Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Scumbag arrested

Now I haven't looked at today's comments yet but I'm almost positive they are teeming with shouts of glee that someone who has commented here in the past has been arrested for the horrible crimes of sex abuse. I am a regular reader of CAUSABlog and ran across this story.

Anyone who is crowing about this is sick. I take no pleasure in finding out that someone hurts children. Politics doesn't enter the picture when it comes to this, punishing the perp to the maximum extent of the law is what is important.

But over at CAUSA Blog (where this couldn't happen because they don't allow comments) they seem to think that having one person with a particular political view being a dirtbag should somehow reflect on everyone with that same political viewpoint.

If all it takes to be my "close ally" is that I allow you to post comments on my site then everyone is my "close ally" because I ALLOW EVERYONE TO POST COMMENTS ON MY SITE.

But let's actually talk the facts here: I, as a conservative, believe that if this man is convicted he should get the death penalty.

Liberals (the ones who aren't hyperventilating in excited comments on my blog, comments that are still unread at this point) think that he shouldn't even have mandatory minimum sentencing, that if any of his made-up rights were violated then he should get off scott-free and that treatment is the best path because prisons are "just warehouses for people."

You tell me who this scumbag wants in his corner now.

UPDATE: I read the comments, you people are sicker than I thought.

89 comments:

Anonymous said...

Every time a Latino in this state is arrested for anything worse than littering, you jump online to crow like a goddamned rooster, so spare us the moral indignation. It's about as charming and convincing as lipstick on a pig.

suomynona said...

I just read the post you are referring to over at causablog and the crutch of their argument is that Bruce Benkle, a close friend of VP Rick Hickey, President Jim Ludwig of OFIR, you and several other is a racist. Reading futher on your site Benkle's racist comments went unchallenged by you and every other member of OFIR. In fact, if you read many of the comments by Bruce Benkle and others on your site that are clearly racist they were celebrated by you and others.

Daniel, you are way the fuck off base with your bull shit post here. CAUSAblog took you and the OFIR racists to task. They should get the Pulitzer Prize for the investigative reporting that went on over there. You got schooled! Merry Christmas!!!

Moondoggie said...

He doesnt want THIS liberal in his corner. I long for the day when all pedophiles are mandatorily castrated.

Anonymous said...

You post their fucking photos like a giddy little elf.

Roger Doger said...

...the day when all pedophiles are mandatorily castrated.

That would be the end of the Republican Party. Straight up extinction.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Miglavs said:

1) "Anyone who is crowing about this is sick. I take no pleasure in finding out that someone hurts children. Politics doesn't enter the picture when it comes to this...."

2) Miglavs said: having one person with a particular political view being a dirtbag should somehow reflect on everyone with that same political viewpoint.

3) Miglavs said: Liberals (the ones who aren't hyperventilating in excited comments on my blog, comments that are still unread at this point) think that he shouldn't even have mandatory minimum sentencing, that if any of his made-up rights were violated then he should get off scott-free and that treatment is the best path because prisons are "just warehouses for people."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In answer to 1)
Really? You "take no pleasure?" and "politics doesn't enter the picture?" Hmmmm. That doesn't jive with your archives, Miglavs. You post pictures of Hispanic perps accompanied by giddy proclamations of their guilt followed by your "crowing": "THEY'RE raping our children!" THEY'RE meaning Hispanics, never mind whether they're status. Maybe now would be a good opportunity to clarify what the meaning of THEY'RE is. You do remember your famous sound bite, right? We're you being political then, or just concerned? You're whining here about us liberals who are now throwing this in your face ....well, ain't that something Daniel. You can sure dish it out but you whine like a stuck pig when it's time to take it, don't you?. Get real Miglavs. What goes around comes around. You DESERVE this. You really do DESERVE this. Maybe you'll think about this "little moment in time" the next time you gleefully prance to your computer reeling with giddiness, ready to post another mug shot and "crow" (pretrial even): "THEY'RE" raping our children! THEY'RE raping our children!"

In answer to 2)
Since pretty much "day one," you've been cherry-picking Hispanic perps and parading their mug shots on your site, righteously proclaiming (crowing) that it's proof that ALL illegal immigrants, indeed, ALL Mexicans, are the scum of the earth since this one is, they all must be. And, when someone else posts stuff that is even worse, you sure as hell NEVER corrected them. YOU injected bigotry and racial stereotypes into the illegal immigrant issue and NEVER ONCE denounced it. NEVER once said, "you know what, in the interest of fair play, I'm going to be a gentleman about this issue and I am not going to make anymore bigoted assumptions or low blow, sweeping racial insults. I am going to elevate OFIR's discussion about this topic." NEVER ONCE. Rick Hickey either, for that matter. And NOW you're all about being "fair" and shit? Don't you think it's a little too late, Miglavs?

In answer to 3)
Show me where a liberal has come to your blog and expressed their view that pedophiles should be treated with lenience. SHOW ME! There certainly isn't a single one on yesterday's thread, and if you can come up with even ONE in your archives, just one reader whose comment specifically expresses this, I would venture to guess it was probably Bruce the Barber, lol. This is a perfect example of YOU taking the views of a FEW and attaching it to ALL. Something you are whining about now that its being done to you and your OFIR buddies. Hypocrite much?

On a side note, glad to know you've read all the comments on yesterday's thread. Some comments asked for your solution to DHS. I am dying to know what proposals you offer up to manage the needs of Oregon's abused and neglected children in your dream world where DHS has been abolished. Does it include you and your wife taking in a few of these kids and raising them as your own? Does it include relying on "compassionate conservatives" to step up to the plate?

Anonymous said...

Hickey, Miglavs and Benkle have all hung out with one another together and separately. They have been seen at public hearings, rallies, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that Benkle, as an overt racist both in action and in speech, did not censor himself while spending time with his Oafer buddies. If anyone believes he did, I have a piece of oceanfront property in Eastern Oregon I can sell you.

Amish Abe said...

Funny. Checking my email today, I noticed I haven't received any emails from Oregonians for Immigration Reform. I wonder why not. Talking to my reporter friend with an Oregon News Agency, there was no OFIR presence at the DMV hearing on drivers licenses in Salem. He said Daniel wasn't there, Rick wasn't there, and Jim wasn't there.

My reporter friend was going to ask some questions about your friend Bruce and his racist talk and the fact that he was considered a lieutenant-enforcer with OFIR. You know the whole threatening latino woman with children calling them "beaners", "wetbacks" and "taco benders". I will keep an eye out for the next time OFIR sends out an email about a public signature gathering activity that he can catch up with you all at.

Peace out!

Daniel said...

Apparently some of you have trouble distinguishing between a single scumbag being arrested and the trend that is pointed out here that illegal aliens abuse children. (this trend was also confirmed by the Mexican Consul in Portland)

None of you can find a post on my blog about a "latino" or "hispanic" who wasn't an illegal alien that committed a crime here. It's not a race issue or a political issue IT'S A CRIMINAL ISSUE.

Anonymous said...

daniel - is that why just last week or maybe two weeks ago you were down at the school taking pictures of refried beans and making fun of Mexican music?

Moondoggie said...

The TREND that we're pointing out is that there is a TREND for conservative wingnuts to prey upon kids for sex or in public bathrooms all the while presenting themselves as the epitomy of what it is to be a "good" American while liberals are presented as nothing but Godless guttersnipes with zero moral character, all the while they're pursing their TREND of molesting children. This TREND seems to have picked up steam in the last couple of years. The other TREND we like to point out is the TREND that many illegal immigration opponents seem compelled to make racist statements, jeers, unfair generalizations and outright LIES about illegal immigrants (even though the TREND is to not even bother to find out if they're citizens or not, followed by the TREND to lump them all as Mexicans). In fact, they so swiftly turned the illegal immigration issue into an issue about race that instead of attracting politicians to the cause, they drove them away. So here we are now, thanks to that TREND, five years later with 13 plus million illegals still here and the crooks who hire them still breaking the law by giving them jobs. One has to wonder, had this TREND towards sneers and bullying NOT developed as an typical TREND, how much further along in the process we would have been.

Furthermore, as was also pointed out on this blog Daniel, there are numerous states in this nation where the consentual age for sex is in the age range most of us would consider still a child. You have grasped on to the IDIOT statement of a moron that you know damn well is simply NOT TRUE and milked it for all it's worth, knowing full well that it DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF MEXICANS.
But the TREND is for you to continue to bottom feed for shit you can use as "ammo" and the TREND is for you to use this shit as evidence that ALL Hispanics, legal or not, think and behave in a similar manner.
Unfortunately, it does not take much delving into our precious white American culture to see that
child sexual abuse and pedophilia is most definantly a rampant TREND among white males, so much so that we hardly have the right to point the finger at brown ones.

Anonymous said...

What about the trend of the Republican Party with their pedophilia. Bruce Benkle is a Republican too is he not?

Besides, another component to this all that many are talking about of is the racism of OFIR's movement. Anonymous 8:32, I rest my case.

DAVE said...

Amish Abe said:


Funny. Checking my email today, I noticed I haven't received any emails from Oregonians for Immigration Reform. I wonder why not. Talking to my reporter friend with an Oregon News Agency, there was no OFIR presence at the DMV hearing on drivers licenses in Salem. He said Daniel wasn't there, Rick wasn't there, and Jim wasn't there.

My reporter friend was going to ask some questions about your friend Bruce and his racist talk and the fact that he was considered a lieutenant-enforcer with OFIR. You know the whole threatening latino woman with children calling them "beaners", "wetbacks" and "taco benders". I will keep an eye out for the next time OFIR sends out an email about a public signature gathering activity that he can catch up with you all at.

Peace out!

2:54 AM
Have you asked your reporter friend about Ted K and Neil G relationship (raping) with the 14-yr old girl? Ted K was definitely Neil's lieutenant governor. Was your reporter friend involved with the cover up or the actual molesting of the girl by Neil G. Did he ever spend the night at Ted's or Neil's house? I would love to be at the next public signature gathering of OFIR so I can catch up with him and ask him these questions.

Rick Hickey said...

I have not seen Bruce since the rally in the spring.
He came to a couple of rallies previously thats all.
After this rally he said some racist things, actually in reference to BLACKS not Hispanics, similar to what the PRES. of MEXICO said. My Brother-in-law of 15 years is Black, so I got mad, he's lucky I didn't kick his Ass.
IF it was legal, I would gladly take a sledge hammer to his crotch, but the guys in Prison will take care of him anyhow.

