and push them out did so. (One wonders which side you consider more worthy of your cost-free moral indignation.)
Jeff: "They were outside the system because there wasn't any system."
It's good to get that sort of stupidity out of your system so you can start the New Year fresh.
Freder:
Attempting to evade FOIA and the laws governing official records keeping are potential felony actions.
"If you think our ancestors would have just stayed back in the Old World if rules like today's rules had been in place back then"
They wouldn't have been able to come here. They wouldn't have been able to sneak in over 3000 miles of ocean.
@Gary,
Any idiot can get a tourist visa and then just fail to leave. Do you really think your great-grandparents were too stupid to do that?
@Birkel,
When you don't have an argument, call somebody a name. Really convincing, that is.
@Angelyne,
I don't agree that immigration policy should be based solely on the welfare and interests of American citizens. But even if I did, you have not established that restrictive immigration actually improves the welfare of Americans, nor that it serves any interests except the one you won't admit to.
You say that there are billions of people who would come here were it not for our restrictive immigration policy. And yet, you also refer to our current situation as "uncontrolled mass migration". You think we're doing a very poor job of enforcing current immigration laws, and we need Trump's wall on the Mexican border. But if we're not really enforcing the restrictive policy we already have, then why aren't we already being flooded with those billions of people you say want to come? The official estimate is that we have about 11 million illegal immigrants in the country right now. Even if you double that, it's still less than 2 percent of the "billions" you say we'll be flooded with. And it's only about 5 percent of our population. Doesn't seem all that overwhelming to me.
There are two reasons for this: The first is that, as I said before, it's really pretty difficult to leave your friends, family and culture behind to move to another country. Most people won't do it except as a last resort. And second, unlike some Western European countries, we don't offer much in the way of welfare and other financial benefits to immigrants. So we tend to get immigrants who want to work, not freeloaders. I don't want to change that. Public education for children, yes. Just about everything else, no.
And finally, your comparison of immigrants to white settlers forcibly relocating and otherwise killing off the native populations they encountered is just silly. When an immigrant rented my neighbor's basement apartment, he didn't hold a gun to her head. He offered her money, and they made a deal that was mutually beneficial. But you think you know better than my neighbor and her renter what's in their interest, and you want to classify such transactions as criminal. This is the opposite of the freedom that made this a great country.
Also note that a good chunk of the country was built by immigrants who were kidnapped from their country of origin, shipped across the Atlantic against their will and sold into chattel slavery.
Also:
“The Emergency Quota Law of 1921 was the first time the United States placed a numerical limitation on immigration. I guess you think the United States was not a country until then.”
With regard to the latter: wrong. With regard to the former: considerably wrong. In addition to comments made above, one might note that importation of new slaves into the U.S. was forbidden by Congress in 1808 — only 20 years after the Constitution was promulgated and adopted — which as it happens was the very earliest date that the Constitution specifically allowed (Article I, Section 9) for such action.
Thus the slaves that built the South following 1808 were to a considerable degree the result of “natural growth” (reproduction by slaves) not folk who themselves had been kidnapped from Africa and shipped overseas.
Not that that's morally much better, but there is a distinction, and moreover it shows that Congress very early on did not want that kind of traffic coming into the United States — and forbade it.
The same person said:
"Italians and other Catholics look to Rome and have their allegiance there and not to this country. Everyone knows that. Everyone knows that. Jews are worse. They will not be happy until they control everything and have enslaved us all."
and
"You guys are just part of a long tradition of bigotry."
Comedy gold.
You guys are wasting your time trying to talk to lil Jeffy. It's more important for him to virtue signal about what a good and noble person he is than to acknowledge any facts about the perils of mass immigration.
You guys are wasting your time trying to talk to lil Jeffy. It's more important for him to virtue signal about what a good and noble person he is than to acknowledge any facts about the perils of mass immigration.
You guys are wasting your time trying to talk to lil Jeffy. It's more important for him to virtue signal about what a good and noble person he is than to acknowledge any facts about the perils of mass immigration.
How interesting. Immigration shouldn't be based on the welfare and interests of American citizens. That tells you all you need to know right there. No point in arguing with a true believer, it's more important for him to virtue signal about what a good, noble person he is than to acknowledge that he might be wrong. Let us know when you've taken in some illegal immigrants Jeff. Your generosity with other people's time, money and for some, their very lives is so touching.
