tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post114429666677088923..comments2024-03-15T03:16:46.386-04:00Comments on Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist: Debating US Immigration PolicyThe Constructivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-79821258838157808592018-08-06T15:43:32.573-04:002018-08-06T15:43:32.573-04:00Rodriguez Immigration Services
At Rodriguez Immigr...<a href="http://rodriguezimmigrationservices.com/" rel="nofollow">Rodriguez Immigration Services</a><br />At Rodriguez Immigration Services we understand the hard work and dedication people have when immigrating to the United States.We build strong relationships with our clients to establish trust and confidence, because we comprehend how important immigration matters are to you and your family.When you choose to hire Rodriguez Immigration Services, you will receive individualized support and compassionate care that you deserve.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993756665312403814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-54934243775761356252011-02-15T19:31:39.374-05:002011-02-15T19:31:39.374-05:00This has to be the most intelligent discussion I&#...This has to be the most intelligent discussion I've ever witnessed surrounding immigration. I'm an <a href="http://eb5central.com" rel="nofollow">eb-5 green card</a> holder and I tend to agree with the Objectivist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-56116685906466227502007-09-13T03:32:00.000-04:002007-09-13T03:32:00.000-04:00O, this guy blogs at Cafe Hayek and disagrees with...O, <A HTTP://WWW.PITTSBURGHLIVE.COM/X/PITTSBURGHTRIB/OPINION/COLUMNISTS/BOUDREAUX/S_526907.HTML HREF- HREF="" REL="nofollow">this guy</A> blogs at Cafe Hayek and disagrees with logic like yours on immigration restriction. Have a response?The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-52573395608093955502007-04-10T17:32:00.000-04:002007-04-10T17:32:00.000-04:00Speaking of blasts from the past....Speaking of <A HREF="http://pandagon.net/2007/04/10/asian-exclusion-act-redux/" REL="nofollow">blasts from the past</A>....The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1149328236081291522006-06-03T05:50:00.000-04:002006-06-03T05:50:00.000-04:00An essay on immigration and crime.<A HREF="http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=403" REL="nofollow">An essay</A> on immigration and crime.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1149326497021610532006-06-03T05:21:00.000-04:002006-06-03T05:21:00.000-04:00Two more pieces on African Americans and immigrati...<A HREF="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/04/1419254" REL="nofollow">Two</A> <A HREF="http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=353499914b3b9163606697aab24e6767" REL="nofollow">more</A> pieces on African Americans and immigration.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1149325239022384552006-06-03T05:00:00.000-04:002006-06-03T05:00:00.000-04:00Yes, Hitler opposed smoking and a nutcase helped f...Yes, Hitler oppose<B>d</B> smoking and a nutcase helpe<B>d</B> found the modern environmentalist movement in the US. White supremacists and nationalists are mobilizing <B>today</B> around illegal immigration and mainstreaming themselves in the process. If that doesn't worry you, you're an idiot. Do I really have to remind you who engineered the Chinese Exclusion Act? Or is all that ancient and irrelevant history, too?<BR/><BR/>Haven't had a chance to check out all <A HREF="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=immigration" REL="nofollow">these essays</A> on comprehensive immigration reform, but from a quick skim they hit the points I've been emphasizing in my comments about effective (as opposed to symbolic) ways of providing disincentives for illegal immigration such as going after employers and empowering workers (both of which would have the effect of raising the cost of importing and employing undocumented workers and hence raising wages for all low-wage laborers and both of which would better deal with the 40+% of people who are in the US illegally b/c of overstaying student or tourist visas than a wall or fence). <BR/><BR/>What they don't appear to get into are incentives to reduce immigration to the US from neighboring countries that I've also been endorsing in earlier comments. But as O and I will make commentary on the Senate and House immigration bills our next column, I'll stop here.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148879847814887462006-05-29T01:17:00.000-04:002006-05-29T01:17:00.000-04:00You know what? Hitler opposed smoking.Just in case...<I>You know what? Hitler opposed smoking.</I><BR/><BR/>Just in case you thought I was being flippant with this comment, here is a <A HREF="http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/klass2.htm" REL="nofollow">source</A> on Hitler's Anti-Smoking policies:<BR/><BR/><I>"Smoking was banned in many workplaces, government offices,hospitals and rest homes. The NSDAP(National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939,at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty. The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported Herman Goering's decree barring soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches and on brief off-duty periods. Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on streetcars in 1941.Smoking was banned in airaid shelters, though some shelters reserved seperate rooms for smokers. During the war years tobacco rationing coupons were denied to all pregnant women(and to all women bellow the age of 25)while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers.<BR/><BR/>From July 1943 it was illegial for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public. Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944, the initiative coming from Hitler himself, who worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke. Nazi policies were heralded as marking 'the beginning of the end of tobacco use in Germany'."</I><BR/><BR/>So, our contemporary anti-smoking activists have a lot in common, not with those poseur Neo-Nazis, but with the actual Nazis. Damn, we should get people to **Start Smoking** so that they don't inadvertently support anything that the Nazis supported and for good measure we should hound the anti-smoking advocates for the common ground they hold with Nazis.<BR/><BR/>Of course those who aren't liberals would recognize that the merit of a proposition is independent of the character of those who advance it.TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148854196601160902006-05-28T18:09:00.000-04:002006-05-28T18:09:00.000-04:00First, what do you think of this analysis of anti-...<I>First, what do you think of this analysis of anti-illegal-immigration Republican politics as an attempt to reach out to black voters?</I><BR/><BR/>I couldn't read the entire article for I'm not a subscriber, but I think that the premise is workable. Republicans and Blacks may not have much in commen, kind of like social conservatives and Rockefeller Republicans don't have much in common, but they may be able to work out a political compromise. For the Republicans, I would imagine that they'd be opposed to a never ending welfare scheme that fuels the dreams of Democrats, but they could get on board with a targeted series of programs aimed at Black Americans, because they are fellow CITIZENS. The Democrats are abandoning the Black community in favor of championing the interests of foreigners in our midst. The Republicans should oppose that strategy, even though Hispanics are a less troubled demographic. What seems to be going on is that there is some support for Hispanics because they are viewed in more favorable terms than Blacks, and the operational premise is that there is a replacement going on. Wrong. In fact what is going on is that Hispanics are exacerbating the problems of the Black community and that's bad for the nation as a whole. The greatest overall good is achieved by helping fellow Americans, rather than marginalizing fellow Americans. I'm sure that if a "replacement option" was available then there could be no meeting of the minds between Blacks and Republicans, but that's not the case, so rather than expanding the quota culture of the Democrats, it better serves the interests of the Black constituency and the Republicans to curtail that quota culture and focus it more sharply on aiding a smaller group. The externalaties would be less, for it is easier to absorb the inefficiencies that result for quotas applied to only 12% of the nation, than it is when the quotas apply to 40% of the nation.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, I'd like to see some figures on what percentage of the federal budget and of US GDP illegal immigration's costs are--and why they matter so much more than other factrs with high percentages.</I><BR/><BR/>You did see the reports that pegged the cost of the Amnesty provisions at over $50 Billion, right? And that's coming from the same people who said the Pharmacare provisions were managable. Count on that estimate to be off by a large margin. As soon as these illegal aliens become permanent residents they'll qualify for a plethora of social programs, they only have to pay back taxes for 3 of the last 5 years (why don't you try that gambit and see how it goes) and they get to reclaim all of the FICA taxes that they paid under false documentation. So, we're eroding any windfall gains, marginal though they were, we may have achieved from FICA tax collection, create a class of net tax recipients, allow these people to begin the process of chain immigration, and balloon our unfunded liabilities for future social obligations. Further, we're going to be sending SS checks to Mexico for all of those illegals who paid into the system using fraudulent documentation and then went back to their own countries. The insult that is added to injury here is that SS will be drawing from general revenue in order to provide the taxpayer subsidy. These all matter because these folks aren't citizens. They are a source of future marginal impoverishment for the US.<BR/><BR/><I>Third, I'd like to see some weighing of various factors that have eroded US working class wages and their relative impacts compared to illegal immigration</I><BR/><BR/>Fine. I'm certainly not arguing that the whole problem is illegal aliens. All I'm saying is that the scheme doesn't make sense, that the US certainly doesn't need to increase the proportion of net tax recipients and have you thought of how many more people are now going to qualify for something like the EITC? The subsidies are simply going to multiply, and when funding is used for subsidizing the illegals then it is not available for programs like Universal Health Care (which the illegals will put even further beyond reach for they simply increase the base of the pyramid that requires subsidization.)