Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-13-2008, 08:11 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Immigration Nation

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-13-2008, 10:34 PM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default Re: Immigration Nation

I wish I could have heard Krikorian's argument ... she belabored points endlessly, and didn't let him speak much. Not very informative.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-15-2008, 04:59 PM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
I wish I could have heard Krikorian's argument ... she belabored points endlessly, and didn't let him speak much. Not very informative.
I totally agree. Beside a couple of good points she made-that were sufficiently address by Mark-she was an emotional basket case.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-13-2008, 11:50 PM
petty boozswha petty boozswha is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14
Default Re: Immigration Nation

What a shame - my first BHtv in quite a while and this woman has to bulldoze the conversation. Please have Mr. K back with a more civil partner, it's an important topic. Why not Mickey, he loves this issue?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:03 AM
polywonk polywonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Default Re: Immigration Nation

For someone who has just written a book on the subject, captain Krikorian was clearly less in command of the facts and issues than his challenger. He seemed to have only one idea -- Mexican immigrants are nineteenth century peasants in a 21st century America. Sounds good but didnt get him very far. He really deserved the sound drubbing he received.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-14-2008, 01:18 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Immigration Nation

what this conversation showed is that S. Dalmia can't listen and doesn't really know what her statistics mean.

i'd love to see mark have a conversation with someone that is capable of engaging in a conversation instead of just being defensive and not listening.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:06 AM
harryflashman harryflashman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Immigration Nation

This was pretty pointless. Dalmia seemed to not listen to what Krikorian actually said; making it a bit hard for him to make his case. And her line of argument in regards to the term "foreignborn" was outright bizarre. The term has an exact meaning which makes her point that Krikorian should refer to himself as "foreignborn" because his grandfather was an immigrant tautologically wrong. And even if we try to help her out and substitute "foreignborn" for "immigrant" or some such to make her argument meet at least some minimum logical standard, it still seems highly questionable to me to not count naturalized citizens when discussing the effects of immigration on society. I immigrated in my mid twenties myself, have lived less than 10 years in the US and will soon be eligible to become a US citizen. If I do take that step, that will emphatically not change the fact that culturally, I remain a Scandinavian.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-14-2008, 01:23 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
I immigrated in my mid twenties myself, have lived less than 10 years in the US and will soon be eligible to become a US citizen. If I do take that step, that will emphatically not change the fact that culturally, I remain a Scandinavian.
So what? What's so great about so-called cultural assimilation? Way overrated. In fact, why is it even rated at all? What difference does it make to anyone if Shikha feels Indian or not?
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-14-2008, 05:30 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
I don't think the important question about assimilation is whether one continues to identify with one's country and culture of origin or not, but rather whether one also comes to identify with the culture into which one has immigrated.
Yes, but what does that mean? Mexicans (like Israelis) already identify with the culture of their neighbor. Half their television programs and 80% of their movies are American. They follow US music culture and they ALL take American English in school. They are Christians, like most Americans and they come from a Constitutional democracy like Americans. Their biggest cultural hurdle is usually going from the metric system to feet/yards/quarts and switching from soccer to football.

But even if they didn't, I don't see what cultural expectations Americans could have of their immigrants.

Quote:
It's fine to continue caring deeply about India and Indian culture (and ditto for other countries and cultures of origin, of course), but will Indian immigrants to the U.S (or to Britain, France, etc.) also adopt many of the main features of American (British, French) culture, internalize them, care about them, etc?
Again, like what? What features?

Quote:
I find it striking that many people who don't particularly care about preserving and protecting such cultures which in recent years have been dealing with massive immigration -- and I'm not saying that's your view, Wonderment; I don't know what your view is on this -- themselves identify strongly with other cultures that are flourishing elsewhere on the globe and are not in the least threatened.
The dominant culture of the USA is not threatened in any way, shape or form by immigrants. US culture is not that of an isolated Amazonian tribe that will be wiped out by foreign missionaries bearing gifts of guns and transistor radios. On the contrary, US culture dominates the planet. It has nothing to fear from the Mexicans, Indians or Chinese. As Roosevelt would say, We have nothing to xenophobe over about except our own xenophobia.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:19 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
I'd say that what's missing (aside from legal stuff) is something like a voluntary, self-conscious decision to throw one's lot in with the American people, to identify oneself as an American. (I can't help thinking of Christopher Hitchens here.) One needs to feel American like Shikha feels Indian (and for all I know American too). Or at least aspire to that.
Well, aside from how intangibly subjective such a quality is, my intuitive take on it is that first generation Americans almost never have it even in a weak form, and I'm not sure most non-immigrants have it in a strong form. (Republicans always attack Dems. for being weak on patriotic values because it's true, we are. We tend to question the flag-waving and the displays of exceptionalism.)