"the NYT must notice the dissonance between the editorial content and its own readers' response."
I stopped subscribing to the NYT years ago. I'm not alone. In my case, I took up the ny post.
Over time, declining readership among people who think the NYT has lost its way will tend to decrease its reader "dissonance" and increase the share of favorable reader comments the NYT receives. That shift oonly confirms for their reporters and editorial staff the rightness and purity of their positions on issues. And to publish dissonent reader views only goes to show how fair-minded the NYT actually is, even to the benighted few who somehow do not understand the NYT.
Meanwhile, the continued decline in readership (and therefore in advertising revenue) is a problem only for the business office. Right?
I predict that the New York Times will get rid of the comments sections in the near future. Even Vox (the liberal news "explainer" site) never had a comments section for the same reason, because it's too easy for anyone with half a brain to point out all the inaccuracies and the holes in their "arguments".
@kennymac,
A little thought experiment: Suppose a genie told you that if you gave him permission, he would kill 10000 foreigners and distribute their wealth equally among all American citizens. Would you accept? If not, you are motivated by more than just the welfare and interests of American citizens. Are you sure there's something wrong with that? Sure it's not just virtue signaling? Tell me, have you ever donated to a charity?
And why do you think favoring more immigration rather than less amounts to "generosity with other people's time, money and for some, their very lives"?
(i) I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm being generous with other people's time.
(ii) As for money, the best available evidence is that legal immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. And that's even more true for illegal immigrants because even the ones who don't pay income taxes still end up paying sales and excise taxes, and because they are undocumented they are not eligible for most benefits.
(iii) Lives? I suppose here you must be referring to crimes committed by illegal immigrants. First you should realize that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than American citizens do. And second, it's also the case that illegals are often crime victims, sometimes of crimes committed by American citizens. But if the illegal immigrants weren't here, those American criminals might decide to victimize fellow citizens instead. Whether the rate of crimes against citizens would go up or down if we deported all the immigrants is not at all clear.
@Michael McNeil
Are you disputing my contention that the U.S. had no numerical restrictions on immigration before 1921? Here is my link. Where's yours?
Jeff asserts: As for money, the best available evidence is that legal immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. And that's even more true for illegal immigrants because even the ones who don't pay income taxes still end up paying sales and excise taxes, and because they are undocumented they are not eligible for most benefits.
You'll need to pony up a great source for that, jeff.
Here's a thought experiment, Jeff. Suppose you move to Mexico and decide to live under the tax radar. But, you have a couple kids, and unfortunately, you or a member of your family gets sick. You will be de facto eligible for free education for your kids, and medical treatment. Your kids will even get reduced tuition. And you didn't pay income taxes! You didn't pay property taxes either because even if you rented, you found a hovel or a multi-family dwelling to get by, thereby paying less in rent.
Do you live in California, jeff? Can you state that this is not occurring here on a massive scale? Even good-hearted intentions can be abused. Ever hear of Cloward & Piven?
chickelit, the best study out there is this one done by the Heritage Foundation in 2013. I direct your attention to Table 6 at the link, which shows estimates of the benefits and services received and taxes paid by households headed by non-immigrants, lawful immigrants, and non-lawful immigrants. Note first that all 3 show a deficit, but the non-immigrant one is pretty small at $310 per year. Lawful immigrant households show a bigger deficit of $4344 per year, while households headed by non-lawful immigrants show the biggest deficit of all, at $14,387 per year. Even though they get less in benefits and services, they pay so much less in taxes due to their low income that the deficit is large.
So am I wrong? I think not. Notice that of the $24,721 in benefits and services, educational benefits at $13,627 and means-tested benefits at $4497 comprise three quarters of the total. And it's not the illegal immigrant head of the household who is getting those benefits but his/her children, most of whom are actually U.S. citizens. To label the cost of educating a U.S. citizen as a cost of illegal immigration is wrong, in my opinion. Those children are going to grow up and pay the same taxes other citizens pay. And that's the trouble with all of these studies, they attribute the costs of citizens to non-citizens.
So am I wrong? I think not.
I think you are wrong. Open borders means that there is no end to needy immigrants entering. This is unsustainable. You support sustainable environments, right? As cruel as it sounds, it's almost like physics.
Again, I ask: "Ever hear of Cloward & Piven? "
“Camp of the Saints” was a cautionary tale not a how too manual.
Post a Comment