<BR/><BR/><I>I'd like to see an admission that no matter how rational and objective you and some of your allies may be (or think you're being), your other allies do have deep roots in white supremacist and white nationalist politics.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't give a shit. Sorry for the profanity but this simply reinforces my perspective that Liberals will sell their soul to the devil to avoid anyone thinking that they may be racist, or nativist, or patriotic. It's all about liberal imagery and cheap conspicious consumption. So long as liberals can look good, and posture to those that they want to impress, the consequences for the nation don't matter at all. What matters is how they perceive themselves and how their peers perceive them. Cheap posturing is the order of the day and cold, hard facts are immaterial.<BR/><BR/>You know what? Hitler opposed smoking. Are you going around to the anti-smoking activists and telling them that their program is tainted by association with Hitler and no good liberal, or conservative, could ever support a program that Hitler once supported? Well, are you?<BR/><BR/><I>Which leads to my fifth quick hit, what makes you think your allies on the anti-Mexican front won't stab you in the back when it comes to your pro-East Asian front?</I><BR/><BR/>They might. Look at how the Democrats have sold out the Black community. Each battle must be fought on its own merits. The merits of East Asian immigration are quite distinct from Hispanic immigration. We see far greater assimilation, less crime, better social indicators, and less cultural intransigence. They're not right next door to the US. That battle will play out in the context of those future times. There might be a national mood to shut down immigration for a few decades to allow for greater assimilation. There may be a national mood that East Asians are too successful at competing for jobs at the higher end of the SES spectrum. Or there may be a national mood that East Asians are a net positive to the US, unlike the net negative that Hispanics represent. If the mood is reflective of the first or second scenarios then there will likely be broad support for those who oppose immigration. If the mood is more like the last example, then there will likely be very little support for the activists. Regardless, the particulars of future immigration battles are not germaine to the issue of today.<BR/><BR/><I> When you play with authoritarian populists, be careful.</I><BR/><BR/>Why are you referencing Liberal issues to me? The authoritarian populists are the ones who are inflicting multiculturalism, affirmative action quotas, instituting Islamic awareness campaigns in our schools, mandating all sorts of language policing, etc on the population.<BR/><BR/>Look, the whole issue boils down to the fact that illegals pose a net economic drain on the country, in the form of social costs, and that they forestall capital substitution for low-price, taxpayer subsidized, labor. Further, there are cultural issues and quality of life issues that are important to some people, and legitimately so. Further, there are people who enjoy diversity for it's own sake and are opposed to the liberal experiment of homogenization where all diversity must be stamped out. The only response that is mustered by liberals is that to oppose the importation of net tax recipients into our country could be construed as racist, and no good liberal could be associated with that, damn the consequences, for appearance are everything. That is one hell of a weak rationale for the liberal position.TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148798504222761662006-05-28T02:41:00.000-04:002006-05-28T02:41:00.000-04:00TM, life continues to get in the way of responding...TM, life continues to get in the way of responding, but a few quick hits may be in order. First, what do you think of <A HREF="http://www.nysun.com/article/30838?page_no=1" REL="nofollow">this analysis</A> of anti-illegal-immigration Republican politics as an attempt to reach out to black voters? Second, I'd like to see some figures on what percentage of the federal budget and of US GDP illegal immigration's costs are--and why they matter so much more than other factrs with high percentages. Third, I'd like to see some weighing of various factors that have eroded US working class wages and their relative impacts compared to illegal immigration (try globalization, automation, a generation of anti-union politics...). Fourth, I'd like to see an admission that no matter how rational and objective you and some of your allies may be (or think you're being), your other allies do have deep roots in white supremacist and white nationalist politics. And that this isn't just about etiquette and manners, but over American national identity. Which leads to my fifth quick hit, what makes you think your allies on the anti-Mexican front won't stab you in the back when it comes to your pro-East Asian front? When you play with authoritarian populists, be careful. What's to stop a white nationalist from calling for deporting/restricting immigration from high-IQ groups on the grounds it's unfair competition with the white majority of the US?The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148633049900418792006-05-26T04:44:00.000-04:002006-05-26T04:44:00.000-04:00Is the thinking expressed in this dKos post really...Is the thinking expressed in this <A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/25/165713/129" REL="nofollow">dKos post</A> really the sum total of what drives liberal support for illegal immigration:<BR/><BR/><I>But the bottom line is, Democrats on the conference committee have every reason to insist on a good final immigration bill, not a Republican pander to its bigoted base.