Immigration and its discontents

The conservative commentariot has this thing where they say ‘Trump is a moron, but he’s has tapped into something’.  Ya know… maybe.  I’ve said if it’s true, I’m very disappointed Trump is the guy to tap into whatever ‘it’ is.  Anyway, they like his immigration plan too such that it’s been articulated and is actually something cogent from him.

I’d like to reject this line of thinking as a product of nativism.  What I think is true is:

Demography is destiny.  Immigration augments that.  Ongoing immigration has had a lot to do with America’s sustained economic growth over let’s say the period since the American civil war.  Then, I also got an inclination that says the obligations of sovereignty are subordinate to being able to go where you want on this earth, particularly if your motivation is plying your way and feeding your family.  Which is the nature of our immigration now and as it has been.  And somehow, I have my doubts that robust immigration actually enables the technocratic state and those who desire it.  I bet that’s undermined, and that fear is misplaced.  Bottom line, you want dynamism and growth and taxpayers, ya need people.  Immigrants provide people.  My bottom line is growth and dynamism.

But yeah, Trump, points 1, 2, and 3.  This situation with an open border is chaotic, it undermines the wage market, and you get the feeling capricious enforcement of immigration law is so the Democrats can grow their voter rolls (when it’s not that way because the Chamber of Commerce wants it that way…).  Another thing to me is….such that we have a poverty problem that demands redress in this country, a great bit of the impoverished are illegals.  There is something screwy about the Democrats baiting everyone into redistribution discussions when our poor people problem is to a great degree imported.

So alright, we’ll have another immigration election and hope something good comes from it.

Related:  His fixation with the oil is lame brain idiocy

Jots with dots 8/17

Rule of big numbers:  The newspaper throws this $100K around like people should be astonished at the amount.  Meh.  $100K pays / occupies two peoples time at a recruiting firm for say 4 months.  It’s not a profligate amount, and I don’t think it was poorly spent such that that’s the process.  What are you going to do, have the board of regents find 10 candidates to go through?  They don’t have the wherewithal.

Hypocrisy discernment:  Cecil’s ‘poacher’.  Another provocative Strib story here, the hook of which is hey, Dentist Palmer doesn’t like poaching on his land.  That’s ironic / hypocritical!  Wrong, I don’t think we’ve actually got hypocrisy or irony here.  A)  Cecil wasn’t poached.  That baiting him off the reserve and tracking him for 2 days and all that other stuff…. That’s not poaching.  We may all think the outrage is in some way about poaching, but its not, that animal wasn’t ‘poached’.  So Palmer can have some non-hypocritical indignation at the prospects of ‘poaching’ on his own land.  B)  But, I’m not accustomed to thinking of a trespass violation where you shoot something on someone else property as ‘poaching’ provided you have a proper game tag.  Which is to say, I understand poaching as shooting game without a license or in excess of your license.  I might be wrong.  Anyway, the hypocrisy call is dubious there by virtue of the poaching definition again.  I’m mildly sympathetic to Dr. Palmer here re trying to keep people off his land, such that he was doing that.  Its not bad to set an example for attentiveness as an absentee landlord.  Dude seems to approach people rudely though.   Binocular-ing a deer on someone else’s property while you are in your car on the road…. That ought not be thought provocative .


One thought on “Immigration and its discontents

  1. pm1956

    I agree with you on immigration. It is a good thing, although it brings some temporary discomfort. Generally yes, the immigrants are poor, but they don’t stay that way for too long. Lots of economic vibrancy follows.

    Rule of big numbers. I agree with you that $100,000.00 is perfectly inline for a high level search. But, if there were sexual harrasment issues, then maybe the search firm should have found them. And, basically, because of the Mn State open meetings law, they only want one finalist (under the law, when you report all of the finalists to the appointing authority (the Board of Regents) all of the names have to be public and the interviews and meetings open to all comers. Makes for an awkward interview session when you ahve reporters etc. there).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s