My Mexican-born spouse certainly doesn't have even the weak identity, even after 20 years here and citizenship. My grandparents never had even the weak form either. But second generation Americans almost always have it, as my own kids do and as all my grandparents' descendants do. You go to American schools, you speak English as your native language, and bingo, you're plenty American.

Quote:
But you make it sound as though [American identity] it couldn't be threatened, no matter how many immigrants there were, and no matter what immigrants' attitudes were about seeing themselves as Americans, fitting into the American way of life, etc. But that seems obviously false. (I hope you agree.)
Theoretically false, but pratically true. I can envision no conceivable set of circumstances under which immigration would reach such heights as to threaten American culture. I know you can, in your country and culture. It's easy to conjure up the specter of a few million Arabic-speaking non-Jews moving in. But America faces nothing remotely like that.

Suggesting it does, as Mickey Kaus routinely does on Bheads, is where the Xenophobia comes in. It may not be a paranoic delusion in all countries at all times to question the effects of immigration on culture, but it certainly is paranoic here and now in this country. Nothing is happening beyond tacos competing with hot dogs.

When Shikha told the story about her son in France, she said something like, "as every immigrant will understand, the problem for us is in reverse -- i.e., maintaining the Indian identity" (I'm paraphrasing very liberally)... She's right. That rings immediately true for all of us with bicultural kids. My grandchildren are going to lose Spanish, even though my kids are fluent. Every immigrant parent worries about that kind of thing because assimillation is so wildly successful and because the dominant culture is so omnivorous.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-15-2008, 04:11 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Michael, I thought it might help to illustrate a little bit what my world looks like here in California.

My dentist is an Iranian immigrant. My optomotrist is a Chinese immigrant. My tax preparer is an immigrant from Bangalore, India. My pharmacist is a Jordanian immigrant. My convenience store guy is Syrian. My gardener is Mexican (undocumented). Except for the Mexican, they all vote.

All of them have American children who are indistinguishable culturally from their "white" age peers.

How can this be an assimilation problem? And even if it were, why would we care in a globalized economy? Diaspora communities are often a win-win for both countries.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-15-2008, 04:50 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvantony View Post
Wonderment and Ocean,

I'll respond to your posts some time soon. I need to be away from the computer for a while. In the mean time I've posted something else that's likely to horrify you and others here.
I hope you don't mind my interjection, but context counts. I have a fairly good recollection of your postings. And because of that, I am not horrified, rather inspired to rethink my assumptions. I hope to hear from all of you on this subject.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:42 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvantony View Post
I don't see what xenophobia has to do with it essentially. Surely lots of people who would like to restrict immigration highly value cultural/ethnic/racial diversity in their country (and so don't at all fear others who are "different"; quite the contrary). They just don't want a culture that is dominant in other countries to become dominant in theirs too. Nor do they want immigrants (when their numbers get large enough) to repeatedly push for cultural changes in the direction of their culture of origin.
I read your posts and I realize that you are indeed struggling to define what it is that bothers you. However, after reading, I must say, it sounds like typical xenophobia. The fact that it's so difficult to articulate, makes it the more likely. Since you deny this is the case, can you tell us, why you think the above is not xenophobia?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-15-2008, 05:03 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Wikipedia definition:

Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people.

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner. This arguably separates xenophobia from racism and ordinary prejudice in that someone of a different race does not necessarily have to be of a different nationality. In various contexts, the terms "xenophobia" and "racism" seem to be used interchangeably, though they can have wholly different meanings (xenophobia can be based on various aspects, racism being based solely on race and ancestry).

For xenophobia there are two main objects of the phobia. The first is a population group present within a society that is not considered part of that society. Often they are recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, or in the worst case, genocide.

The second form of xenophobia is primarily cultural, and the objects of the phobia are cultural elements which are considered alien. All cultures are subject to external influences, but cultural xenophobia is often narrowly directed, for instance at foreign loan words in a national language. It rarely leads to aggression against individual persons, but can result in political campaigns for cultural or linguistic purification.