Yes OFIR was at the License hearing, including Pres. Ludwick, Ruth, Sharon, Jim E., David(I saw it on KATU news) (I was working) who reported to the Board that it will pass easily and great news about record fundraising and huge numbers of Ballot signers for OFIR #112.
(Democrat Rick Metsger said in regards to a "special" license for Illegals - "I can count the # of supporters for that on one hand")

I have read on Blue Oregon excuse makers for Pedophiles that they are misunderstood and just need "help" and head Democrats PETE COURTNEY & KATE BROWN, Would NOT allow Jessica's Law to have a hearing/pass in the 2005 regular session, to put these pervs away.
Also Democrat Massechuesetts(sp?) run by TED KENNEDY & JOHN KERRY have mandatory Gay/Transgender/Lesbian/Bi- Sex classes for THIRD GRADERS!
The same ACLU that defends Pedophile Rapists/Killers from NAMBLA tries to stop protesters on the border called minutemen.
Yes BRUCE can rot in Hell(if guilty) and so can anyone making excuses for Pedophiles, including the MEXICAN Consulate General in Portland for saying it is a "Cultural Misunderstanding".

To Lawyer - Yes I have read the same OR. D.O.C. report that shows that most ICE holds(Illegal alien) in Prison are there for SEX crimes, including to Children, so Daniel is right.

Racists? I have been to predominatley Hispanic meetings and been called names, to include my Hispanic friends called "COCONUT", Brown on the outside, White inside, by Hispanics, there are Racists everywhere.

If ANYONE in OFIR is a Racist, we do not want them around.
We want Immigration laws enforced & our Borders & Ports secured as over 2 million Legally immigrating every year is enough and Terrorists love loopholes in security.

OPERATION PREDATOR(www.ice.gov), CONDUCTED BY I.C.E., OVER 9,000 NON-CITIZEN PEDOPHILES TAKEN AWAY FROM HERE, GO I.C.E. !!!!!

Calhoun said...

suomynona said...
"Reading futher on your site Benkle's racist comments went unchallenged by you and every other member of OFIR."

No, I remember Daniel reprimanding Bruce for racist comments. And I looked it up, it's easy with Google.

In Drug dealers: No more drug busts, Daniel's post from May 5, 2006.

In the comments, Bruce says "I WANT THESE FUCKING GREASY WETBACKS OUT OF MY COUNTRY and any other taco-bending motherfuckin' hispanic that sympathizes with them."

And Daniel comments : "Bruce, your angry words and name calling aren't helping. I have said that I won't regulate anyone's comments here but know that people will point to what you say when they talk about my blog. And remember, when you talk about Hispanics you are talking about my wife and kids."

Anonymous said...

There's been PLENTY of reporting going on about what Ted knew and when he knew it.

Stevie said...

Daniel, you wrote: “But over at CAUSA Blog (where this couldn't happen because they don't allow comments) they seem to think that having one person with a particular political view being a dirtbag should somehow reflect on everyone with that same political viewpoint.”

Here’s what you apparently don’t understand, Daniel. Many people already look at groups like OFIR with some skepticism. While you and others often like to claim (whine, really) that there is no racism associated with your cause, in fact OFIR does have bonafide, unmistakable racists within its ranks. And there are people and organizations loosely tied to OFIR that have also been linked to white supremacy. All of this is documented, on the CAUSA site and elsewhere.

And now, yet another esteemed member of OFIR is alleged to be a pedophile.

The point I’m getting at is this, Daniel. As I wrote yesterday, “You’re known by the company you keep”. I honestly believe that most Americans think this cliché is in fact a truism; that in fact, the company a person or organization keeps DOES say a lot about that person or organization. So, now that we know OFIR has racists and a pedophile in its ranks, are you really surprised that some people would look at OFIR, and perhaps those involved with it, and come to some negative conclusions about both? I’d have to accuse you of being horribly naïve if you really are surprised.

And because of all this, OFIR should be proclaiming loudly and vigorously on its website that this Bruce guy was a scumbag, that white supremacists are scumbags, ect., ect. And yet, the OFIR website doesn’t appear to want to “go there”. Why is that? Could it be that such a denouncement, particularly with regard to white supremacists, might hit a little too close to home for certain people linked to OFIR? You know Daniel...sometimes what you DON’T say, is just as important as what you do say. And while I applaud your personal condemnation of this Bruce character (even though you also threw in some of your trademarked straw men in the process), that does little in the grand scheme of things; particularly with regard to an organization, OFIR, for which you constantly shill.

Sorry Daniel, but fair or not, the operative reality is that indeed, you are known by the company you keep.

Anonymous said...

Ouch! That ass-thrashing dished out to Daniel by Eli Barnhardt is going to leave a mark!

Anonymous said...

Punish the guilty to the full extent of the law. That's our system.

Heinous crimes, absolutely.

Crimes deserving the full punishment of the law.

But guilt by association -- and the politics of personal destruction -- is that the route the far-left wants to take because it's expedient and available: Apparently so.

But I suggest taking the same route, as it bitterly accuses Daniel and others of doing, reflects just as poorly on the far-left, as much as it does on Daniel to the extent he engages in the same tactics.

Deporting illegal aliens is the law; supported by the vast majority of America: Enforce the law.

Putting forth reasons and examples why the law should be enforced is hardly dirty pool.

That seems to be the charge made, here, by the apologists for illegal aliens.

Politics can be a messy business with plenty of ugliness on all sides, as this post and its comments display.

But that's our system of democracy: Everybody is entitled to an opinion and expressing it.

Daniel's blog is one avenue of expression -- raw at times -- but then again, the facts and examples are raw at times.

This blog is a good measure of the "pulse" of emotion on the illegal alien subject, of both sides.

Not for the weak at heart.

Also, at times, it's a source of information not available in the politically correct media.

For those reasons, I will continue to check in on Daniel's blog from time to time and comment where appropriate.

And apparently Oregonians and the nation will too, as I note this site sees alot of action on the web and is actually listed on national lists of blog sites.

Why?

Because as this post and many others demostrate, if you want the blood and guts -- no holds barred -- this is the place to get your blood boiling.

No matter how you take your coffee.

Calhoun said...

stevie said ... "And now, yet another esteemed member of OFIR is alleged to be a pedophile."

"Yet another?" In addition to ... ? Who?

Oh, and while I'm here :

Illegal immigrant enters vehicular homicide guilty plea.

By Amanda N. Maynord, amaynord@nashvillecitypaper.com

Jonathan Narvaez-Pena entered a guilty plea this morning of two counts of vehicular homicide resulting from a six-car fatal accident that occurred on Oct. 21.

Narvaez-Pena, 22, admitted in previous court hearings, to having 10-15 drinks before driving on the night of the accident. He admitted to driving through several right lights on Murfreesboro Road with his daughter in the car as well.

Two-year-old Eddy Bumvu and his father Antonie were killed in the accident.

Narvaez-Pena will serve eight years in jail on each count, to be served consecutively, according to the Davidson County District Attorney’s office.

Three days after his arrest, federal immigration authorities placed a hold on Narvaez-Pena after an inquiry by the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office led federal authorities to learn that he was an illegal immigrant.

Stevie said...

Anon 10:34, some of your comments are quite curious.

For example, you write, “But guilt by association -- and the politics of personal destruction -- is that the route the far-left wants to take because it's expedient and available: Apparently so.”

Wow. You really think that “guilt by association” is some kind of far-left construct, as opposed to a circumstance (fair or not) that is often applied as a accepted principle in the American psyche? Surely you understand that the far-right takes great pleasure in applying this principle as well. Why, it seems like just yesterday that Lars Larson was blasting John Kerry because, unbeknownst to Kerry, Neil Goldschmidt showed up at the same gathering in Portland as Kerry was attending. Never mind that Kerry did not show up expressly to meet Goldschmidt, or that the two didn’t exchange a single word. The two men were simply at the same event together, and in Larson’s eyes, this made Kerry guilty of some kind of injustice.

Would you like other examples of the far-right employing this tactic, Anon 10:34? And are you really such a partisan hack yourself, that you’d get on a board like this and ridiculously insinuate this tactic is somehow uniquely owned by the “far-left”? Funny stuff, guy. And don’t even get me started on how the far-right has absolutely mastered the practice of the politics of personal destruction in recent years. Outting CIA officers as political retribution, and then lying about it? Questioning the patriotism of wounded war veterans who dare speak out against the war in Iraq? The politics of personal destruction is one of the primary reasons the political right in this country has lost so much of its credibility in recent years. Well that, and the rampant, blatant hypocrisy, double-speak and misrepresentation on a wide variety of issues. Including illegal immigration, I would note. Or have you already forgotten that the right-wing Bush Administration suggested amnesty for millions of illegals?

You further write, “Putting forth reasons and examples why the law should be enforced is hardly dirty pool. That seems to be the charge made, here, by the apologists for illegal aliens.”

Nice straw man. Actually, much of the critical commentary here has nothing to do with enforcing laws. Many of the so-called “far left” on this board fundamentally agree that our system of immigration is a broken, and that it needs to be reformed. And the start of that reform should be to enforce laws, and adopt new pragmatic laws that actually fix the problems. No, what IS “dirty pool”, and what is often commented upon here, are the racists comments (some subtle and some not-so-subtle) that underlay the musings of no small amount of the anti-illegal immigrant crowd. These racists remarks are well-documented; a fact those like yourself would rather forget. And understandably so.

But this is not to say that everything you wrote is just worn-out, partisan rhetoric. After all, you also stated, “Also, at times, it [this blog] is a source of information not available in the politically correct media.” That is true! For example, I had not heard the “politically correct media” comment on the arrest of a pedophile and racist closely associated with Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Apparently KATU has a short article on its website about it, but that’s it (and I’m not sure I’d call KATU “politically correct media” in any regard). Nor does the “politically correct media” frequently seize upon the racist comments made by some of those associated with the anti-immigration movement. Although true to your point, such comments are well-documented, at times exclusively, on this blog. (BTW, it’s funny that in 2007, some of you right-wingers are still trying to play the “liberal media” card. In the words of right-wing stalwart Bill Kristol, “The ‘liberal media’ were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”)

A “C+” for effort though, anon 10:34.

Calhoun said...

stevie said ... "And now, yet another esteemed member of OFIR is alleged to be a pedophile."

"Yet another?" In addition to ... ? Who?

Anonymous said...

To Stevie12:06pm,
I see a nerve was struck.

But you didn't comprehend my comment very well.

I didn't say "...that 'guilt by association' is some kind of Far-left construct." Actually, a fair reading of my comment suggests that guilt by association is a tactic used by both sides.

What I was saying is that when you complain about that tactic being used by Daniel on this blog -- and turn around and use the same tactic, when you have the chance (Which this episode does provide.), is "the kettle calling the frying pan black."

In other words: Hypocrisy.

Which doesn't help your side of the argument.

Since your side claims to have the moral high ground.

And somewhere deep in your pysche you must know that, or you wouldn't come lashing out of the box so hard -- to justify yourself, and the use of the tactic.

Frustration, no doubt.

You haven't been reading The Oregonian or The New York Times lately, have you, plus many other newspapers with a left-wing editorial page, which bleeds into their news coverage.