</I><BR/><BR/>Will Democrats simply do anything, and vote for anything, rather than think of themselves as bigots? Can it really be all about liberal self-image, facts be damned, even when there is no bigotry present?TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148494723478264072006-05-24T14:18:00.000-04:002006-05-24T14:18:00.000-04:00Another issue to consider is how should America av...<I>Another issue to consider is how should America avoid what is being called Japan's demographic abyss?</I><BR/><BR/>That's easy. Have more babies. Ok, seriously now, the fertility abyss is really an incentive failure. The way our taxation structure is designed the expenses of raising a child and the career/personal sacrifices primarily fall onto parents but the economic benefits that the child produces flow to society at large. The economic calculus works against parents and all they can rely on are personal and emotional reasons for having children.<BR/><BR/>The roots of our problem can really be laid at the feet of that devil, Marx. Go back a century and his class-based analysis of society was, and still remains, the dominant paradigm for how we see society and organize ourselves. This leads to solutions like progressive taxation, where higher classes pay higher proportions of tax. <BR/><BR/>Let's take another look at how society is viewed. Is the <B>purpose</B> of society to equalize outcomes for it's members or is it to perpetuate itself? The fertility incentives that countries are putting in place are too minor to be effective. What professional woman earning $100,000+ is going to be swayed to have a child by a $4,000 baby bonus, or a $50/month baby bonus benefit? However, if we taxed a family's income based on the size of the family then the incentive structure becomes more aligned with the goal of society perpetuating itself. If you take a two income family, let's say each is earning $100,000, for a total of $200,000, then the incentive structure for having a child is that each of the three family members would pay tax at a rate of $66,666, which would be lower than 2 taxpayers at $100,000. If the couple has two children, then all four pay tax at the rate established for $50,000. Further, this aligns individual incentive with individual cost, for a female lawyer won't be swayed to have a child by a $4,000 bonus that might be very effective for a woman earning a lower income. The higher your family income the bigger the incentive for the 18 years you're raising your child.<BR/><BR/>An added benefit is that such a scheme would stop our current dysgenic trends where our brightest citizens are having the fewest children while our dimmest citizens are having the greatest amount of children. There is a significant correlation between brightness and high income, so we see that those who are having the fewest children would actually be well situated to raise their children with emphasis on the values that lead to success later in life and in environments that also support that goal, environments where high SES parents read to their kids, engage in fruitful discussions, associate with other professionals, etc.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, we need to redesign Social Security. Before the program was created we had elderly parents having to rely on their adult children for care. This practice was fraught with danger for it placed all of the parent's eggs into one basket - the success of their children, or their children's willingness to take on the burden. So society spread the risk for society's parents to society's children. Of course, the underlying assumption to the whole scheme was not institutionalized in the regulations and this has led to our current mess. The unstated assumption was that all couples would have 2+ children. What we have now is childless couples paying the same SS premiums as couples with 3 children. The childless couple doesn't incur any childcare expenses, and the taxes that they pay for funding public education are a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidy that they will receive from future taxpayers for their SS benefits and Medicare benefits. In short, childless couples are leeches on the body politic with our currently constructed taxation scheme. What SS needs to do is tie premiums and benefits to the amount of children one has raised. A couple can decide to remain childless if they so choose, but then they need to be responsible for entirely self-funding their future SS and Medicare benefits for they have no moral claim to expect funding from society's children. Think back to the origins of the programs - the risk was spread from one's own children to all of society's children. This implies that one needs to keep one's part of the bargain, which is to have children. Therefore, we should establish a base premium for childless 16 year olds and this is the rate that one pays until they retire. This is designed to be entirely self-financing for expected SS & MC benefits. As an aside, this rate will be quite onerous because we currently subsidize these benefits from general tax revenue. Medicare has an expected shortfall