Sunday, January 13, 2019

An Exchange on Immigration (With Some Whoppers)

Dr. Michael Edelstein recently sent an email out to a couple of individuals and cc'd me. The exchange may prove instructive.

One individual asked not to be identified by namre, I will identify him as "Individual 1". The other person that Dr. Edelstein emailed
also prefers to be annonymous and I will call him "Individual 2".

Here's Dr. Edelstein's initial email:
This is from Bob Wenzel. He accurately expresses my sentiments. Your comments this AM leads me to believe you disagree with me and Bob. Correct? 

As it happens to be, I live in one of the most diverse cities in the country, San Francisco. I interact with Hispanics all day long, in restaurants, stores, where they are doormen and cleaning people. I have zero fear of them. In fact, I marvel at their work ethic.

I consider it an absolute outrage that you want a situation where "border security was strong." There may be bad actors amongst the Hispanics but they are not in my part of town. If I want bad actors, I can find them in diverse ethnic types, white, blacks and Hispanics, in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. I just stay away from that area, especially at night. The government doesn't have to protect me on this with any kind of screening at the border or otherwise.

This is a very big country. If people have a serious phobia about Hispanics, then I suggest they move to areas where they are few and far between, I recommend Maine.

I just never want to let the government in to "help," ever, not even at the border to protect against bad actors. The private sector does a very good job of protecting me from all the bad actors and they would do even better job if more private security and development w
as allowed. The Tenderloin would be, for example, cleaned up in a week.
There were a series of back and forths with both individuals and me. These are excerpts, a dotted line indicates the start of an excerpt from a new email. The redactions I have made to the full exchanges were simply to remove short sections that would identify individual 1 or 2. :

Individual 1 writes:
With the exception of the MS13 Mexican gang, I fully and enthusiastically agree with Bob about Mexicans. My own experience with them is that they are hard working, and very polite....However, I have a different view regarding people from the middle east and elsewhere. Swedish and German women are in great danger from them.
My response:

Where do you get your statistics on the threat by Middle Eastern men to German and Swedish women?
Individual 1 replies (full email):

My response:
Well, this is a new one. There were lies, damn lies and statistics. 
Now we have Google searches. Nothing on the Google search page you present shows any data supporting your claim. 
Most don't apply in any way 
The second one counters your view:
 "What makes Sweden so exceptionally dangerous for women? Its militant feminism is embedded in its political culture and its educational system. "
As does the third:
"The country may suddenly seem less open, tolerant and generous to an outsider. But in all honesty, apart from the media coverage, most Swedes don’t really notice the ‘refugee crisis’ in their everyday life. Society hasn’t collapsed. 
"Even if Swedes of course have different views on the record influx of people, they are in general more positive to immigration than people in other EU countries. According to a Eurobarometer survey from December 2016, 64 per cent of Swedes are positive to immigration of people from outside the EU compared with an EU average of 37 per cent."
Individual 1 responds:
Oy vey. But, I’ve heard so much about this sort of thing. Where there’s smoke there’s fire?
I really don’t have time to delve into this. But, I strongly suspect that if I did, that is, if these politically correct countries even kept stats on this sort of thing, that my expectation would be borne out.
Here’s another one. The Arab immigrants to European places like France have been disproportionately involved in attacks on Jews. Again, I don’t have stats on this.
I still agree with you in favoring open borders.-

This was the end of the substantive exchange with Individual 1.

Individual 2 sent a barrage of short emails. I responded to each and received one final response from Individual 2 upon which I close this post.

Individual 2 writes:
What you see and the total--largely beneath the radar (e.g., wives and children who ruin the schools) are very different.---
My response:
You mean government schools? Isn't this the problem? Or do you think white lefties are doing a wonderful job of educating American kids?
Individual 2 writes:
Also, their car accident rate, drug abuse and the sequelae for society, the obesity, gang membership, overwhelming the health care system they don't pay into. Puhleeze. Purist libertarians--pfeh!
 My response:
Where are you getting your data on this?
Individual 2 writes:
Do remember, the Latino illegal aliens are not even a random sample of Latinos---a culture that has spawned cultures in every one of the central and South American countries that don't provide a scintilla of reason to believe that their "contribution"--unlike Asians or previous generations from Europe that required much money, moxie, and delayed gratification to come here (Excellent filters for potential to contribute to US society).  The illegal aliens are disproportionately those who failed in their own country and are willing to break our laws to sneak, yes, sneak, into the U.S. and then, according to a study I read a few years ago, 2/3 of them then break additional laws in getting false ID so they can suck at the taxpayer tit to get welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and transportation and, most devastating to over very LIVES, overwhelming the health care system. I reiterate---purist libertarians--pfeh!
My response:
Are you aware that the false IDs are used so they can show employers IDs and that they then pay into a social security system that is in dire need of funds?
Would you rather have them stop working and have less available in SS for upcoming retirees?

Individual 2's closing email to me:
"That's just a fraction. Many do it, as I said to suck at the taxpayer's tit---Isn't that a violation of the no-aggression principle? Anyway guys, I'm done. Chat with yourselves about it."


  1. So RW's stance is correct because there exist examples of people who come to the debate poorly prepared and sometimes make poor arguments?

    One doesn't follow from the other.