Or watching NBC or MSNBC or CBS or CNN or ABC (although with Chales Gibson at the desk it's better)?

You're deluding yourself, but in reading your reaction, and how poorly you comprehended my comment, maybe it's not surprising.

As far as KATU is concerned, maybe they didn't play it up because the alleged crime doesn't have much to do with the immigration debate and they judged few people would care about this one obscure person, even though the crimes are horrific. Regrettably crimes like this happen all too often.

Also, maybe KATU concluded that it would be an unfair smear on other people.

Since these crimes are done in secret.

Something, that in your need and haste to attack and discredit, you were unable to resist the temptation of.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while.

Stevie said...

Calhoun, you misconstrued my comment. And I’ll take partial responsibility for that, as I could have been more clear with my wording.

When I said “And now, yet another esteemed member of OFIR is alleged to be a pedophile", that was within the context of the previous paragraph, where I was talking about certain OFIR members’ unsavory tendencies. The “another esteemed member” was written (sarcastically, of course) because I had just finished talking other “esteemed” OFIR members, and not to imply that more than one member had been accused of pedophilia. And in fact, when I was drafting that post, I had initially written “And now, there are pedophiles in OFIR”. I revised that however, precisely because of your point: It suggested more than one alleged pedophile, when in fact that is not the case.

So yes…I am guilty of using confusing and/or poor wording to convey my point, and I apologize for that. But I was absolutely not trying to imply what you think I was trying to imply.

And now a question for you, if I may. Why did you post a news story regarding an illegal alien convicted of vehicular manslaughter? Since there are thousands of vehicular manslaughter cases each year, and since the overwhelming majority of those cases are committed by U.S. citizens, what is your real concern here? Are you really concerned with the problem of vehicular manslaughter, in general, or are you more concerned when it’s committed by people who have broken other laws? And if your concern is primarily with those who have broken other laws, why are you singling out illegal aliens instead of, oh, I don’t know, those guilty of vehicular manslaughter who have committed any of a number of other crimes? What makes vehicular manslaughter especially heinous when it is committed by an illegal alien as opposed to, say, a citizen who has been convicted of robbery, assault, wife beating, ect.?

If you’re argument is, “The illegal alien shouldn’t be here, and thus shouldn’t be on the road, in the first place!”, I would counter that by asking, “So, should the person convicted of wife beating or robbery be on the road in the first place, either?” If your answer is “yes”, then you’d have trouble explaining your duplicity with regard to the rule of law, and it would be very easy to charge you with subtle racism. And if your answer is “no”, then congratulations…you’ve figured out that our system of justice is not perfect, and I’d have to again ask, “Why are you singling out one group of criminals and not others?” ‘Cause the charge of subtle racism might be made there, too!

Anonymous said...

Eli yer a dumbshit just please please dont post your drivel here...stevie as a member of OFIR I look at Americans(as a group)with some skepticism because they are willing to allow illegals to over run our country. I am ashamed that people like you have no respect for America. Instead youd rather come here and bash Daniel for standing up for the law. Really also the whole causa thing? its like any thing you read...its done with a spin in their favor. Hence why Daniel allows comments and isnt afraid to let people voice their opinions. Causa is just a bunch of chicken shits for hiding behind their blog.

Calhoun said...

stevie :
The guy was driving drunk, with his daughter in the car, he caused a six-car accident, and a two-year-old boy and his father were killed.

He shouldn't be here, he has no right to be here, and none of that would have happened if he wasn't here.

"So, should the person convicted of wife beating or robbery be on the road in the first place, either?”

Not if they're an illegal alien.

And while I'm at it :
Woman struck, killed by van.
"November 29,2007
JESSICA BRUDER The Oregonian Staff
GLADSTONE -- Mary Denise Richey steered her wheelchair off a TriMet bus Wednesday morning and into the foggy darkness of Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard. She crossed midblock in front of the bus and into the southbound lanes.

Before she reached the centerline, a Ford van slammed into her wheelchair, pushed her for about 100 yards and kept going. Investigators said the driver didn't appear to be speeding.

Richey, 40, of North Portland died a short time later at OHSU Hospital...

Several hours after the 6 a.m. crash, Oregon State Police got a phone call from a Southeast Portland pastor. The driver wanted to surrender, he said.

Police arrested 51-year old Rafael Avelino Gines of Milwaukie and booked him into the Clackamas County Jail on one count of felony hit and run. He was placed on an immigration hold by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

Illegal immigrant heads to prison for fatal hit-and-run.
"By KATU Web Staff
GLADSTONE, Ore. - An illegal immigrant has been sentenced to 16 months in prison for a deadly hit-and-run accident near Gladstone.

Mary Richey, 40, was crossing Highway 99E in a wheelchair when she was struck on November 28. She had just gotten off a TriMet bus...

On Wednesday, Rafael Avelino Gines pleaded guilty to felony hit-and-run charges.

Gines fled the scene after the accident but later turned himself in.

He faces deportation after he serves his prison sentence."

Only sixteen months, then deportation, for that?

Anonymous said...

Stevie2:12pm,
Do you need to have everything spelled out to you?

Apparently so.

The illegal alien who committed vehicular homicide WOULD NOT BE IN THE COUNTRY if the law was enforced and he had already been deported AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COMMIT THE CRIME, so that unfortunate victim would still be alive.

Is that so hard to understand?

This is another (among many) example of why the law needs to be enforced.

Understand.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Calhoun:
You're preaching to the wrong crowd! There isn't a one of us who visits this blog who thinks illegal immigration is a problem that should remain unsolved. ALL of us want to solve this problem. Some of us just want it done in a manner that is fair and wise. We're not apologists for law breakers and that means the illegal alien AND the CROOK who hires him. That's not the reason liberals visit this blog! Don't you get it?
We visit this blog because we're pissed off at the vitriolic hate-mongering that has been the hallmark of the whole grassroots illegal immigration movement across this nation. The bottom line is that for many of you, this isn't REALLY about "immigration" at all. Let's be grown-ups about it. You know it and we know it. It's about the rash you get when you hear the Spanish language being spoken, it's about culture: music, flags, tiendas, and fiestas in "your" parks and all the rest of it. It's about babies and automated telephone systems, it's about soccer and fast food window clerks. It's about your kid having to sit next to a Mexican kid in the lunchroom. It's about selling tamales from the back of a van and wiring money back home to the wife and kids. It's about demeaning, sneering, bullying and belittling a culture and a people. We think that kind of behavior sucks. We think its WRONG. We think it's un-American. We refuse to let you guys just have a free pass on your bigotry. That's why we are committed to visiting this blog and getting your panties in a twist. Someone has to.

Anonymous said...

"stevie as a member of OFIR I look at Americans(as a group)with some skepticism because they are willing to allow illegals to over run our country."

JESUS CHRIST! The shit you people choose to believe never ceases to amaze me. Illegal immigrants are not over-running the country. It's very clear that corporations have by now established a pretty firm grip at nearly every level of government. They rob your ass blind and laugh all the way to the bank and what do you dumb-asses do on the weekend? Hang out at day-labor camps and take pictures of impoverished undocumented Mexicans looking for work?!?

Why don't take your six-person "rallies" down to the chamber of commerce and big business lobbies and demand election reform and the removal of special interests from the election and political process? Either confront the real reason behind the existence of a huge unauthorized labor pool -- that is, stand up to REAL power -- or shut the fuck up already!

Calhoun said...

Uh, no, Eli, it isn't about any of that crap you said there. The only reason you screech "racism" and "bigotry" and etc. is because you can't make any sensible reply to what we ARE saying. You know it and we know it.

Eli Barnhardt said...

See what I mean?

Calhoun said...

See what I mean? You can't make any sensible reply to what we ARE saying.

Eli Barnhardt said...

What ARE you saying? That an illegal alien killed a woman in a tragic accident and it's our fault because we WANT HIM to be here? He is here because he was invited. Who invited him? The CROOKS who hire illegals. The CROOKS who literally put HELP WANTED ads in small-town newspapers all thru Mexico. He was driving a van. He bought the van with money he likely earned by working for a CROOK. Focus on the employers with as much passion as you focus on the illegal alien and then you'll really start to see things change. Picket outside of businesses known to hire illegals. Quite obsessing about the "Press 1 for Spanish" crap and start obsessing about the neighbors in your subdivision who hire slave-wage illegals to wash their windows and do their yardwork and pave their driveways and paint their houses.
The vast majority of illegals on our highways and byways are driving to and from work because they have to get there if they want to get a paycheck from the CROOK who hired them.

Eli Barnhardt said...

And sorry Calhoun, but it is about all the "crap" I talked about, because it's that "crap" that is most usually the focus of Daniel's commentary and subsequent comments from his blog buddies. Occasionally there's talk of policy and law thrown in but it's not the norm, usually.

Anonymous said...

Calhoun -- That's bullshit. I've repeatedly tried to debate the complex facts associated with the issue of illegal immigration (and, no, it doesn't simply boil down to a matter of legality). It's your side that has no reasonable response other then to question my sanity, my patriotism or to simply with the childish retort: "But it's illegal".

Here are some of the issues I've raised that have yet to receive any sort of attention from the restirction-oriented persons on this blog.

First, the immigration laws weren't handed down by God. The existing quotas were first set in 1965 and represent the first time in history that there has ever been a cap put on migration from Mexico. Prior to the 1965 laws, we had national origin quotas set to preserve racial homogeneity in the country, and these laws made us look pretty foolish and racist in a post WWII world in which we decried the Nazi genocide and were supposed to stand as a beacon of democracy to other nations around the globe. So we set equal quotas for all countries.

But this clearly doesn't make sense, since, as our neighbor and with a long established labor migration already in place, the prevalence of migration from Mexico was much greater than from other countries, for obvious reasons. Thus, Mexico far-exceeds its quota every year. Depending upon the type of Visas for which one is applying, wait times for persons in Mexico can run as long as 15 years. If I was living and poverty in Mexico and faced with the choice of migrating illegaly or waiting for 15 years for a visa unsure of how I would make ends meet for my family (in a country that lacks things we take for granted, like a developed credit market) I'd probably go for the illegal route. Hell, especially because everyone else who has done it seems to have a pretty easy time finding work.

The point is, part of the reason we have such high rates if unauthorized migration from mexico, is because the quota for migrants from that country is unreasonably low. The law that you act as if it existed from time immemorial, needs changing.

Second, the demographic and skills profile of the U.S. population is a hell of alot different now, than it was in 1965. Today, our job growth is fastest in both high-end and low-end service jobs. The demand for low-skilled immigrant labor in this country is INCREASING not static, or decreasing. I've never seen a shred of respectable evidence suggesting this is not true. It's also a point to which your side remains deafeningly mute.