Having established a basic definition, I will tell you what I have problems with:

You say:

Quote:
I think it's morally OK to desire that a culture which is dominant in a particular society remain dominant, and to be concerned about threats to such cultural dominance. I do think those things are morally OK, and don't entail that anyone with such wants and concerns is xenophobic.
I respond to that: Unless you are talking about an endangered "mini culture", it is not OK, and it is not morally OK to talk about dominance.

You also say:

Quote:
Well, to decide whether such an attitude is immoral or not, it's crucial to look at least the following two things: (1) the morality of the population growth of the minority (e.g., was it legal, or at least morally justified? ); and (2) to what degree are the cultures of the minority and majority expressed in other countries on Earth?
And I respond: What do you mean by the morality of the population growth of the (illegal) minority? Do people need to belong to a certain cultural group to be able to reproduce? Perhaps you should propose massive sterilization of illegal immigrants... Does that remind you of other historical events in the past century? Who gives you the right to decide who can reproduce "morally" or not?

Furthermore you say:

Quote:
I had in mind a case in which (a) a minority increases in population within a society by means we can assume to be moral;
Thank god you discounted the "illegals" reproducing!

Quote:
(b) the minority demands greater cultural representation within the society to an extent that begins to threaten the continued existence of the dominant culture;
Don't you see the xenophobia here?

Quote:
(c) the minority identifies with a culture that happens to be flourishing (e.g., dominant) elsewhere on the globe; and (d) the dominant culture in the society is not represented in any significant way (e.g., dominant) elsewhere on Earth.
This is extremely irrelevant, except for endangered cultures, which implies that they exist in such limited numbers, and are unable to procure their own legitimate survival that, if not protected, they would disappear.

And then you finish:

Quote:
And not wanting the minorities to grow too much isn't xenophobic either. It's simply a matter of valuing your own culture too. And not wanting to see it destroyed by minorities whose culture is dominant, and hence under no threat, in other countries on Earth. What's moral or noble or non-xenophobic about willingly allowing one's own culture be swallowed up by other cultures whose existence on Earth is under no threat at all? Nothing I can see.
If you can't see it... I guess your eyes are closed. Or your are looking the other way. It is clear to me.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-15-2008, 07:27 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Michael,

You said:

Quote:
...the minority demands greater cultural representation within the society to an extent that begins to threaten the continued existence of the dominant culture;
minority: you are referring to another culture (foreign people), and your previous examples included race as well, non- "white"',

threaten the continued existence: it denotes fear

dominant culture: the one you seem to "defend" and believe to be endangered. "Dominant" used as predominant, and for the time being, in this country, "white". Whatever meaning you are giving to that.

Again definition:
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people.

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner.

If you still don't see it, in this extremely simplified form, I give up. It must be because I'm foreign born, and perhaps my ideas are to be feared.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-15-2008, 05:28 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

It may (or may not) be helpful to put the cards on the table and talk about Israel and Palestine. I would dispute some of your assumptions, if we apply your principles on the ground.

Quote:
I had in mind a case in which (a) a minority increases in population within a society by means we can assume to be moral; (b) the minority demands greater cultural representation within the society to an extent that begins to threaten the continued existence of the dominant culture; (c) the minority identifies with a culture that happens to be flourishing (e.g., dominant) elsewhere on the globe; and (d) the dominant culture in the society is not represented in any significant way (e.g., dominant) elsewhere on Earth.
"A" seems clear. "B," however, carries the loaded term "threaten" and implies and grave existential threat ("continued existence..."). C and D are carry questionable premises.

This all seems predicates on the assumption of perpetual conflict. Just as people predicted "race wars" in the USA if integration were tried, people in Israel foresee all kinds of doom and extinction if power is shared with Arabs.

But here in the USA no "race war" materialized because conflict was defused through compromise, redress of grievances, reconciliation and integration (still very much a work in progress).

Quote:
Here, it seems, it may be at least reasonable, and certainly not necessarily xenophobic, for members of the dominant culture to see it as immoral that the cultural demands of a minority whose culture is flourishing elsewhere on Earth threaten the existence of the only case on Earth in which the majority's culture finds expression within a society.
Again, big assumption that Palestinianism is flourishing elsewhere ("There's no such thing as a Palestinian?") and that Israeli culture would be subsumed in a power-share arrangement with Palestinians.