of over $45 trillion dollars and this at a time when our entire annual GDP is only $11 trillion. Back to the scheme, there is a lifetime cut in premium charged for every child one has, and this is important, the premium cut is larger the earlier in life you have your children. This is important because it allows both parent and children to be in the workforce together at some future time, to both be contributing taxes to the body politic. Compare two cases - a 21 year old has a child and a 41 year old has a child. When the child is 25, entering the workforce after college, the younger parent still has 19 years in the workforce before they retire at 65, whereas the elder parent has already been retired for a year. So under this new scheme, each of us will make <B>personal</B> economic decisions. We will face an incentive structure to have children earlier in life which we must balance against the career and education costs of doing so. Each of us will have different tipping points where the lifetime reduced premiums will entice us, in addition to our own personal desires, to have children.<BR/><BR/>Further, such a scheme will flip on it's head the current dysgenic trend. Our poorest citizens should be the one's having the fewest children, so that the children they do have can have greater family resources available to them and thus increase their chances of life success and having fewer children would free up caregiver time so that workforce participation levels could increase. Conversely, those who are equipped to provide enriching environments for children will have incentive to do so.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, Japan is a world leader is substituting robotic technologies for low skilled labor. They already have robotic nursing aids which help carry elderly people around the house, help them into their bath, etc. The benefit of this appoach is that robots don't require state subsidies for schooling the robot's children, paying for the healthcare of the robot and it's children, increasing transportation infrastructure to aid in the transit of their robots, there is no need for robot prisons or for more cops to police the robots. In short, the robots are not "net tax recipients" who are a drain on society. An added benefit is that the subsitution of robots for low skill workers creates job opportunities for engineers and technicians who are responsible for the design, maintanance and sales of the robots, and these workers are likely remunerated at a rate which makes them "net tax contributors" to society.<BR/><BR/>The current solution of importing Hispanics, most of whom with only 6-9 years of elementary education, is not a sustainable solution to our demographic problem and we are simply planting the seeds for future social disruption for these future citizens will be making calls on the public purse that compete with the calls made by our elderly.<BR/><BR/>Think about this - our class based taxation scheme doesn't further the aim of perpetuating the state and is only an interim distraction of shuffling the deck chairs on a sinking ship. A fertility based taxation scheme actually is a sustainable system, which in the long term will help to close income inequality for the poor would have fewer children and thus be able to devote more of their family resources to insuring the success of the children. It really comes down to the fact that those who are earning low incomes shouldn't be expecting society to subsidize them so that they can have more children, and thus lowering the children's chances for success.TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148451105675409022006-05-24T02:11:00.000-04:002006-05-24T02:11:00.000-04:00Just busy, not dodging. Another issue to consider...Just busy, not dodging. Another issue to consider is how should America avoid what is being called <A HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/HE09Dh04.html" REL="nofollow">Japan's demographic abyss</A>?The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148404702588885942006-05-23T13:18:00.000-04:002006-05-23T13:18:00.000-04:00Go to Marginal Revolution and watch commenter Tell...Go to Marginal Revolution and watch commenter Teller engage the pro-immigration economists and see how embarassing their unilateral withdrawal from debate appears when they can't respond to the multitude of facts and studies Teller has at his disposal. As an economist himself, Teller is telling his colleagues that they're inflicting a black-eye on their profession by advocating ideology rather than engaging in systemic study. If you want to catch the depth and breadth of this debate see these three comment threads - <A HREF="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/questions_about.html#comments" REL="nofollow">one</A>, <A HREF="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/illegal_mexican.html#comments" REL="nofollow">two</A> and <A HREF="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/why_i_believe_d.html#comments" REL="nofollow">three</A>.<BR/><BR/>Constructivist, you're dodging the questions I asked you. Refute the economic arguments regarding externalities and share with us what higher principle you're advocating which would justify causing willful economic harm to the country.TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148367321351682772006-05-23T02:55:00.000-04:002006-05-23T02:55:00.000-04:00Hey TM and O, head on over to the Becker-Posner Bl...Hey TM and O, head on over to the <A HREF="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/" REL="nofollow">Becker-Posner Blog</A> and check out their recent thoughts on immigration reform. If you can convince them you're right, I'll give you loads of credit!The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148363492602224182006-05-23T01:51:00.000-04:002006-05-23T01:51:00.000-04:00Alex Koppelman on 1920s nativism, Fox style. Hat ...