Third, all of those baby boomers that were entering the labor market in 1965 are now leaving it en masse. They were too busy working and being yuppies to have enough kids to replace themselves and their productivity in the labor market through natural increase. Now they are about to stop working - and stop paying into the system - and start making use of elder-care entitlement programs, by for the most expensive type of program offered by our government. The potential contraction of our economy faced by the move by the huge baby boom generation from funders to users of social services would be ugly.

Non-parisian policy proposals (see the recent task-force on immigration convened by the Migration Policy Institute co-chaired by Spencer Abraham and Lee Hamilton) that I've seen view some form of regularization among otherwise law-abiding and working illegals (I believe you refer to this term scathingly as amnesty) as an inevitable first step to dealing with the economic and demographic realities facing our country in the very near future.

So I find it more than ironic that you claim that no sensible counterarguments have been posed to Daniel's narrow, simple-minded, and racially-tinged perspective of immigration law. I don't think any liberal on this blog thinks that the immigration system isn't fatally flawed right now. The difference in opionion lies in what to do about it. In my view, an enforcement-only policy stems from ignorance, either willing or unintended, of the real world facts about the state of our economy and the age structure of our population.

Calhoun said...

No deal. IF we need to import people, I don't want to import criminals, who think they have a right to break the law for money. We've got enough criminals already.

Calhoun said...

The New York Post is a fun paper.

22 SEX FIENDS FACE DEPORT.
"By JAMIE SCHRAM
December 7, 2007 -- Twenty-two sexual deviants were arrested in the city yesterday and face deportation, federal immigration officials said.

All of the suspects, including 11 illegal immigrants, were on probation for felony or misdemeanor convictions for crimes that include rape, sexual abuse, sodomy and promoting prostitution, officials said.

The fiends, whose names were withheld for privacy reasons, will soon go before a judge to begin deportation proceedings.

In one case, an Italian citizen was busted by the NYPD and charged with sexually attacking a 15-year-old boy.

The arrests are part of a nationwide initiative known as Operation Predator that has netted 10,000 child predators since its inception in 2003."

Anonymous said...

Calhoun -

...because foreign people are by definition criminals?

So, then what IS your solution to the impending drain on our system posed by the baby boomers? It seems like you're willing to let the economy contract rather than increase the foreign share of our resident population. Should we cut social security, medicare, medicaid? Or should we pay for the senior care and stop funding public education? Because given the fact that we are paying an increasing share of our federal revenue to service our large national debt, we will not be able to pay for both sets of programs once the baby boomers move into retirement if we don't keep our economy expanding. If you don't believe me, then check out the book "Immigrants and Boomers" by Dowell Myers, a public policy professor at USC. He lays it out pretty clearly.

Anonymous said...

Exactly! Anon 4:24 has said this before and so have I. Fasten your seat belts and get ready for an economic shit storm, because it's on it's way. As baby boomers (the nation's largest population block) stop contributing revenue through their paycheck deductions and start extracting it thru their retirement entitlements (the first wave this year, and huge waves to follow over the next 15 years) this country is going to go through a dramatic and painful sea change. Boomers will soon start to kick the bucket (sorry, folks) and there will be MILLIONS of vacant jobs, MILLIONS of vacant houses (no one around to buy them because Boomers didn't reproduce enough kids to replace themselves). And the rest of us will be shit out of luck as far as retirement entitlements go...there will be no population base to contribute enough revenue to keep Social Security going for us. So, that's the backstory behind why the government has looked the other way. They've been looking to a post Boomer future -- a drastic decrease in productivity and revenue caused by a huge population reduction. We have to maintain population levels somehow. And this is how they have done it. The babies that are born to the illegals are newly minted US citizens that the government is counting on becoming future tax payers. Contrary to popular belief, most illegals do pay taxes with many never even claiming their refunds out of fear of being found out. They'll likely never draw social security benefits either. That is how our government has kept revenues propped up and its a significant reason why they have dragged their feet in solving this illegal alien problem. They are looking 20 years down the road. Who's going to be left to pay taxes after the boomers are gone?

Eli Barnhardt said...

I read that book "Immigrants and Boomers." It's pretty sobering stuff. Calhoun's solution of "importing desirable workers" may not be doable. America is no longer the Shangri-La for much of the developed world. Industrialized nations are actually doing better than we are. The dollar is at an all time low, federal debt at an all time high, meanwhile, other developed nations are experiencing unprecedented wealth. Who will want to come to America when they will likely realize a decrease in their standard of living? Sad but true. And it's not likely to change any time soon. The only ones who will think America is a "better deal" will be people from poorer countries than we are, not the "highly desirable" Europeans you guys have your hearts set on. America is no longer a bigger better deal for them.

Anonymous said...

The coming demise of the Boomer generation and the glut of vacant houses that will be the end result is EXACTLY why we are getting rid of our rental properties. In 10-15-20 years, real estate investors will be left with a portfolio of empty houses - no one around to rent them, much less buy them.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Anonymous said...

Anthony "INS/FBI Statistical Report" DeLucca visited these parts a few weeks back, armed to the teeth with "statistics" to prove the argument Miglavs is making, this idea of a "trend." Within hours, the "report" he cited so confidently was revealed as a complete fraud.

Daniel, regarding your "Scumbag arrested" post: It's little more than 270 words long, and I have to say that I'm genuinely impressed by how much hypocrisy, disingenuousness, self-delusion and overall bullshit you managed to cram into it. I am in awe of you. Seriously.

The Cheezer said...

As always, there is a huge difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

When a Republican is found to be morally corrupt, we publicly discredit their acts. We force them out of public office and "black-list" them. We demand that "the book is thrown at them".

When a Liberal is found to be morally corrupt, they are re-elected.

suomynona said...

Twenty-two sexual deviants were arrested...

That is like the headline for the Republican Party monthly pedophile quota. What was Bruce the Pedophile OFIR member number 16 for the Republicans this month. Hell we still have a week and a half to go.

Anonymous said...

Ah, good -- folks were called out on the "guilt by association" crap and wised up -- to make reasoned arguments.

Let's be frank. I don't accept the assertion that to want to preserve the American culture -- equals bigotry.

That is the multi-cultural position that one culture is just as good as another.

I take the American exceptionalism view.

The American culture is the best in the world and that as an American I have every reason and every right to protect and defend this culture from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Eli Barnhardt, your laundry list is 80% cultural items, that you are trying to sell to your followers as racist. Shame on you.

But to be expected because that is the only card -- the race card -- you have left, and even that is starting to wear thin.

If you come to this country, assimilate to this culture. You can try to call it cultural imperialism -- but it's not, because we are in this country. Americans are not imposing anything on other countries.

Controlling this culture also means controlling how many and who comes into this country. Period.

But your arrogance and hypocrisy are monumental -- you are aligned with the "CROOKS" as you are apologists for their desires of cheap labor -- how phony you are.

I strongly believe enforcement on illegal employers is absolutely necessary to stop the problem.

In fact, that is the first step to enforcement through attrition -- self-deportation.

You on other hand argue out of both sides of your mouth -- calling them crooks, but wanting exactly what they want open borders.

Oh, you say you want to solve the problem -- but your solutions are like a matador with his cape. Hold it out and then pull it back.

Amnesty for all illegals, which of course will only encourage more illegal aliens.

You object to the items Daniel raises -- squeal about it like a stuck pig -- because you know these cultural issues are what are swinging the debate our way.

Not even your high powered "crooks," who you cynically disassociate with, which ply campaign money to politicians you thought safely bought, can swing it your way. Because Americans are disgusted by these cultural outrages.

It outrages the American people.

Meanwhile you sell out blue collar workers.

You are a pathetic lot.

Eli Barnhardt, your preferred policies are what will drive this nation to third world status.

I do see by your arguments how desperate you are -- revealing your naked fangs.

Socialists and Capitalists in an unholy alliance against the middle class and working class.

You guys deserve to be at some high point on yard arm -- your naked greed -- I have to hold the bile down, when I think of your treasonous perfidy.

Please, put out any reasons you got...because the more you do, the more obvious savage disregard you have for America.

The easier to drive you off the cliff into political ignominy and finally obscurity.

And ultimately to the dust bin of history where socialism has found it's place.

So to will the cynical allies of socialists that somehow think elitist capitalism will stand side-by-side with triumphant socialism.

You would be sadly mistaken for in the end there is no room for Capitalism next to a unrestricted triumphant Socialism.

I refuse to see America desend to the anthill your ilk has planned for America.

Anonymous said...

Ex-South Salem coach gets prison for online child porn

by The Oregonian Wednesday December 19, 2007, 7:19 PM

I'll bet he wasn't a Conservative or a member of OFIR.

Anonymous said...

anon 626 - there was absolutely no substance, in terms of policy proposals, in that entire post. do you realize that?

Anonymous said...

Calhoun - you see? Silence. As soon as someone brings up some tangible, non-partisan issues related to immigration the restrictionist element on this blog goes silent. It happens every time. They want it black and white. I mean, it's illegal after all.

Immigration doesn't exist in a vaccum

R Huse said...

You know, somehow the word TREND somehow seems to be popular for this thread.

So - What trends do we see?

The left goes insane with a miss-step or crime by Republicans, but will never criticize their own. Remember the Goldschmidt revelations? Not one left commenter that I saw would condemn him unconditionally. Now that's a TREND.

How about Ted's supposed involvement in covering for Neil?

Not one liberal would unconditionally condemn him either.

Lets go back a bit shall we?

Bill Clinton?

Well, the TREND there was sexual harassment was ok. Women, we found out, do lie according to the left (even though with Anita we were told this was not the case) if their income is below a certain level.

Hey, how about Ted Kennedy and William French Smith and the rape fiasco?

Nope, no one on the left rushing to do anything but excuse it when it happened. "Lets remember all the good Ted has done for women" said Patricia Ireland, head of NOW at the time.

Then there was Mel Reynolds, Democrat congressman, caught on tape setting up his next date with his underage hottie. Did the left throw him out? No, of course not, he got to sit in office for quite some time until the water got a little hot.

Then of course there was to original, OG Gangsta of pedophillia: Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds.

Yep, remember the guy who died about a year or two ago? Got caught in the infamous Congressional page scandal of a couple of decades ago. All the Democrats lauded him, "oh gee, he was so good on the environment" at his funeral.

Yeah, he was real good on the environment, so long as that environment was under age and between the legs.

So, when all you on the left start yammering on about TRENDS with the Republicans, remember one thing:

Bruce the barber was an idiot barber who was roundly criticized on this blog by myself and others. At the end of the day though, that's all he was, a stupid barber.

The TREND, and its been a long established one is for Democratic leaders, is to excuse anything if its one of their own. Their constituents dutifully follow, in non thinking lock step. and do what their masters tell them.

That's the TREND.

And that's why the following are still in office:

William Jefferson - Found with $90k in the freezer

Ted Kennedy - Well, say no more.