Israel should look to successful models of binational or multicultural societies. If you build the field of dreams, they will come.

If, however, you are convinced that only the status quo will prevent your extinction and it must be defended to the death with everything from Apartheid to nuclear bombs, you can self-fulfill that prophecy as well.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-15-2008, 05:42 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
It may (or may not) be helpful to put the cards on the table and talk about Israel and Palestine.

Israel should look to successful models of binational or multicultural societies. If you build the field of dreams, they will come.

If, however, you are convinced that only the status quo will prevent your extinction and it must be defended to the death with everything from Apartheid to nuclear bombs, you can self-fulfill that prophecy as well.
And now that "the cards are on the table" (thank you, Wonderment for the clarification), I can add, although as a total outsider on this topic, that the Israeli-Palestinian situation has many more levels of geopolitical implications, well beyond the discussion of culture, race, religion or ethnicity. I wouldn't even try to go there. Too complex for me. I do agree with Wonderment's general sentiment, though.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-15-2008, 05:58 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

I do not mean to suggest at all that Michael was trying to conceal this.

He just probably thought a hypothetical discussion might be fruitful and less emotional. I agree.

But we also shed some light on the issues by discussing a geo-political reality.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-15-2008, 06:34 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Cultural/emotional assimilation overrated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I do not mean to suggest at all that Michael was trying to conceal this.

He just probably thought a hypothetical discussion might be fruitful and less emotional. I agree.

But we also shed some light on the issues by discussing a geo-political reality.
I guess we would have to let Michael tell us if that's the case. I was wondering what the "agenda" was. The problem with hypothetical discussions is that you are not presenting all the arguments that may be relevant. Trying to neutralize the topic, you omit aspects that can be, in someone else's opinion very central to the issues at hand.

As you may have noticed I think it's extremely important that we challenge all our assumptions, particularly those subtle tones that go unnoticed underground. Because they aren't all that obvious we tend to neglect them and not challenge them. Unfortunately, they can come up full-force when elicited by the appropriate triggers. It's very difficult to notice our own contradictions. It's a constant struggle, but a worthy one!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:28 AM
interestedparty interestedparty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Immigration Nation

This guy is off the wall – that he wants to build. He has just released a study claiming
that immigration leads to dangerous increases in greenhouse gas emissions!! He’ll say
anything. His position that even highly skilled immigrants are a danger to this country
is off the scale of reasonable debate. He couldnt defend any of his claims in this
debate. He can’t make the economic case against skilled immigrants, so he has invented
an emotional argument that is semi-paranoid.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:41 AM
jeffpeterson jeffpeterson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 63
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Polywonk, did you listen to the dialogue? From the outset, Ms. Dalmia was dismissive of Mr. Krikorian's thesis, lobbed cherry-picked statistics at him in an outraged tone, and argued as if the plural of anecdote is data. In the time in which he was permitted to speak, Mr. Krikorian demonstrated command of relevant facts and (especially helpful) worked to clarify the categories in which the discussion is conducted. I agree it would be good to have him back; I'm not sure Mickey Kaus would be the best interlocutor -- although that diavlog would balance this one -- but someone willing to consider a restrictionist case as a policy option to be assessed rather than a heresy to be shouted down would be welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:51 AM
anothervoice anothervoice is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Krikorian had the posture of a reasonable guy, but he ended up backing down on all of his arguments when under fire from Dalmia. In the end he's just another scare mongerer dressed up in sheeps clothing. He claims the US will be flooded with immigrants from low-wage countries if it doesn't hurry up and build a wall to keep the hordes out. But this is obvious bullshit. Just look at Puerto Rico. The whole island has US citizenship, their wages are 35% lower than ours, and yet net immigration from the PR is currently zero. Zilch. NADA. Comprende?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-14-2008, 03:40 AM
Drew Drew is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Krikorian was "backing down" because Dalmia would not allow him to get a word in edgewise, would raise her voice when he tried to, and would not extend the conversational courtesies to him that he extended to her. Also where did in the diavlog did he push for a wall? Can you give us a ding-a-link? Krikorian and CIS's main goal is attrition through enforcement (worksite enforcement, work visa enforcement, E-Verify, etc.) Jobs are the primary magnet for immigrants. A border fence may be helpful (or simply a distraction) but enforcement is the main goal.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-14-2008, 05:10 AM
daveh daveh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 37
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
Originally Posted by anothervoice View Post
Krikorian had the posture of a reasonable guy, but he ended up backing down on all of his arguments when under fire from Dalmia. In the end he's just another scare mongerer dressed up in sheeps clothing. He claims the US will be flooded with immigrants from low-wage countries if it doesn't hurry up and build a wall to keep the hordes out. But this is obvious bullshit. Just look at Puerto Rico. The whole island has US citizenship, their wages are 35% lower than ours, and yet net immigration from the PR is currently zero. Zilch. NADA. Comprende?
Anothervoice -- Puerto Rican residents do not pay federal income tax on income earned in Puerto Rico. Also, under Section 30A industry enjoys a tax credit for operations conducted in Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the predecessor to the current tax credit Section 936, was enacted in 1976. As you can see from the attached chart, at p. 6, Puerto Rican migration reversed itself when Section 936 was enacted in 1976. One way of looking at it is that the government is, in substance, bribing Puerto Ricans to stay in Puerto Rico, rather than migrating to the mainland.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:48 AM
January January is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 46
Default Re: Immigration Nation

