Sigh…did anyone ask him what age t that would have on prices if these industries had to pay a living wage? And why no one has called out these industries that everyone knows rely on illegal workers?
Sure, Josh. You’re all on board with ticking off your corporate donors and driving up inflation, right? Or maybe this is just more BS red meat for your base?
It may be that our stratified, multicultural country will always adhere to LBJ’s assessment of the need for some in society to have someone (e.g., duskier folks) to look down on.
My lily-white Irish grandparents discovered this when their families immigrated to the US in the late-1800s. As Jimmy Rabbitte explains it to the band members in the movie The Commitments: “Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud.” (This takes place as the characters are desperately trying to persuade Wilson Pickett to come see them perform.)
Interestingly, there are lefty blogs out there wherein certain monied emigrants from the UK still feel free, for reasons of their own I guess, to make disparaging remarks about “the Irish.” So it goes.
To quote my hero, Michael Fanone, on the occasion of the Jan. 6 Select Committee’s showing video of Mr. Hawley running swiftly through a Capitol hallway on Insurrection Day:
“Josh Hawley is a bitch, and he ran like a bitch.”
Wow! Excellent piece SER. I seriously think that people who want no immigrants in the country have a specific idea of who they are. However they will tell you that sure, my nail lady is Vietnamese and the folks who run their favorite taqueria are MX, that’s not WHO I think should go. Like folks who oppose gay marriage but know some great gay couples.
It’s easier for them to justify it’s “someone else” I’m talking about. They simply cannot comprehend the vastness of immigrants in this country that they interact with or benefit from every single day.
They will not be happy when the mass deportation happens and dare I say, they will probably complain the most loudly.
I think it was perhaps a mistake for liberals to move toward the euphemism “undocumented workers” rather than “illegal immigrants.” Polls and interviews showed that even people with loved ones who are illegals immigrants thought that Trump’s rhetoric was pointed specifically toward those who commit violent crimes, etc, rather than people who are just here illegally. It minimized their perilous state.
Good point. Liberals often assumed that demonizing "illegals" would turn off nonwhites because it was "so obviously racist" but most nonwhite voters just didn't see it that way. They assumed the "illegals" were someone other than themselves or people they cared about, and to some extent considered "illegals" to be a problem for themselves as well, in terms of competition for jobs and perpetrators of crime where they lived.
We can't just assume that our opinions are universal--we have to figure out how to make the sale.
Cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants would do more to stop illegal immigration than any other enforcement method. No one comes here if they think they cannot get work (especially if they're not eligible for government aid, which no illegal immigrants are, and few legal immigrants are). We saw that during the pandemic shutdowns, when net migration went the other way, out of the country. Anyone serious about cracking down on illegal immigration would start there.
Hey, why not wave this bloody shirt though? We've seen that xenophobic populism is a winning argument. They're people who are different after all, and THEY are why things are bad! Don't look at the people with the power...some of them might even be your friends after all! Look at the people who crossed the border in search of a living (often from places the USA fucked up in the first place!)
And as it's demonstrated; so many of the people propagandizing about this definitely exploit undocumented immigrants.
That's why the most likely outcome of this I think will be no mass deportations, just random, spotty cruelty and publicity stunts, and a widespread regime of waivers based on who is politically connected.
"Pay your nannies more to wipe your kid's ass" is the sort of messaging that helps explain why the Left has been bleeding support from lower-income voters for decades.
If we're going to defend immigration, we're going to have to do better than that.
>> It doesn’t help when immigration defenders argue from their own privileged position. When they claim that illegal immigrants in particular “do the jobs that Americans won’t,” it can sound like elitists knocking the work ethic of average Americans.<<
On the subject of those unemployed men, I know of some— no discernible skills or education— who think they deserve a higher position than what’s available to them. They would rather sit and whine than get up and work at Walmart.
By its nature, illegal immigration should not be tolerated. I think most people agree on that--it leads to exploitation of the immigrant, public safety concerns (an illegal immigrant is less likely to report a crime for fear of deportation), and a competitive disadvantage for legal labor for whom employers have to pay legal wages/benefits. The only question is how, humanely and efficiently, to deal with illegal immigrants. Seems what we are about to get is "cruelty, corruption, and inefficiency" so we'll see how that goes.