Senator Robert Byrd - Klansman

Christopher Dodd - Senator and Presidential candidate, who said at a Byrd honorarium, There is not a single thing Robert Byrd has done that I disagree with, Id follow his leadership anywhere. This, a couple of months after Dems hounded Lott out of the leadership for virtually the same comments at Thrumands retirement.

and a cast of dozens more.

What to make of this democratic TREND?

If Bruce the Barber had been on the left, the same holier than thou crowd would be holding a vigil outside his jail cell and protesting for his immediate release at this very moment. After all, this is the crowd that defends racists of all stripes, MEChA, La Raza et. al.

Anonymous said...

Remember the Goldschmidt revelations? Not one left commenter that I saw would condemn him unconditionally ...

Not one? Then you're not paying attention. Steve Duin at the Oregonian hammered him pretty fucking hard (and the VERY liberal Willamette Week is the one that BROKE the story in the first place) and he's ALSO one of the only journalists of ANY ideological persuasion who is pounding on Kulongoski for covering it up. The Oregonian's editorial board bunch has declared it's time to move on and forget about it, but Duin's not letting it go. "Not one"? Perhaps in Miglavia, but not in the real world, my friend.

Anonymous said...

Anon8:16pm,
You don't read very well do you?

You want a policy proposal?

"...enforcement on illegal employers..."

I'll admit not much detail.

But that wasn't the point of the comment.

The point of the comment speaks for itself.

Anonymous said...

Anon8:20pm,
Sorry dude, but folks don't stand around waiting for you to pop a question.

It happens when it happens.

Anonymous said...

anon10:03,
Duin, quite right, or should I say left.

But he is a columnist not a commenter -- I suspect that was what was meant, was that not one of you little swine down here on the blog or over at blue Oregon, or somewhere made a comment.

But no -- even though Duin was giving you sheep cover to speak out, no one did.

Maybe Duin was hopping you'd have some balls and integrity and speak out -- but no one from the left did.

I bet Steve Duin learned what a pack of sniveling shits run on his side of the aisle from that experience.

Both times he had the courage of his convictions and spoke out publically for attribution.

But not a god damn stinking one of you sewer rats spoke out -- even anonymously.

Your ilk stink.

Not one sniveling little sewer rat could bring him or herself to utter a peep.

Shut your pie holes.

You sanctamonious fakes.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry dude, but folks don't stand around waiting for you to pop a question.

It happens when it happens."

Yeah, but when it comes to addressing specific policy issues, it never DOES happen.

Anonymous said...

anon 1031 - sure, I get it. Punish employers. But after you deport all the illegals and refuse to raise immigration quotas do have any suggestions about how to fill the vacuum in the labor market left by the social-security-draining baby boomers? That's what I meant.

None of the restrictionists on the blog seem capable of addressing this situation meaningfully.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Anon 6:26 said: Eli Barnhardt, your laundry list is 80% cultural items, that you are trying to sell to your followers as racist. Shame on you.
******************************

I have "followers?" My "laundry list" happens to be a list of the most frequent topics on this blog. I guess you didn't get it. It is a "laundry list" of Daniel and friend's fave topics. Of course, they rotate, some fade away and come back -- sort of a seasonal thing, but they keep coming back to the same old complaints -- the same old laundry list that has little to do with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. It's not my list -- it's theirs....

Anon 6:25 also said:

....You on other hand argue out of both sides of your mouth -- calling them crooks, but wanting exactly what they want open borders....
**********************************

I guess I am at a loss how to say this because you seem to have missed it every fricking time I have said it. For someone who worships English, you sure don't seem to read it very well:

I am against illegal immigration. I am against amnesty. I want our borders controlled (BOTH OF THEM). Don't tell me I support illegal immigration. I don't. I have stated that REPEATEDLY on this blog. I just don't like the preferred rhetoric and attitude that many have chosen to address this problem. How many times do I have to say it? No habla Engles?

You said: If you come to this country, assimilate to this culture. You can try to call it cultural imperialism -- but it's not, because we are in this country. Americans are not imposing anything on other countries.
***********************************

I am assuming that of course, you do mean EVERYONE, right? I mean, the Irish and their silly St. Patrick's Day parades with the green beer and the leprechauns and four leaf clover shit. Get over it, you're in America now!

And those fruitcake Germans with their polka music and liederhosen. They've gotta go too, right? Gotta keep things fair and balanced, right?

And, FYI Anon 820: Not sure, but I think you may be refering to my "silence." If so, then I guess it didn't occur to you that perhaps some of us like to spend a little time with the wife and kids. I was enjoying an awesome meal with my family, complete with a homemade pecan pie and then helped my kids with their homework -- in Spanish, I might add. Responding to your posts in real time is not high on my priority, lol.

Glad to seen someone was able to find ONE incident of Daniel taking someone to task for bigoted comments. Wow. One. In four years of blogging. One. That Daniel, he's tireless.

R HUSE: re the left's supposed refusal to call Goldschmidt to task on his sexual abuse of a young girl -- excuse me, but wasn't it the Willamette Weekly (that scumbag leftie rag) who actually broke the story wide open? I see articles about "what Ted knew and when he knew it" in the Oregonian regularly.

And finally -- I remember one of my favorite "guilt by association" moments: John Kerry and the fake photo of him standing with Jane Fonda. The GOP tried to use as propoganda in a blatant "guilt by association" campaign against him that blew up in their faces when the photo turned out to be a fake.

Guilt by association is a tactic that has it's origins squarely rooted in the GOP camp, which (under the tutelage of the godfather of dirty politics and their mentor extraordinare, Lee Atwater) Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove have perfected.

I'm sure we could spend till sun-up trading "guilt by association" tricks from both sides of the aisle. For what? My dick is bigger than your dick? Come on.

You guys post your opinions and we post ours. Who gives a shit. I like Mexican people and it pisses me off when they're treated like crap. If someone is here illegally, that's not good, and eventually, I am confident, the wheels of justice will prevail. But in the meantime, I can't just bite my tongue and let it slide when they are bashed mercilessly. They're human beings for God's sake. You're no better than them and if you think you are, then I guess you can talk it over with the Lord when its your turn. Im sure he's going to be interested in how you treated your fellow man. The bad part is, he can tell when you're lying.

R Huse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R Huse said...

Obviously I was unclear.

Here is what I said:

"Not one left commenter that I saw would condemn him unconditionally. Now that's a TREND."

I was speaking about commenters here, not editorialist etc. in the papers.

Perhaps I missed one, that's a possibility. But I sure don't recall seeing an unconditional damnation of Goldschmidt, or Kulingoski here by any of our friends on the left.

I saw plenty from the right, posted here, unconditionally condemning Bruce the barber, I was one of them.

When criticism is meted out proportionally to party affiliation, it is reasonable to say the criticizer is more a lapdog for the party, rather than concerned about any particular crime involved.

That was my point.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Judging from the screennames who've been posting over the last few days, I don't think ANY OF US were visiting this blog during the months when the Neil/Ted fiasco was the topic of the day. But had I been commenting at the time I would have voiced my displeasure at the revelations and you would have known that I did not vote for Ted -- and the question of "what he knew and when he knew it" played a big factor for a lot of us Libs who voted for Saxton.

Anonymous said...

I have read on Blue Oregon excuse makers for Pedophiles that they are misunderstood and just need "help" and head Democrats PETE COURTNEY & KATE BROWN, Would NOT allow Jessica's Law to have a hearing/pass in the 2005 regular session, to put these pervs away.

AHH PETE AND KATE..Don't get me started!!

KATE singlehandly killed a bill in the 99th session (sb1040) That would have put limits on the CRIMINALLY INSANE placements in neighborhoods..she is insane as they are.

Anonymous said...

Details on illegal alien policy.

1. Enforcement on employers by SSN match program. No match, no job.
Civil sanctions twice with escalation fines. Third time criminal prosecution for crime.

Or.

2. No match of SSN then no tax deduction for Business expense of that employee for the business.

Number two is better, more administratively efficient -- more likely to bring compliance.


No public services for illegal aliens, other than constitutionally mandated.

All public servants will have ability to assist ICE to enforce the immigration law.

Police will be required to assist ICE or any federal funds to the govt. enity will be cut off.

Any sanctuary govt., state, county, local -- no federal money, period.

Step up internal enforcement with raids and investigations.

Every single signal in the bundle of signals (the bundle of "wink and nod actions by govt, enities) -- must be that illegal aliens are not wanted.

It must be so across the board -- that the word gets out in Mexico and all other countries that illegal aliens will not be tolerated in U.S. -- don't even think about coming here illegally.

Anon10:58pm, what specific policy proposal would you like to discuss?

I'm happy to answer, but remember one policy. Not a shot gun approach.

Eli Barnhardt,
Let me be clearer. Yes, your laundry list are issues brought up on this blog -- 80% are cultural issues -- got that.

"Same old complaints -- the same old laundry list that has little to do with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION."

No, you are wrong. This list is directly related to illegal immigration. These are all signs of cultural invasion.

While you attempt to de-legitamize them by saying it's bigoted. Where "bigot" equals "racist".

And I reject that multi-cultural garbage entirely.

You squirm and squeal about this "laundry list" because these issues are swinging the debate -- you know it -- so your response is to attempt to de-legitamize them by saying they are racist.

Bullcrap!

Eli, you turned it into a laundry list when you were attempting to delegitamize it.

It's true I don't visit this site everyday -- it comes and goes. I may not visit for weeks.

So, Eli Barnhardt, I easily could have missed your solutions.

What are they?

My reference of "argue out of both sides of your mouth," related to Eli Barnhardt's comment at 3:50pm, where these quotes are: "All of us want to solve this problem." But we want it it solved in a "manner fair and wise."

As I responded earier in this comment I agree specifics are key, because just saying you are against "amnesty," as we learned from President Bush means nothing.

I never saw anything specific from you and your tone suggested, your solutions would really be a trick.

Yes, specifics are key from both sides. The devil really is in the details on this issue.

Slogans will not work and only breed suspicion.

Particularly from a side that belittles established customs and traditions in this country.

And at the same time says we must accept customs and traditions from a foreign land.

Eli Barnhardt: Americans have the right to reject foreign culture, period -- or not -- as we see fit.

I will tell you as advice: If you want to be in the middle of the street -- which from your comments -- it appears you are posing to do. Then you must be very, very, specific on what you want to have happen.

And you must be specific everytime you engage in discussion.

Or else -- from my vantage point you look like a wolf in sheeps clothing, mouthing platitudes. Tell me, which side in this debate mouths platitudes and them stabs the other side in the back?

The open border, amnesty side.

Bush
Senate
The list goes on of people and groups that said, "It's not amnesty." Or "We don't want amnesty." But in point of fact that'a exactly what they wanted -- they were lying to sneak open borders and amnesty past the American People.

I'm not going to stand for someone telling me one thing then slipping a sharp knife blade between my ribs.