I agree with Drew: provide Dingalinks for your assertions. Though I'm more in favor of immigration than Krikorian is, I applaud his courteousness and deplore Dalmia's lack of same. If Dalmia really agreed -- as she claimed to -- that questions of immigration are definitional, not moral, then she wouldn't have so heatedly talked past every point that Krikorian made. The dialog never got to the point of discussing in any satisfying way whether or not low-wage immigrants depress the wages of American born low-wage workers. Dalmia was harangued the issues before they could be discussed.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:59 AM
polywonk polywonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Default Re: Immigration Nation

jeffpeterson: Yes, I listened to the whole debate, such as it was. It wasn't much of a debate because Mr. Krikorian could not back up very many of his confidently asserted positions. Ms. Dalmia relied, not on anecdote, but on facts -- "cherry-picked" being an odd description of them from more than one point of view. It is true that she betrayed her indignation at K's views but having listened to the whole exchange, I can't blame her. From start to finish, she showed that his views were based on a combination of myth and misinformation. He didnt have the facts about the relative size of current immigration, about welfare use in comparison to tax payments, about levels of patriotism as shown by participation in the armed forces, about US policies in comparison to other industrial countries, and so forth down the line. You and another blogger want to hear from K again, no doubt hoping that he'll do a better job. Unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-14-2008, 01:23 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Immigration Nation

like the "myth" that "foreign born" means being born in a different country? She couldn't even wrap her mind around one of the simplest ideas in the conversation. absolutely pathetic.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-14-2008, 01:53 AM
Xelgaex Xelgaex is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 51
Default Re: Immigration Nation

I agree with the sentiments expressed above. Though I don't agree with Mark, I do think he should be treated with more respect. Or if that can't be managed, don't talk to him at all.

Also the diavlog was a little confusing because Shikha seemed to be attacking what she knew his position to be rather than allowing him to explain his position and then attack it. A good example of this is her objecting to calling foreign born citizens immigrants. The way she denounced this so aggressively made me think there must be more to the story than what he managed to articulate.

In the end, I ended up sympathizing personally with the person with whom I disagree politically. And that can't be an effective strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-14-2008, 02:11 AM
Morningsider Morningsider is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 16
Default Re: Immigration Nation

This diavlog was hard to listen to, due to Ms. Dalmia's lack of civility.

As to the debate: I thought that both made relatively good arguments. I appreciated the factual grounding of the debate (often lacking in the blogosphere). I found Mr. Krikorian's factual analysis to be generally superior, though the relevance of these facts to his conclusions is up for debate. E.G. the qualitative change in emotional assimilation may be born out by the facts (this one appeared to be a wash from my perspective), but it does not convince me that we are in dire need of restricting legal immigration.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-14-2008, 03:55 AM
bjk bjk is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 45
Default Re: Immigration Nation

It's ironic that the person wearing the "Reason" t-shirt is hysterical and unreasonable. Her argument about West Germany assimilating millions of East Germans reminded me of when I used to do debate in high school. And the libertarians complain that they don't get taken seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-14-2008, 08:19 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Immigration Nation

One wonders how Ms Dalmia has ever learned anything with her undeveloped ability to listen. But maybe she is more aware than she lets on. Her bullying and dismissive tactics are symptomatic of someone who does not have a real argument. She chooses to obfuscate, interrupt and deflect instead of engaging in civil point-counterpoint where (god forbid) Mr Krikorian may get his point across. It might work in most US university humanities classes but I expect more from BhTV.