The arguments against legal immigration--that Vance is pushing now--are wrong policy-wise (adding more laborers and consumers to your economy has always increased wealth across the board, even at the bottom--anyone who disagrees should consider what happens if we simply reduced our economy to the size of a small town--how well would that work out for that town?). But they are, unfortunately, good politics, because it can be painted as "good for immigrants, who aren't Americans yet, but bad for Americans who have to compete for jobs and resources". It's a much easier to understand argument than "adding additional players into your economy drives supply and demand and improves overall outcomes".
If we're going to defend immigration as a principle, we will need a simpler and more compelling argument.
It being good politics is an indictment against a very large number of Americans because they benefited from an easy mode immigration system designed largely to populate land stolen from natives via colonization. This is also why populism is going to trend towards atrocities when these people get the green lights to be more sadistic in the upcoming concentration camps. Americans voted for this and they'll get a rude awakening.
There is no simpler and more compelling argument when you're getting to the point that people are arguing you shouldn't exist. There is especially no simpler and more compelling argument when you are up against a rightwing media human centipede.
There should be a pathway to citizenship. And we should be enforcing the law against companies employing undocumented labor. It's *THEM* breaking the law; it's THEM exploiting people. Who has the power in this relationship? The person desperate for work or the person who can choose to pay a citizen but instead exploits an undocumented person?
I'm glad that you mentioned the employers, who seem to get off scot-free for breaking the law. They have the power, but it's the powerless who are targeted. Same as it ever was...
Yep--"you want to benefit non-citizens at the expense of citizens" is usually a bullshit but powerful argument. Never mind how much we all benefit from immigration (it's no coincidence that periods of large scale immigration have coincided with economic growth, and America, being built mostly by immigrants (both voluntary and non-voluntary) has rapidly surpassed its Old World competitors). At a simple level, it's compelling to say "Americans First!"
LBJ said something about convincing the poorest white man that he's better than the richest Black man as a way for racists to convince poor whites that voting for racists policies are in their own best interests. The sad irony is, that it isn't in their own best interests to do so. The same thing is happening with immigration. Americans need to wake up to why repubs and some Dems are working so hard to divide us, and lying about what is our own best interests.
As I've said before, everybody votes in what they THINK is their own best interest, whether it actually is or not.
That's the thing--it may be in a bigot's best interest to feel better than the "other", at the expense of their material well-being. Similarly, it may be in a rich person's best interest to pay more taxes for a more compassionate society, even at the expense of their overall wealth.
One thing that held poor whites to defend (even with their lives) the Slave Regime was the fact that no matter how poor they were, there was a class of people always and permanently held beneath them. Unfortunately that was enough for them.
Let’s not forget that 1950’s aesthetic requires a probably underpaid black housekeeper and probably underpaid black men doing yard work and handyman jobs. Those cosplaying trad wives seem to ignore that part
Pop culture has a lot to do with that. Even a lot of liberals have this idea that the 1950s were peaceful and prosperous, thanks to television and film portrayals of the era. But even in inflation-adjusted terms, most people were far poorer, had a far worse quality of life. They didn't eat out nearly as much as we do now, and the food they had at home was far lower quality (just check out the cookbooks from that era! All about stretching budgets).
Also interesting of media at the time, look how much older people looked from the hard living! I'm glad to live nowadays even with the horrors we're aware of.
1) Health was worse, as was health care. People died of things they don't die as frequently of now, suffered worse ailments, worse teeth, uncorrected eyesight, etc.
2) Cigarettes? Oh yes, everything stank of smoke, everywhere. And it affected health.
3) Cars far less safe, and drivers far more drunk.
4) Bigotry? Oh yes the bigotry all over the place (though I think the pop culture has at least tried to acknowledge that)
5) Forget a LOT of modern conveniences we take for granted now. Housework took much longer because so many machines didn't exist for the typical household.
Fist Pump
Run Hawley
Boycott Missouri Rice
Why is Melnim even accepting the verbal abuse and constant interruption? Why?
Senator or not - stand ip for yourself!
Sigh…did anyone ask him what age t that would have on prices if these industries had to pay a living wage? And why no one has called out these industries that everyone knows rely on illegal workers?
Sure, Josh. You’re all on board with ticking off your corporate donors and driving up inflation, right? Or maybe this is just more BS red meat for your base?