And at that very moment smiling at me and saying "oh, no, we're not scewing you."

When the knife blade tells me thats exactly what their doing.

And they gently let my dying body down into the gutter.

And smile to themselves as they walk away down the political street.

No, I'll politically kill that person before they get close enough to slip that knife blade between my ribs.

That's exactly where someone sounds like their coming from -- when they sound like you.


"Eventually, I am confident, the wheels of justice will prevail."

What does that mean? It's meaningless.

And time runs against my side -- I know that.

Those that want open borders and amnesty -- this is the status quo, now -- running out the clock until it's too late and it's fait au compli, also know that.

So anything to drag out the clock.

No, anybody dragging out the clock is a political opponent and possibly an enemy of the Republic.

Eli Barnhardt you sound like somebody that wants to slip a knife blade between my ribs.

You know what?

You can go to Hell!

Anonymous said...

"Anon10:58pm, what specific policy proposal would you like to discuss?

I'm happy to answer, but remember one policy. Not a shot gun approach."

As I stated earlier, you simply cannot address immigration reform as if it is unrelated to other issues facing the country.

If policy-makers in the this country want to keep our social security system solvent, keep growing our GNP, maintain our economic supperiority over the rest of the world, and generally maintain American's current standard of living, they MUST increase the number of immigrants we allow to work in this country. Otherwise, the nation will soon take on an age structure that preculdes economic growth and social security viability. DO YOU NOT GET THIS CONNECTION?

So, if policy-makers are not willing to increase legal immigration (many experts feel that increasing quotas will substantially reduce illegal immigration pressures), they are, by default, deciding that the nation will forego future economic expansion and trigger the onset of what will be the end of our social security system.

So my question isn't how you will deal with illegal immigration. That's far less important than the question pertaining to what you propose doing about immigration policy as it pertains to this demographic reality of a rapidly aging population. That's my questiont to you, anon1139, and to Daniel, Calhoun et al.

What do you propose we do about it?

If you want to save social security and/or if you think the U.S. ought to continue growing its economy to remain competetive with other nations, where will the workers come from, if not via immigration?

Eli Barnhardt said...

Anon 236: It's too complicated. Trust me, he doesn't get it.

Anonymous said...

I'm about to run out the door, but I'll go a while.

Productivity increases, my man.

Ever heard about doing more with the same amount of people or even less.

That has happened all through American history.

What 75% of folks were down on the farm, now 2-3% are on the farm.

There's a big part of your answer.

But the other part is I don't accept your assumptions.

And I can tell I was right about Eli Barnhardt -- for instead of an answer -- I got a cheap shot.

From I guy who blathers on, but when I asked him about his SOLUTION:

Nothing.

So I know Barnhardt is what I thought: An open borders, amnesty guy.

So is Anon2:36pm.

What fakes.

Just what I thought Barnhardt and anon2:36pm are -- guys that will slip you a knife blade between the ribs when you're not looking.

And they have the gall to try and call anybody racist.

These guy deserve to be taken to the highest yardarm for a stretching party.

I will come back and refute the anon236.

But for now, he is a phony -- because as you see he didn't suggest a policy other than a "surge" of legal immigration and since that's what he thinks should be done -- well...Then it just makes sense to give amnesty for the people already here.

That's anon236 policy.

Am I reading you right anon236?

What lying son of a bitches you guys are.

You'd sell your own mother out.

You make me want to puke.

Nick said...

Eli is quite clear on where he would like to see the effort go:
the employer. He's said it over and over on these threads. Either you've read it and choose to ignore it or you've read it and don't get it. Either way, you're way off on Eli. He doesn't like bigots who bloviate ad nauseum about gun play and street wars and the demise of the English language. He speaks for a lot of people who come here. And he's right. You seem to be newcomer who likes to stir shit up, hoping some dumb ass will bite. How's it workin' for ya? Aren't you "Anony-moron?"

R Huse said...

Look, this is so inane. Solving the illegal immigration problem is easy:

1) A unified federal instant check program. no SS match you don't get hired. No SS match after the system is implemented? You get fired, with the employer held completely harmless for this action. No if ands or buts about it. No showing up with your ACLU lawyer, suing employers for following the law.

2) No ridiculous in state tuition for illegals. Mandatory Econ 101 added to the core curriculum of any student who advocates such a thing.

3) No drivers licenses, gun permits, airline pilots license etc. for illegals. Any politician suggesting such a thing would immediately be subject to random breathalyzer test for possible alcohol abuse.

4) Emergency room treatment if you are illegal, and only for real emergencies, total costs to be estimated annually nationwide, and assessed as a tariff on all goods entering the country from Mexico. Guess we will all be paying more for clothes and Wal-Mart crap for a few years until things settle down. Big whoop.

Anonymous said...

Anon 445: What!?

"What 75% of folks were down on the farm, now 2-3% are on the farm.

There's a big part of your answer.

But the other part is I don't accept your assumptions."

What assumptions? Your post didn't really make any sense.

Anyway, you asked for my recommended policy? This isn't really mine; it is largely the one proposed last year by a task force on immigration policy put together by the migration policy institute.

Their point of departure, as it should be, is that our workforce is about to shrink drastically, and this does not bode well for the national interest. They recommend amnesty for those who are currently here illegally, but are working and have no criminal record. Then, they recommend increasing the legal quota from Mexico, since they are our largest source of low-wage labor, our neighbor, our biggest trading partner, and it makes no sense for them to have such a low quota. Raising the quota from Mexico would decrease pressure for illegal immigration from Mexico. They also recommend removing the priority on family reunification and moving to more of an employment-based system to meet the high demand that currently exists at the highest and lowest ends of our occupational spectrum. They have a number of other proposals, but that is really the gist of it, and I agree with most of what they suggested.

RHuse, you seemed to have missed the point entirely. The question isn't over whether we should deport illegals. We can't afford to (despite Daniel's ignorant new tag line). The bigger issue is how to keep our labor force big enough and productive enough to make up for the retirement of the baby boomers, if not through immigration. Nobody here seems to have any solution, either because they are ignorant, or have no ability to grasp the scope or implications of the problem.

Anonymous said...

I have to take back that anon946 is a liar -- actually his argument is the "Brass Tacks" of the elite argument for open borders and amnesty.

"We have to open up the borders -- economic growth depends on it."

You don't hear that argument -- in the open -- very often.

Why?

Because it's assumptions -- which I reject -- are an elitist argument.

Elites don't like admitting they are vulnerable.

Basically that argument boils down to this: The working man and middle class will have to drop down to a "World Standard." This world standard is lower than America's current standard of living.

So, in order to keep overall growth moving ahead -- the "ranch owners" have to add more "cattle to the herd."

It wont make life any easier for the cattle in the herd, mind you, but, you see, the ranch owners have leveraged the ranch. And, each head of cattle is fetching less money at the slaughter house -- so the only way to get by, is to add to the herd.

It's a very unamaginative way to go.

It ignores, increased productivity.

Of course, any gains in productivity the owners want to keep for themselves -- no way they want to share it with the cattle.

The working force isn't cratering like you anon846 asserts.

It also ignores American history. America survived quite well without an immigration "surge" for a long time.

Oh, before I forget it. Nick said Eli wants to focus on the employer -- I agree.

Again, productivity is the key. Raising productivity for each worker will achieve what you want without an immigration surge.

But that would also require that workers share in the increased profitability that would accrue from increased productivity.

Something the elite doesn't want to do.

So the elite's plan is to flood more people into the country -- which will increase their profitability without increasing the working man's income or the lower middle class's income (and likely anybody in the middle class).


But it completely ignores culture.

That is why they are so desperate to equate culture with "racism."

They have no answer for people who want to defend American culture.

That's why you hear them belittle the English language.

That's why Eli Barndhardt belittles anything to do with culture.

The elite are leveraged out -- they've bet on the come.

That's why the elite are so desperate for an immigration surge.

The elite can live in their gated communities -- while the rest of us live in the anthill or (my analogy) the cattle pens.

But this is false -- the elite will get by without a surge in immigration. Down through history, the elite have always gotten by. What leads anybody to think they wont get by now.

Japan has done fine -- they don't depend on immigration for their properity.

You know what Japan depends on (besides an American market)?

Productivity increases!

Anon846pm claims not to know about productivity increases.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

But of course he can't acknowledge the argument -- because then his rational for an immigration surge can't be sustained.

Bringing in cheap labor wont save social security anyway.

Nor does cheap labor assure growth.

Besides, I'll kick you in the balls, before I'll let you turn America into a third world Mexico.

But at least you got their "Brass Tacks" argument.

The racism card was just what they thought was their strongest card to play.

But now that that "dog wont hunt no more," the elite have decided to show their "bottom card."

I welcome that development because it's a false card.

It doesn't hold water.

In the end it's as false as the race card and less emotional.

That's why the elite didn't want to use it. They knew it wasn't as emotional as the race card -- so less likely to be effective.

And a card the left was much less likely to want to play.

The elite always want somebody else to do their dirty work for them. They were happy to let the left carry the water.

But no it appears the left has run out of political strengh on this issue -- That's why the "Brass Tacks."

But okay, I say bring it on.

Eli Barnhardt said...

I'm an "elite?" Wow. Does that mean I get a new car? I'm so sick and tired of driving my Taurus. And can I have ribeyes for dinner every night? Because this Hamburger Helper is getting awfully boring. Also, I am hoping my newly bestowed membership in to the "elite" class includes a magnet school for my children and my wife would really like to quit working so she can finish her degree.

I'm so excited! I'm movin' on up! I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep tonight! In a flash I went from being Joe Six-Pack to an "elite!"

Thank you Anon 12:13! Thank you! And God Bless You! Where do we meet up so I can pick up my new lifestyle?

Anonymous said...

Increase productivity? How. Tell all of us working stiff elites how you're going to make us work any harder and any faster and any more hours than we already are. Performance drugs? You tell me. NOW. Bring it on.

Anonymous said...

There are an estimated 78.2 million baby boomers, all of whom will reach retirement age in the next 20 years. It's estimated that approx. 60 million of them have jobs. You do the math.

The people you're slamming in here don't want illegal immigration to make up for these numbers. They think LEGAL immigration can make up for these numbers. Anon 12:36 --Can't you read? No comprende? Get with it dude.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Oh...and a new house to go along with my newfound "elite" status is beyond the beyond! No more 3/2 daylight ranch! It's a gated community for us now Mrs. B.! Hot Damn!

Anonymous said...

This thread or post seems to be played out.

Eli Barndhardt, I recieved criticism for not knowing your position -- perhaps justly so. I only know your position from this post.

Generally, from the left, there are people who want open borders for either poltical power (read Democratic Party) , or for ideological (read Socialist) reasons.

Generally, from the right, there are people like anon846pm who want open borders for economic reasons, a corportist rational.

That's why I characterize the crowd for open borders "an unholy alliance."