Please try again with someone who respects the subject, the other blogger and the viewers.

As to Puerto Rico:

I worked there for one year in 2004 and was as amazed by the trashed beaches and high crime rate as I was the disdain for everything American (except dollars). There are some wonderful people there but the movement for independance coupled with the demand for US largesse was strange indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:15 AM
Running Dog Running Dog is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: Immigration Nation

It wasn't only that Shikha was rude and dismissive; she was really loud. is that the fault of the Blogginhead editors?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:29 AM
SteveD SteveD is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
Default Re: Immigration Nation

The problem with complaining about Dalmia's indignant tone and occasional interruption is that she was clearly provoked.

I know that there is a taboo against saying in public that anyone, short of an open Klan member, ever says or does anything racist ("the Race Card"). However, let's be honest. His views on immigration are racist. The point about "foreign born," which superficially seemed like a dead-end or a side-issue, is crucial. John McCain is "foreign born" (in Panama). Does that make him less "American"? Does that make him a threat to anything important (setting aside that very real risk that he may come to occupy the Presidency)? Does Krikorian even think so? No. He is clear. It's those Hispanics that he's worried about. Not because they are "foreign born," in the literal sense, but because even if they become citizens, he doesn't think they can ever really be Americans. He concedes that once they becomes citizens, there's "nothing we can do about that" (or some words to that effect), but he still defines them as a problematic category. Taboo or no taboo, I'm willing to call that racist.

And how can one expect a person of color, and a "foreign born" citizen, to sit and listen to this guy calling for a moratorium on immigration in order to protect America from being flooded by the onslaught of foreigners, without getting upset and expressing indignation?

The real question is, why aren't all the rest of us just as upset?

One last thought, why does Bloggingheads always have people with extreme positions (abolish public education and public roads in favor of market totalitarianism, or impose a moratorium on immigration), but always from the far right, never from the far left? Why so many libertarians, but never a socialist or other radical leftist? Just wondering.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-14-2008, 08:41 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
The problem with complaining about Dalmia's indignant tone and occasional interruption is that she was clearly provoked.

I know that there is a taboo against saying in public that anyone, short of an open Klan member, ever says or does anything racist ("the Race Card"). However, let's be honest. His views on immigration are racist. The point about "foreign born," which superficially seemed like a dead-end or a side-issue, is crucial. John McCain is "foreign born" (in Panama). Does that make him less "American"? Does that make him a threat to anything important (setting aside that very real risk that he may come to occupy the Presidency)? Does Krikorian even think so? No. He is clear. It's those Hispanics that he's worried about. Not because they are "foreign born," in the literal sense, but because even if they become citizens, he doesn't think they can ever really be Americans. He concedes that once they becomes citizens, there's "nothing we can do about that" (or some words to that effect), but he still defines them as a problematic category. Taboo or no taboo, I'm willing to call that racist.

And how can one expect a person of color, and a "foreign born" citizen, to sit and listen to this guy calling for a moratorium on immigration in order to protect America from being flooded by the onslaught of foreigners, without getting upset and expressing indignation?

The real question is, why aren't all the rest of us just as upset?

One last thought, why does Bloggingheads always have people with extreme positions (abolish public education and public roads in favor of market totalitarianism, or impose a moratorium on immigration), but always from the far right, never from the far left? Why so many libertarians, but never a socialist or other radical leftist? Just wondering.
Beautifully said. And good question about BhTV's fetish for libertarians, who seem sort of liberal to some people, but should properly be understood as in many ways more extreme, more conservative, and more dangerous than the Republican Party. Sure, libertarians don't favor torture, murder, and racism the way Republicans do, but they also want to abolish government, and would be happy to let millions of people starve under "free market efficiency." Libertarians would let you smoke pot, but they'd also let the elderly die homeless on the streets if they didn't arrange for their own retirement income -- or if, heaven forbid, it was looted by the likes of Ken Lay. Libertarians would be glad to let you rent porn, but they'd also be happy to let you die of untreated cancer if you don't have medical insurance.

