The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-09-2012, 07:35 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The problem is that Alabama is not an island unto itself. Her farmers have to compete with farmers in neighboring states and neighboring countries. Significantly increase their costs, while everyone else's costs stay the same just makes them uncompetitive. They are uncompetitive, they go out of business, and a significant industry in the state goes belly up.

Which is exactly what's happening. I'm not going to argue whether or not that's an acceptable result, but it's unfair to criticize the farmer for not wanting to pay enough for labor. Unless we think these farmers are letting their crop rot and their business crash and burn, rather than reduce their ample profits by paying a "market wage".

Farmers are going to pay whatever they can afford, whatever is going to ultimately net them a profit when they sell their crop. It certainly makes more sense than tilling your rotten crop back into the soil.
Hmm, I'm surprised no-one has replied to this.

I agree that it is unfair to put the blame completely on the farmer, which was perhaps implied by Ibn Warraq, so your initial objection was valid.

But I don't think the market gives anyone free license to do anything. There are countries that make use of child labour. Should we be allowed to do the same, to compete?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 02-09-2012, 12:58 PM
Strassia Strassia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Hmm, I'm surprised no-one has replied to this.

I agree that it is unfair to put the blame completely on the farmer, which was perhaps implied by Ibn Warraq, so your initial objection was valid.

But I don't think the market gives anyone free license to do anything. There are countries that make use of child labour. Should we be allowed to do the same, to compete?
That is why you need bigger nationwide reform policy, not one state going on its own.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-16-2012, 10:55 PM
Chen019 Chen019 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
And, of course, none of this fuss would exist if the immigration-pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico.
That's because, as discussed at length previously, groups have different assimilation outcomes.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-16-2012, 10:59 PM
Chen019 Chen019 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by aforehand View Post
I seriously doubt it. I say this only because of the fast food places I've seen before the law was passed and after the law was passed. Most of the local food places had mostly or only hispanic employees...now they are black and white with a few hispanics (even the Mexican restaurants). Also my friends maid left after the law was passed (even though it isn't illegal to hire an undocumented worker for domestic help)
Thanks for your comments aforehand, good to get a local perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-17-2012, 06:35 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chen019 View Post
That's because, as discussed at length previously, groups have different assimilation outcomes.
Not really. We've had a lot of "groups" in America. Everybody assimilates. Even the Jews assimilated to (and in the process changed) the mainstream culture, which they never had before anywhere else. The only ones who never really assimilated were African-Americans, who (until recently) were not allowed to, and American Indians, who (some of them, anyway) did not want to (nevertheless, you probably have some Amerind ancestors in you'e tree if you're a "white" Old American).

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-17-2012 at 06:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-17-2012, 07:35 AM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
And, of course, none of this fuss would exist if the immigration-pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico.
Right. Because the Irish and Scottish were welcomed with open arms last century. Because they were white, no one ever said anything derogatory about them or persecuted them as a minority.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-17-2012, 07:56 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 14,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Even the Jews assimilated to (and in the process changed) the mainstream culture, which they never had before anywhere else.
Now that's just not true. In some places, Jews assimilated so well you have a hard time telling they're Jews anymore, and the thing has to be settled with genetic testing and the like, such as the Ethiopian Beta Israel, Indian Cochin & Chinese Kaifeng or the completely assimilated-to-the-point-of-absorption Lemba of Southern Africa.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-17-2012, 07:59 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Right. Because the Irish and Scottish were welcomed with open arms last century. Because they were white, no one ever said anything derogatory about them or persecuted them as a minority.
The point is no one would now. (Not since the Irish became white.) Not even the Minutemen, many of whom descend from such. (Pat Buchanan does, anyway.) (BTW, I think you mean the century before last.) The Minutemen exist because racism still exists -- in different forms, using different conscious and subconscious definitions of the "races." Which are not, now, such as to object to the presence of (most) Canadians, or Irish, or Scots.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-17-2012 at 08:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-17-2012, 08:07 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Now that's just not true. In some places, Jews assimilated so well you have a hard time telling they're Jews anymore, and the thing has to be settled with genetic testing and the like, such as the Ethiopian Beta Israel, Indian Cochin & Chinese Kaifeng or the completely assimilated-to-the-point-of-absorption Lemba of Southern Africa.
Oh, all that was just pretend-assimilation to get some Jews better positioned to pull the host country's strings for the International Jewish Communist Elders of ZOG etc. You know that!

You're right, of course. For obvious reasons we tend to think of "Jews" in terms of those whose ancestors never did assimilate, i.e., convert. But many did in every generation, the pressure was always there, you know, and some yielded. And their children married gentiles and their grandchildren mostly forgot they had ever been Jewish. (I think practically all of us so-called white gentiles have statistically-certainly got to have a Jew in the woodpile somewhere.)

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-17-2012 at 08:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-17-2012, 08:19 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 14,922
All the ones I mentioned never did convert (although the Lemba evolved to be unrecognizeable as modern Jews...)
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:34 PM
Chen019 Chen019 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Not really. We've had a lot of "groups" in America. Everybody assimilates. Even the Jews assimilated to (and in the process changed) the mainstream culture, which they never had before anywhere else. The only ones who never really assimilated were African-Americans, who (until recently) were not allowed to, and American Indians, who (some of them, anyway) did not want to (nevertheless, you probably have some Amerind ancestors in you'e tree if you're a "white" Old American).
As I've discussed previously, that is not necessarily the case. Please read Frum here, and explaining how he rethought the matter here. I've also cited Richwine a few times previously.

Quote:
So what happened? The short answer is: It's all Bob Bartley's fault. The legendarily pro-open-borders editor of the Journal liked to give his staffers "beats." Bartley assigned me the income-inequality debate. From 1989 to 1991, some of the most dramatic and exhilarating years of the 20th century, while my colleagues covered wars and revolutions, I was trudging my way through reports from Brookings and AEI on what exactly was happening to the American middle class. Always the glamour jobs!

And yet, in their way, those studies and reports contained information as unexpected, startling, and radical as anything coming out of Eastern Europe. I had never appreciated the sheer scale of the immigration surge: almost 2 million legal entries in 1991--close to half the number of births that year--plus who knew how many illegals. And, in stark contradiction to all my preconceptions about immigration, the immigrants who had arrived in the United States since 1970 were not doing very well. They were arriving poor, and they were staying poor for decades. Ominous warning signs were gathering that their children would stay poor too.

It was customary to draw a sharp line dividing (bad) illegal immigration from (good) legal immigration. But the more closely you studied the issue, the more problematic that line became. "Illegal" immigration was not "illegal" in the same way that, say, illegal drugs were. Since the 1970s, the U.S. government had tacitly allowed illegal immigrants a quasi-protected status. In 1979, the Immigration Service ended its long policy of raiding residences in search of illegals. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that children present in the country illegally nonetheless possessed a constitutional right to a free public education. The promises of effective enforcement that accompanied the 1986 amnesty were never honored. I began to think that it made more sense to think of immigration policy as a whole, with a tacitly accepted "illegality" just as much a part of the structure as the genius visas for aliens of extraordinary ability. Immigrants could start legal (by entering on, say, a temporary visa), become illegal (by overstaying their visa), and then legalize themselves again (by marriage or sponsorship or amnesty).

I also began to learn that you could hardly name a social problem without discovering that immigration was aggravating it to the point of unsolvability.

Last edited by Chen019; 02-26-2012 at 10:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.