Which if they get their way, in the end are incompatible.

They can't stand together very long. Although there are people in both groups that think they will be able to get along.

I disagree.

My hunch is that if they get their way, the resulting struggle will make the illegal alien and immigration debate look tame.

Expect a battle royal between Socialists and elite Capitalists.

Eli Barnhardt, I guess I don't know where you fit -- and you may not even fit into my template, after all, I said "generally."

There are all kinds of opinions out on the political spectrum.

My description of the corportist elite, sounds as if it doesn't descibe you.

But it certainly described anon836pm.

The answer to anon110am's question about productivity is increased technology.

Technological innovation.

The farm went from high labor (numbers of people) to low labor (less people) to produce not the same amount of food, but more food by tehnological innovation: The steel plow, the mechanical harvester, the stream tractor, the diesel tractor and so on.

An example that anon110 can get around would be in construction.

The hammer went to the nail gun.

Get that, the person doesn't run faster on the tread mill -- the technology allows the person to get more done in the same amount of time.

Another example is the car. Cars went from being made one at a time with incredible amounts of man hours going into each car to the modern car factory that produces hundreds of cars for the same man hours.

At the same time the workers were paid more per hour because they were able to produce more per hour and the factory owner was able to make more money.

The workers shared in the increased productivity, hence, profitability of the enterprise.

But now the "mythical" factory owner of my example doesn't want to pay workers more money when he achieves productivity increases. He wants to pay them the same or even less (i.e., the meat packing industry, where productivity has gone up and wages have gone down.) by flooding the labor market with an immigration surge (open borders and amnesty).

That's why the labor movement historically didn't want large immigration surges because they knew it would hurt labor's value.

Labor should have value. An increasing value as productivity increases.

"All men are entitled to the fruits of their labor."
Abraham Lincoln.

Many if not most that want an influx of immigration want cheap labor.

The others who say they don't want cheap labor are either deluding themselves, failing to understand the economic law of supply and demand, or lying.

You can't suspend the law of supply and demand.

The more labor available the cheaper it will become.

I think that is a terrible way to go.

Thus for cultural reasons and economic reasons, I reject the open borders amnesty argument and the immigration surge argument.

That's why alot of rank and file Democrats are splitting with their leaderhip over immigration.

The rank and file know that open borders and amnesty will hurt their economic income and cultural environment they live in and raise their children in.

The elected Democratic leadership have sold out the working man for political power and campaign money from the elite corportists who want cheap labor.

The Democrats are trading income for the working man, now, for political power, now and later.

So later they can impose government socialistic programs to get the working man dependent on those same governmental programs and thus perpetuate their grip on political power.

It's cynical and disgusts me and in my opinion fatal for America.

Anonymous said...

anon 1002 - I hesitate to respond to your posts, for fear of eliciting more of your meandering, grammatically butchered, short novels full of non sequiturs and sentence fragments that make no sense. Nonetheless...

If I'm an elite, you have a very broad definition of the elite class. As a graduate student, I live very near the poverty line, subsisting on a monthly stipend of about $1500 per month (paid by a privately-funded grant). I'm not very fond of elites either, and am not, as you suggest, a proponent of flooding the labor market with low-wage laborers so that owners of capital can increase their profits. In fact, one of the most ominous signs of bad things to come is that the income gap between the rich and the poor is wider than its been in this country since right before the great depression. How one can tolerate the types of raises and benefits today's CEOs rake in while slashing their workforces is beyond me. But I digress.

As other recent posters have asked, how is this INCREASE in productivity going to occur? Via magic? I'm not even talking about increasing productivity, I'm talking about steps needed very soon to make sure that the nation's productivity doesn't drastically decrease as a massive proportion of our workforce heads into retirement. Something has to be done, and your narrow-minded obsession with illegal immigration will do nothing to address it. Imagine that you put away $100 a month during your working life, and then, once you hit retirement, you take out $200 a month. Eventually, you'll be out of money. This is precisely the situation our country is in. You seem unwilling or unable to comprehend this. Rather, you seem content to assume that through some sort of economic or fiscal voodoo, productivity will magically increase, and the scenario of which I speak will not come to pass. When it comes to fiscal policy, I prefer a solid plan over vodoo-economics, but I'm glad to know you're so hopeful!

Japan? No problems? Are you kidding me? They have the most disproportionately aging population in the developed world. Their competitiveness in the world market is declining by the day. They are trying to recruit Japanese-origin workers from Peru (with little success) and they have a surging undocumented worker population consisting of Koreans and Indo-Chinese groups. The only thing that is working in Japan's favor right now is that they saved far more than Americans did during their highly productive years, and thus less of their system relies on credit markets. Nonetheless, it seems you know little of which you speak.

I recently saw Dowell Myers, the author of "Immigrants and Boomers" give a lecture at my university. After he was done presenting the argument developed in his book, someone asked about the possibility that immigration from Mexico will continue to flood into the U.S. if we legalize the unauthorized and up the quota for legal entrants from that country. He replied by saying this is a very unreasonable scenario for several reasons. First, it appears that immigration from Mexico has already peaked. Second, Mexico's fertility rate has drastically declined, and as they seek to grow their own economy in the coming years, there will be little in the way of a surplus workforce in that country. He also points out that the international market for labor will only get more competitive as time goes on. China's economy is like a vacuum sucking up huge numbers of low-skilled workers; same for India. As fertility rates continue to decline worldwide, the situation will only get more competitive as the global surplus in the supply of labor declines. He stressed that we better act while we can.

With respect to your cultural concerns, Meyer's response is essentially "tough shit". Even if you don't like 'em we need 'em, and we need to invest heavily in providing our children with a world-class education. but, he also demonstrates empirically that your fears of massive cultural change are unfounded. What you confuse for cultural distinctiveness of immigrant groups are really just the cultural habits among the first generation. These are rapidly eschewed by the third. Preservation of the mother-toungue is non-existent. Among Mexicans, the first generation speaks primarily Spanish, the second tends to be bilingual, and the third is overwhelmingly mononlingual English. Not that I would be terribly troubled by cultural change, but there's little reason to believe that the massive cultural shift you bemoan will come about. Assimilative forces in modern American society are simply too powerful.

But, the cultural angle is the only real angle your side has. Economically and fiscally restrictionists have no hard evidence to support their argument (at least I haven't seen anything convincing).

Good luck waging a campaign on cultural grounds. I think most people will find little merit in it.

Anonymous said...

So disappointed there was a local opportunity to see Meyers and I missed it. Where did he speak?

Eli Barnhardt said...

Meyers - Myers

Read his book "Boomers and Immigrants." Very important information that needs to be considered as we move forward in the illegal immigration debate.

Anyway -- wish I could have attended the lecture. What university do you attend?

Best wishes with your continued education. I admire your intellect & enjoy your writing -- you're already an asset to our country. I can tell you will have an accomplished and significant life.

Anonymous said...

Anon1107,
In the end we're all dead. That seems to be your argument. In that your lecturer suggests the world is running out of labor -- ludicrous.

But I see, rather than take on my economic argument -- which speaks for itself, and is hard to dispute because it's based on historical examples, you cite your guru. Who most likely is funded by foundations and organizations that while don't label themselves as open border amnesty, never the less, are inclined that way, like the Ford Foundation, or Rockefeller Foundation or a host of other foundations that have the same international philosophical bent.

Writers always write for an audience, typically for a paying audience that will financially support their work.

You don't have to be an elite, obviously, to identify with their world view.

Particularly if you listen to their handmaidens and mouthpieces in the academic world.

Or are immersed in that environment.

Such as a graduate student would be.

You ignore the productivity argument, but if individual workers, as opposed to the collective, have economic vehicles to save and invest for themselves, as a result of increased wages above a subsistence level, they can provide for their retirement.

I won't rock the boat too hard. And some government assistance.

And, again, this does away with your (and your academic guru) argument for an immigration surge.

Of course, you never really answer my law of supply and demand argument or productivity argument.

Other than to argue (Or is it your guru?) that what we really have is a labor shortage. Which flies in the face of the fact that America has flat or declining median wages.

Increasing wages would be imperical evidence of a labor shortage.

But that would be too reality based, for someone so inclined to be abstract and theoretical as you.

How do we have technological innovation? The same way we've always had it: Necessity, research and development, investment in the quest for profit, trial and error, or the old fashioned way "somebody had a bright idea."

And these processes are speeding up, as is also scientific knowledge. The two, technical innovation and scientific advance go hand in hand.

You know about that, don't you?

Because of the spark of human creativity there always has been somebody who will search for a "better mouse trap."

Yee of little faith in human ingenuity.

Where will productivity come from?

That's a pretty stupid question coming from a graduate student.

I see Eli Barnhardt has given up the field. Too bad, I enjoyed kicking his intellectual butt.

Eli Barnhardt said...

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Barnhardt,
No. I rest my case, with you too chicken, apparently, other than to make snide remarks that don't saything anyway.

As I said before: What are your arguments (so others can read them)?

Your Response?

Nothing.

Because you don't have the arguments to respond, but thanks for acknowledging you read my comment.

Have a nice day.

Nick said...

God your tiresome, Anony-moron.

Anonymous said...

Eli - assuming you live in Oregon, you didn't miss out on an oppurtunity to hear Myers speak. I left OR earlier this year to start grad school in California, which is where I saw him. I spoke with him afterwards. He said he's testified before Congress and presented the findings of his book to many congressional committees. He's very non-partisan, but he said that the response was most hostile from senate and house republicans, who seemed uncomfortable with the immigration implications, similar to the response here. He also said that he hasn't seen one argument or piece of research - in either academic or policy-specific publications - that takes issue with his assessment of the significance of the impending problem associated with the baby boomer retirement. He said that the right-leaning Center for Immigration Studies told him that they had doubts about the seriousness of it and were going to undertake efforts to discredit him, but have yet to issue a meaningful piece of research to the contrary.

Anon 103 -- Good Lord!

"You ignore the productivity argument..."

No I didn't. In so many words I argued that it makes no sense to assume that we will be able to maintain our level of productivity, much less increase it as you claim, when we lose a huge chunk of our labor force, unless something is done to replace their labor power. Your argument seems to be, "we'll just work harder." This alone demonstrates your incapacity to fully comprehend the magnitude of the problem we'll be facing.

The raw productivity of a country and size of its economy is typically measured by GNP. GNP is highly correlated with the size of a nation's workforce. The prosperity and economic stability of a nation is typically measured by the GNP as it relates to its dependency ratio: the ratio of a nation's population that is of working age to those younger and older than the working ages.

In the coming years, our workforce is going to shrink AND our dependency ratio is going to become increasingly unfavorable: more dependents than workers.