Libertarianism and Republicanism are two heads of the same hydra, both evil, both ultra-conservative, and both enemies of humanity.


.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 08-14-2008 at 08:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-14-2008, 08:59 PM
Drew Drew is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Libertarianism and Republicanism are two heads of the same hydra, both evil, both ultra-conservative, and both enemies of humanity.
.
That's an ugly sentiment and extremely unfair portrayal of your opponents' position. It seems you think disagreement is a casus belli, not a cause for debate.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-14-2008, 09:07 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew View Post
That's an ugly sentiment and extremely unfair portrayal of your opponents' position. It seems you think disagreement is a casus belli, not a cause for debate.
I think you're probably right in your conclusion, but honestly, I'm not in the mood today to debate the Republican virtues of murder, torture, and racism, as justified as Republicans believe those things are, and as worthy of debate as they may believe them to be.

And likewise, I have no interest in debating the merits of letting the elderly starve or the sick die of untreated disease. There are a lot of smart people willing to debate with you about those wonderful conservative principles, but it's not how I care to spend my time this evening.

I just think it's repugnant. Conservatives are always talking about the value of shame. Well, fine. I think conservatives should be ashamed of their barbaric worldview, devoted as it is to the increase of human suffering.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-14-2008, 09:09 PM
stari_momak stari_momak is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 20
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Ooooh, he's 'Racist', run away, run away.

In fact, Krikorian is too race shy. Here we have a perfect example, I highly ethnocentric Indian woman (I don't care whose passport she has, she ain't American like me or George Washington) who obviously cares about getting more of her kind ('highly skilled' Indian H1-B's) into the country my ancestors built. We'll, I'll tell you what Shikha, and SteveD , I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago. I am not ashamed to say I like white folks. I don't want my country turned into a Brazil north, not for any so-called economic benefit (which, BTW is illusory -- no study has ever found that immigration benefits the native population more than a small fraction of a percent of GDP -- and such studies exclude externalities). There are plenty of non-ethnic, non-racial reasons to oppose immigration, from income inequality to local environmental damage to the 'brain drain' (not Shilkha's obviously) . But screw all that, I like my own people and see no reason to surrender the country we built to third worlders.

Oh, and Shilkha ought to take a look at here own country's immigration policy -- it has become progressively tighter, they are building a wall on the Bangladesh border, and its also explicitly racist (people of 'Indian Descent' down to four generations can pretty much move there and work without any hassle, not so the real Brits, Americans, Canadians, and Australians that have had the 'honor' of being swamped by this hostile and arrogant population).
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-14-2008, 10:56 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago. I am not ashamed to say I like white folks. I don't want my country turned into a Brazil north.

Would you be open to Negros who use skin whitener and try really hard to be white people? Doesn't Obama's mom from Kansas count for anything? Maybe not 50%, but something? What if the Brazilians had 1/16 Aryan blood from back in Portugal?
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:15 PM
SteveD SteveD is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Quote:
Originally Posted by stari_momak View Post
I like my own people and see no reason to surrender the country we built to third worlders.
At least you spew your racism right upfront, rather than concealing it behind dubious statistics and a 'policy wonk' persona, like Krikorian. Either way, racism is racism.

Of course, one good thing about Krikorian's approach is that he can't just brazenly falsify reality, because he does feel he needs to cite a study now and then. So he can't go around denying what everyone knows to be the case, namely, that the U.S. was mainly built by slaves and racialized immigrants, after it was stolen from indigenous people. White people just pointed the guns at everyone else and, on that basis, extorted enormous wealth from the people doing the real work.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-15-2008, 11:53 AM
rgajria rgajria is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 177
Default Re: Immigration Nation

Stari Momak,

"highly ethnocentric Indian woman (I don't care whose passport she has, she ain't American like me or George Washington) who obviously cares about getting more of her kind ('highly skilled' Indian H1-B's) into the country my ancestors built."

"I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago."

"But screw all that, I like my own people and see no reason to surrender the country we built to third worlders."

Bravo, Blogginheads commenters are a diverse lot.

"people of 'Indian Descent' down to four generations can pretty much move there and work without any hassle"

This is a very recent development. Infact inspired by American immigration law and dual citizenship policies of other countries. India used to be really closed barely over a decade ago.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.