It may be that our stratified, multicultural country will always adhere to LBJ’s assessment of the need for some in society to have someone (e.g., duskier folks) to look down on.
My lily-white Irish grandparents discovered this when their families immigrated to the US in the late-1800s. As Jimmy Rabbitte explains it to the band members in the movie The Commitments: “Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud.” (This takes place as the characters are desperately trying to persuade Wilson Pickett to come see them perform.)
Interestingly, there are lefty blogs out there wherein certain monied emigrants from the UK still feel free, for reasons of their own I guess, to make disparaging remarks about “the Irish.” So it goes.
To quote my hero, Michael Fanone, on the occasion of the Jan. 6 Select Committee’s showing video of Mr. Hawley running swiftly through a Capitol hallway on Insurrection Day:
“Josh Hawley is a bitch, and he ran like a bitch.”
Wow! Excellent piece SER. I seriously think that people who want no immigrants in the country have a specific idea of who they are. However they will tell you that sure, my nail lady is Vietnamese and the folks who run their favorite taqueria are MX, that’s not WHO I think should go. Like folks who oppose gay marriage but know some great gay couples.
It’s easier for them to justify it’s “someone else” I’m talking about. They simply cannot comprehend the vastness of immigrants in this country that they interact with or benefit from every single day.
They will not be happy when the mass deportation happens and dare I say, they will probably complain the most loudly.
I think it was perhaps a mistake for liberals to move toward the euphemism “undocumented workers” rather than “illegal immigrants.” Polls and interviews showed that even people with loved ones who are illegals immigrants thought that Trump’s rhetoric was pointed specifically toward those who commit violent crimes, etc, rather than people who are just here illegally. It minimized their perilous state.
Good point. Liberals often assumed that demonizing "illegals" would turn off nonwhites because it was "so obviously racist" but most nonwhite voters just didn't see it that way. They assumed the "illegals" were someone other than themselves or people they cared about, and to some extent considered "illegals" to be a problem for themselves as well, in terms of competition for jobs and perpetrators of crime where they lived.
We can't just assume that our opinions are universal--we have to figure out how to make the sale.
The hard part about sweeping generalizations is you have to make so many exceptions that it leaves your beliefs looking like Swiss cheese.
Isn't it interesting that no one EVER criticizes the employers of the immigrants, documented or undocumented?
Well, unless it’s a politician trying to score cheap points at the expense of their opponent.
Cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants would do more to stop illegal immigration than any other enforcement method. No one comes here if they think they cannot get work (especially if they're not eligible for government aid, which no illegal immigrants are, and few legal immigrants are). We saw that during the pandemic shutdowns, when net migration went the other way, out of the country. Anyone serious about cracking down on illegal immigration would start there.
Hey, why not wave this bloody shirt though? We've seen that xenophobic populism is a winning argument. They're people who are different after all, and THEY are why things are bad! Don't look at the people with the power...some of them might even be your friends after all! Look at the people who crossed the border in search of a living (often from places the USA fucked up in the first place!)
And as it's demonstrated; so many of the people propagandizing about this definitely exploit undocumented immigrants.
What a country this is.
That's why the most likely outcome of this I think will be no mass deportations, just random, spotty cruelty and publicity stunts, and a widespread regime of waivers based on who is politically connected.
"Pay your nannies more to wipe your kid's ass" is the sort of messaging that helps explain why the Left has been bleeding support from lower-income voters for decades.
If we're going to defend immigration, we're going to have to do better than that.
>> It doesn’t help when immigration defenders argue from their own privileged position. When they claim that illegal immigrants in particular “do the jobs that Americans won’t,” it can sound like elitists knocking the work ethic of average Americans.<<
Thank you, Stephen. Bingo.
On the subject of those unemployed men, I know of some— no discernible skills or education— who think they deserve a higher position than what’s available to them. They would rather sit and whine than get up and work at Walmart.
By its nature, illegal immigration should not be tolerated. I think most people agree on that--it leads to exploitation of the immigrant, public safety concerns (an illegal immigrant is less likely to report a crime for fear of deportation), and a competitive disadvantage for legal labor for whom employers have to pay legal wages/benefits. The only question is how, humanely and efficiently, to deal with illegal immigrants. Seems what we are about to get is "cruelty, corruption, and inefficiency" so we'll see how that goes.