The question remains: How are you going to counterbalance this trend? By working harder? Hoping that some form of innovation will come along and save us all? Where will the money come for the research? As it stands right now, the federal funding situation is horrendous. Never has competition for federal research monies been so fierce. As more and more federal funds are appropriated for retirement programs, you're likely to see fewer innovations, not more, for lack of scientific research funds.

Despite your unwillingness to believe it, the impending contraction of our economy is a real threat, unless a way is devised to maintain our GNP and dependency ratio at favorable levels. This means adding workers. How are you going to do that?

I think the only option is through immigration. Government-led efforts to increase fertility in other countries (mostly in Europe, where they are further along in the dependency ratio problem) have proven expensive and largely ineffective.

"Of course, you never really answer my law of supply and demand argument"

You have the most deficient udnerstanding of the law of supply and demand I've ever encountered (and I'm not even training to be an economist). This problem transcends the law of supply and demand. With a decrease in labor supply wages may go up, but not infinitely. Employers still need to make money. They'll just hire fewer workers. PRODUCTIVITY WILL DECREASE. Government will be faced with either ending seniors' entitlement programs or substantially increasing taxes on workers' wages.

Unfortunately, anon, I have to cede victory to you, should you elicit another response. This is not because of your intellectual prowess, but rather because your posts are so astonishinly devoid of any form of linearity of thought that it takes me a good while just to figure out what in the hell you are saying. The aphoristic nature of your posts make me feel like I'm trying to carry on a discussion with an ailing Nietzsche having reached an advanced stage of syphilitic delirium.

If you don't see the problem by now, you will never see it.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Anon 242:

Well, glad I didn't miss him then. I'll have to check out his lecture schedule and hope he comes to Oregon.

What field are you studying, if you don't mind me asking?

If I could go to graduate school I would probably study demographics and "human migration." The subject interests me greatly.

Thank you for the thought-provoking posts. I hope you are considering writing as part of your career. You're the first person I have encountered in the "virtual" world who shares the same concerns that I do about the coming Boomer shift. I am preparing for it. Will be selling my rental properties in the next few years. If I hang on to them 'til I retire, chances are pretty good there will be no one around to buy them. I predict a glut of vacant houses across the nation within 10 - 15 yrs. I've posted about it many times without so much as an "eh." It just doesn't really seem to be on the public sector's radar.

I tip my hat to you, youngling. Hope you're with family over the Holidays and the New Year brings you much success.

Eli Barnhardt said...

Oh...also, my view regarding attracting immigrants (legal) to reinforce our working population is this: I fear we're not going to have much success recruiting immigrants from highly developed nations. As I've opined before, America is no longer the "bigger, better deal" for them. The "highly desirables" that are favored by "the snob coalition" are the anglo-european young professionals who would actually realize a decrease in their standard of living by coming to America. Sad, but true.

Anonymous said...

Anon242pm,

You dispute with my productivity argument, by summing it up:

"we'll just work harder."

But that's not what I said at all:

What I said was:

"Technology allows the person to get more done in the same amount of time."

And

"The person doesn't run faster on the tread mill."

Along with the examples of increased productivity I cited: Farm technology advancement, hammer to nail gun, and the car manufacture advancemnet.

It's clear what I meant, which is the simple definition of productivity increase -- Econ. 101, the person produces more units of of production for the same time and same WORK INTENSITY.

Or even LESS work intensity.

The fact that you claim not to understand what productivity increase means and you're a grad student, tells me you are intellectually dishonest. Or have poor reading comprehension.

Which isn't a good sign for a grad student.

Generally, productivity increasing technology is the product of smaller groups of people or even a single inventor (The Manhatten project is a notable exception -- thousands worked on the project.).

So, you don't need masses of labor to increase productivity. Just the contrary -- productivity increases reduce the need for masses of labor.

Your quote:
"it makes no sense to assume that we will be able to maintain our level of productivity...when we lose a huge chunk of our labor force...unless something is done to replace their labor power."

Why? When you look at the history of technological innovation and increased productivity increases, labor shortages where one of the "necessities" that spurred the "labor saving devices."

Slavory in the ante-bellum South was one reason the South ended up technologically inferior to the North -- the vast supply of slave labor retarded the need for labor saving devices because labor was plentiful and free (Besides the room and board for the slaves.)

That's an example of a lack of productivity increase that materially stunted an economic region.

There are plenty of examples where "labor saving devices" reduced the need for labor.

So your extended quote from above doesn't hold water when looking at the empirical evidence.

That's called proving an argument by example, which you never did.

Your response to where the funding will come from for research and development is telling: First off you complained there won't be enough federal funding.

As if innovation that spurrs productivity increases depends on federal funding. Most finance for applied research and development comes from private enterprises.

but I doubt that federal funding is going to dry up.

Besides, your pre-supposition or assumption, if you will, is that the labor force will shrink dramtaically or "crater."

You haven't offered any evidence for that except "your say so," so you'll excuse me if I don't take that on your naked assurance (show me solid evidence and I would be forced to take a second look.).

In response to my law of supply and demand argument, you responded:

As a response to Less workers "wages may go up, but not indefinitely. They'll just hire fewer workers. PRODUCTIVITY WILL DECREASE."

Yes, it's obvious YOU ARE NOT AN ECONOMIST. Because you got it ass backwards: Productivity would increase because the employer will make the same number of units (or more) of production with less units of labor.

That's the definition of productivity increase.

But you are so niggardly, in allowing for wages to increase. That's not the history of the American labor movement in the twentieth century.

Wages went up dramatically as did profits for the employer -- in fact labors' wages going up depended on owners' profits going up.

They go hand-in-hand.

That's how the mass American middle class was born.

You really need to study history, economics, and science because it's clear you don't grasp them well right now.

Anonymous said...

I know I'm guilty of gilding the lily.

But you can't draw too fine a point on this issue:

Anon242pm, as reproduced below, stated:

"...unless something is done to replace their labor power."

The "something" is technological innovation: Techniques, or methods, usually a mechanical device, that allows a worker to produce more wigits per unit of time with the same physical exertion or less.

Productivity increases in the form of technological innovation will be the "something" that will "replace their labor power."

Have a merry Christmas!

Anonymous said...

Eli - Thanks for the good wishes. Same to you and yours.

My PhD will be in sociology and I'm specializing in the sociology of immigration which covers quite of bit of terrain, including theories of migration, theories of immigrant incorporation and racial and ethnic stratification. There are many economists and demographers that publish in the types of journals that I'll be submitting my own work to soon. I don't like teaching very much, so my hope is to get a job at a large research university where the teaching loads tend to be lighter.

I would anticipate that we will begin to hear more about the issue of our aging population and all of its implications in the popular press soon. Myers argues that the next president, Republican or Democrat, will have no choice but to confront the issue. He predicts a massive overhaul to the tax system.

Demographers have been aware of the issue for a long time, but I guess they've either failed to get their message across to the mainstream press or have been ignored.

Eli, you might enjoy the following websites, if you are not already aware of them:

The Population Reference Bureau (http://www.prb.org/). They have an entire section of research devoted to aging.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (http://www.nber.org/). They have a nice working paper series. The papers can get a little technical, but the summarization of the main findings tend to be pretty accessible to those not trained in economics.

The Migration Policy Institute (http://www.migrationpolicy.org). I particularly like their on-line journal, the Migration Information Source (http://www.migrationinformation.org/)

The Russell Sage Foundation (http://www.russellsage.org/). They also have a good working papers series under "Publications" including one I saw the other day by three economists having to do with the issue of whether Americans are saving optimally for retirement.


Anon 516 and 628 -

I'd love to challenge your belief that innovation will keep our economy from collapsing in on itself, but I see little point in doing so, since it appears that you'll believe anything, except economic and demographic facts. But I'd like to offer a few reasons why I think it's absolutely ludicrous to expect this to happen.

First, the sheer size of the baby boomer workforce in relation to the economy would require a technological revolution of such a large scale, I can't even imagine what that might look like. We need a technological innovation that increases productivity so much that it not only replaces the labor power of 70 million peopole but also somehow keeps social security solvent, WITHIN 10 TO 20 YEARS!

Second, I'm sure some technological innovations will continue to revolutionize the way we make things and the ways in which we produce our food, but manufacturing and agriculture represent no more than 15 or 20% of our workforce (it may be as low as 10%, not sure). Job growth has been fastest in the service sector, broadly defined, so unless you know about some legion of robots about to enter the workforce, why should I believe that some magical innovation is going to save our economy?

Third, innovations usually occur in tandem with economic growth as part of a cumulative process whereby innovation generates economic growth which creates incentives for more innovation. It's hard to imagine this process thriving in an economy that is contracting and receiving what economists refer to as the "shock" of a massive exodus and reduction in workforce size.

Fourth, who's going to consume all of these additional products that we're going to be generating in your magic economy? Old people? Are we going to all of a sudden out-perform China in exports? It's funny that you claim superior knowledge in the law of supply and demand.

Finally, I ran the following pearl of wisdom you dropped yesterday by some economist friends of mine:

"Yes, it's obvious YOU ARE NOT AN ECONOMIST. Because you got it ass backwards: Productivity would increase because the employer will make the same number of units (or more) of production with less units of labor.

That's the definition of productivity increase."

Their response: "Huh?"

If you're as tired as I am of this discussion, then I hope you'll just agree to disagree. Please.

Anonymous said...

Also, Eli, if you haven't already read Douglas Massey's book Beyond Smoke and Mirrors published by Russell Sage, you should. It's by far the best immigration policy-relevant book I've read recently. The funny thing is that is listed as recommended reading by OFIR! I highly doubt they've actually read it.

Anonymous said...

The grad student wants to be a professional apologist for an immigration surge and, of course, illegal aliens already here.

Why am I not surprised.

Yeah, take that block out of context, and I say, "huh," too.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://sepagap.freehostia.com]сериал старшеклассники[/url]
[url=http://zawuzehofoq.freehostia.com]старшеклассники сериал[/url]
[url=http://meyaxosob.freehostia.com]mail одноклассники[/url]
[url=http://voregotuq.freehostia.com]одноклассники поиск[/url]
[url=http://yokakofinup.freehostia.com]одноклассники км[/url]
[url=http://bomosetuc.freehostia.com]одноклассники ру[/url]
[url=http://tayobosen.freehostia.com]одноклассники ru регистрация[/url]
[url=http://yawedowi.freehostia.com]старшеклассники[/url]
[url=http://lajokosaco.freehostia.com]регистрация одноклассники[/url]
[url=http://mujiyufuv.freehostia.com]новогодние старшеклассники[/url]|
[url=http://wokeceqerebo.freehostia.com]однаклассники[/url]
[url=http://fajoqop.freehostia.com]одноклассники ru поиск[/url]
[url=http://ritocog.freehostia.com]старшеклассники сериал[/url]
[url=http://pizedozeyuq.freehostia.com]www одноклассники[/url]
[url=http://ciwevajelak.freehostia.com]www одноклассники ru[/url]
Однаклассники