    The takeaway I get from this is that RW enjoys the services provided by the status-quo system that involves what amounts to taxpayer subsidy for those workers to be here and do those jobs at present rates and he avoids bad neighborhoods. Ok, so? For everyone who has RW's experience there others that are taxed more they get and those who have the bad neighborhood come to them and then either cannot afford to move or take a financial hit to move. It amounts to an argument of personal benefit and ignoring those who end up with costs due to the same political policies, programs, etc.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. I have my own stories over decades of frequent interaction and most of them are good and the worst usually merely frustrating. My entire reason for participating in the debate is due to recent politics that is entirely about taxing some people for the benefit of others.

      On government rules there are some who suffer penalties for not following them and those who don't. All enforcement is selective. Those who are selected resent those who are not. When people born in the USA and whose ancestors go back generations are often subjected to fines and meddlesome government for the slightest of things. Then the fees, taxes, etc for playing by the rules. When other people show up and don't play by the rules and are often not punished for it for political reasons or because it isn't profitable for government a resentment starts. Especially for those people who still have illusions of what government is. We know it's a racket but many others don't. And that's all before any actual crimes occur.

      It reasonable to think about who is being attracted. There's no reaching a PPS with the current set of incentives and the messages being used let alone keeping one.

    4. JJM, I don't see the equity in the political philosophy that I think you're describing, namely, A resenting B -- and asking for the state to be harder on B -- because B is not being punished by the state to the same extent that A is. Isn't the more equitable position to resent the state for punishing both people in the first place, and to advocate for less punishment all around?

      It's sort of like the old adage that socialism brings equality by making everyone equally poor. Or, as Ron Paul said when confronted with the fact that only 47% of Americans pay income tax, good, we are "halfway to our goal of eliminating it for everyone."

    5. I am not asking for the state to do anything but leave me and other alone. I am asking some self-described libertarians not to enable the state further.

      Furthermore I am describing the conditions that Sherlock brought up. I didn't offer an opinion on them, merely described them and the feelings they bring about. Self-described libertarians are not making things better by supporting letting everyone who shows up in while doing nothing about these conditions.

      I would like the state to stop punishing me and everyone else it selects in various ways but that isn't achieved by letting in more people to whom the state will transfer wealth and resources to.

      As to Ron Paul's quote he leaves off the fact that 1) the spending never goes down so the government simply shifts who pays what around. The fewer that pay the harder it is to get rid of. 2) many of those who don't pay federal income tax actually receive it. The more that receive income tax the harder it is to get rid of. So in fact we're probably 50% further away from eliminating it by making nearly half not pay, and that might even be over half if we consider net taxpayers.

    6. JJM:

      "I am not asking for the state to do anything but leave me and other alone. I am asking some self-described libertarians not to enable the state further."

      I would fully agree with these sentiments, if "not to enable the state further" includes not advocating for the state to play any role in border management. To those libertarians who want the state to manage borders, I would ask, (a) how do you reduce the state's power by advocating for state power, and (b) why do you suppose that the state, which is incompetent and corrupt in all that it does, will magically be competent and honest when managing borders?

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. NAPster, it's a simple order of operations question. The state needs to manage the borders because of the welfare state, the foreign policy, and its management of the economy. Get rid of all that meddling first and now what's the excuse to manage the border? There isn't one. Also the very nature of those seeking to cross it changes when government doesn't meddle.

      Attack the root cause problem not the symptom. Border enforcement even the nature of the immigration itself is only a symptom.

    9. JJM, yes, I’ve heard about the Secret Libertarian Order of Privatization (“SLOP”) Manual before, but have never been able to find a copy to acquire. Those who have read it always quote the final chapter (the last orders of business), but never disclose where we are supposed to start (what are the first things we’re allowed to advocate dismantling among the vast web of state actions?). I’m guessing that some of the chapters in the SLOP Manual include “Sleeping Soundly at Night While Justifying Ongoing State Violence,” “How One Unjustifiable Violent Act Justifies Another,” “Oh State, Don’t Bring the Troops Home Until You’ve Defeated All of Our Enemies,” “Oh State, Lock Up All Violent Criminals Before Allowing Unrestricted Gun Ownership,” “Pre-Crime Is Real!”, “How Libertarians Can Embrace Identity Politics,” “W’s Logic Was Compelling When He Said That to Save the Free Market, We Have to Suspend the Free Market,” and “Yes, It Is Possible to Pick Up a Bucket When Standing In It.”

      The root cause is state power. The state doesn’t really care about sequencing, but is no doubt very appreciative when allegedly anti-state libertarians provide it with a sequencing rationale to support its violent activities.

  2. All I know is, daily life in Central California would come to a screeching halt without illegals.
    Even ICE gets this. They could scoop up hundreds a day in Home Depot lots alone. But they don't. They know that there would be hell to pay from middle class "white" folks who depend on these illegals for those nasty, brutish jobs no 'Murican will stoop to.

    1. The hypocrisy is what pisses me off.
      They get paid dirt wages and soak the welfare system to make up the diff and we all pay.
      I work with a Hispanic contractor and we got plenty of Russians and Hispanics up here in the 4th corner. They get all kinds of freebies if they want them, and plenty of them do.
      Level the playing field like when my paternal grandparents got here and the various immigrant communities took care of their own rather than going on the non existent govt. dole.

      Yeah, I know, it aint gonna happen, but when we know what the radical socialist left is gonna plan on doing with with all the immigrants - give them drivers licenses, let them vote - what are you a hater? - advocating half of the doctrinaire libertarian program is suicidal.