<A HREF="http://dfire.org/x2698.xml" REL="nofollow">Alex Koppelman on 1920s nativism, Fox style</A>. Hat tip: <A HREF="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Orcinus</A>.<BR/><BR/>Here's an analogy for ya: today's racial realists:anti-illegals movement::1920s' racial scientists:eugenics/nativist movement. Discuss.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148142019224248662006-05-20T12:20:00.000-04:002006-05-20T12:20:00.000-04:00Perhaps Dave missed the obvious obfuscation - the ...Perhaps Dave missed the obvious obfuscation - the article makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. The scores of successful businesses that immigrants created and which were responsible for providing jobs in the American economy is not at all representative of illegal immigrants.<BR/><BR/>The pro-illegal, pro-low skill immigration advocates don't have any data to back up their positions. They point to Card's study, but over at Cowan's blog the commenters, and even Cownan himself, have come to admit that there are severe methodological flaws that obviate his conclusions.<BR/><BR/>What illegal boosters are left with is some adherance to a higher principle that transcends rational economic thought, or appeal to social amity. I have no clue what that higher principle is though.<BR/><BR/>As for Rosenberg, I'd be fine with screening for IQ proxies, like level of education, SES, etc.TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1148139555277581032006-05-20T11:39:00.000-04:002006-05-20T11:39:00.000-04:00Rosenberg also says no IQ tests for entry, so....D...Rosenberg also says no IQ tests for entry, so....<BR/><BR/>Dave at Orcinus recommended <A HREF="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2006/05/myths_v_facts_o.html" REL="nofollow">myths vs. facts on immigration</A>....The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147977080053886162006-05-18T14:31:00.001-04:002006-05-18T14:31:00.001-04:00Anther conservative opposed to returning to the lo...<I>Anther conservative opposed to returning to the logic of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act.</I><BR/><BR/>I followed the link from your comment and Rosenberg is basically echoing what I said in one of these comment threads, I'd sign on to a measure which stripped race from all governmnetal policy. Race blind immigration, race blind college admissions, race blind job interviews, etc. and let the flower of diversity bloom. No more Affirmative Action quotas, no more minority business set asides, no more racial discrimination lawsuits against businesses, etc.<BR/><BR/>Somehow though, I don't think that the race pandering Democrats would go for this, yet they're keen on a race blind immigration policy. <BR/><BR/>Rosenberg is very consistent in his position. Can Liberals match him?TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147977062551357952006-05-18T14:31:00.000-04:002006-05-18T14:31:00.000-04:00Or check out Armando at Swords Crossed.Or check out <A HREF="http://www.swordscrossed.org/?p=117" REL="nofollow">Armando at Swords Crossed</A>.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147976889057735782006-05-18T14:28:00.000-04:002006-05-18T14:28:00.000-04:00See Sadly, No! for their summaries of this piece b...See <A HREF="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002765.html" REL="nofollow">Sadly, No!</A> for their summaries of this piece by <A HREF="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/lindachavez/2006/05/17/197677.html" REL="nofollow">Linda Chavez</A>.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147976399561547272006-05-18T14:19:00.000-04:002006-05-18T14:19:00.000-04:00Yes, history is bunk...or a nightmare we're all st...Yes, <A HREF="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/05/invasion-repeating-history.html" REL="nofollow">history</A> is bunk...or a nightmare we're all struggling to awake from...or a wind blowing an angel backward from some big bang...or nothing more than a vicious smear tactic used by those with no other cards left to play...or cyclical...or a ripple in a pond...or irrelavant...or...?The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147974978209945652006-05-18T13:56:00.000-04:002006-05-18T13:56:00.000-04:00I am the link-keeper today.I am the <A HREF="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/open_letter_on_.html" REL="nofollow">link-keeper</A> today.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147972560959404422006-05-18T13:16:00.000-04:002006-05-18T13:16:00.000-04:00Anther conservative opposed to returning to the lo...<A HREF="http://www.discriminations.us/2006/05/raceconscious_immigration_poli.html" REL="nofollow">Anther conservative</A> opposed to returning to the logic of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-1147971367166218002006-05-18T12:56:00.000-04:002006-05-18T12:56:00.000-04:00Anther one.<A HREF="http://www.mercatus.org/article.php/1690.html" REL="nofollow">Anther one</A>.The Constructivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.com