The arguments against legal immigration--that Vance is pushing now--are wrong policy-wise (adding more laborers and consumers to your economy has always increased wealth across the board, even at the bottom--anyone who disagrees should consider what happens if we simply reduced our economy to the size of a small town--how well would that work out for that town?). But they are, unfortunately, good politics, because it can be painted as "good for immigrants, who aren't Americans yet, but bad for Americans who have to compete for jobs and resources". It's a much easier to understand argument than "adding additional players into your economy drives supply and demand and improves overall outcomes".
If we're going to defend immigration as a principle, we will need a simpler and more compelling argument.
It being good politics is an indictment against a very large number of Americans because they benefited from an easy mode immigration system designed largely to populate land stolen from natives via colonization. This is also why populism is going to trend towards atrocities when these people get the green lights to be more sadistic in the upcoming concentration camps. Americans voted for this and they'll get a rude awakening.
There is no simpler and more compelling argument when you're getting to the point that people are arguing you shouldn't exist. There is especially no simpler and more compelling argument when you are up against a rightwing media human centipede.
There should be a pathway to citizenship. And we should be enforcing the law against companies employing undocumented labor. It's *THEM* breaking the law; it's THEM exploiting people. Who has the power in this relationship? The person desperate for work or the person who can choose to pay a citizen but instead exploits an undocumented person?
I'm glad that you mentioned the employers, who seem to get off scot-free for breaking the law. They have the power, but it's the powerless who are targeted. Same as it ever was...
Right like arresting the prostitute but not the john.
Yep--"you want to benefit non-citizens at the expense of citizens" is usually a bullshit but powerful argument. Never mind how much we all benefit from immigration (it's no coincidence that periods of large scale immigration have coincided with economic growth, and America, being built mostly by immigrants (both voluntary and non-voluntary) has rapidly surpassed its Old World competitors). At a simple level, it's compelling to say "Americans First!"
LBJ said something about convincing the poorest white man that he's better than the richest Black man as a way for racists to convince poor whites that voting for racists policies are in their own best interests. The sad irony is, that it isn't in their own best interests to do so. The same thing is happening with immigration. Americans need to wake up to why repubs and some Dems are working so hard to divide us, and lying about what is our own best interests.
As I've said before, everybody votes in what they THINK is their own best interest, whether it actually is or not.
That's the thing--it may be in a bigot's best interest to feel better than the "other", at the expense of their material well-being. Similarly, it may be in a rich person's best interest to pay more taxes for a more compassionate society, even at the expense of their overall wealth.
One thing that held poor whites to defend (even with their lives) the Slave Regime was the fact that no matter how poor they were, there was a class of people always and permanently held beneath them. Unfortunately that was enough for them.
I THINK that might have even been written in their constitution, but it’s been awhile since I looked at it
It certainly was the law in those parts, and a part of the rhetoric among slavery defenders.
Let’s not forget that 1950’s aesthetic requires a probably underpaid black housekeeper and probably underpaid black men doing yard work and handyman jobs. Those cosplaying trad wives seem to ignore that part
That's probably one of those times America was "great."
Pop culture has a lot to do with that. Even a lot of liberals have this idea that the 1950s were peaceful and prosperous, thanks to television and film portrayals of the era. But even in inflation-adjusted terms, most people were far poorer, had a far worse quality of life. They didn't eat out nearly as much as we do now, and the food they had at home was far lower quality (just check out the cookbooks from that era! All about stretching budgets).
Both my grandparents had to work.
And oh the discrimination.
Also interesting of media at the time, look how much older people looked from the hard living! I'm glad to live nowadays even with the horrors we're aware of.
Yep--and a lot of other things too:
1) Health was worse, as was health care. People died of things they don't die as frequently of now, suffered worse ailments, worse teeth, uncorrected eyesight, etc.
2) Cigarettes? Oh yes, everything stank of smoke, everywhere. And it affected health.
3) Cars far less safe, and drivers far more drunk.
4) Bigotry? Oh yes the bigotry all over the place (though I think the pop culture has at least tried to acknowledge that)
5) Forget a LOT of modern conveniences we take for granted now. Housework took much longer because so many machines didn't exist for the typical household.
“Americans demand a certain standard of living at the lowest possible price.”
Oh could I write a thousand words about this.
Great piece. Never saw Zoolander!