Brooksianism

Re Op-Ed Columnist: Follow the Fundamentals by David Brooks in today's NY Times:

Dave is upset that the ideas of Lou Dobbs are winning the minds of Americans. He cannot figure out why ordinary Americans are not as thrilled as he is over immigration. (Perhaps he ought to read "From Sewage, Added Water for Drinking" in today's newspaper.) It troubles Dave that most Americans think that globalization and "free" markets are not good for them.

The problem with Brooksianism is that most of the benefits of immigration and globalization go to the rich (Dave's pals), whereas the costs go to ordinary Americans (Dave doesn't know any; the closest he gets to ordinary folks is brushing past them when he absolutely must perambulate on public sidewalks).

Now, in order to cope with this dichotomy and its accompanying cognitive dissonance, Dave creates a strawman which he calls "Dobbsianism" which "... rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away." In logic, this is called the strawman fallacy; my dictionary defines it as "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". This fallacy is basically Dave's entire argument.

I don't watch Lou Dobbs' cable TV program, but I am familiar with his views, which I largely share. In any event, Mr. Dobbs doesn't need me to speak for him, so I won't. (Actually, I think I opposed the twin evils of immigration and globalization long before he did.)

Immigration and globalization both tend to lower the wages of ordinary Americans, and also lead to social problems and higher rates of crime.

Anyone who lived during the 1950s will tell you that life in America was much better before the current onslaught of legal and illegal immigration, and before there was such a thing as the "World Trade Organization". Few, back then, had ever heard of "globalization", and life was better. Most kids had two parents (usually their biological parents), most mothers raised their own children, and most fathers could look forward to a decent retirement. There was not as much drug and alcohol abuse, there were plenty of good jobs for high school and college graduates, and our twin deficits (national debt and trade) were much smaller. The federal income tax was much more progressive. The public parks were cleaner, and nearly everyone spoke English. There was less traffic, and plenty of clean water. Health care and education were far less expensive, even in 1950s' dollars. There was no talk of privatizing or killing Social Security.

But this world was not good enough for the Republicans, who anguished over the relatively small numbers of millionaires and billionaires, and who hated paying their fare share of income taxes. Thus begat what I call Brooksianism, which is still a work in progress, and will remain so, until the last drop of blood is squeezed from the rest of us, at which point Dave and his legions of greedy SOBs will leave the US once and for all, taking with them all the loot they feasibly can carry.

In the meantime, Dave and his fellow travelers will continue to try to get us to believe that this pain is actually good for us. What a guy!

Western Union Profits From Illegal Immigration

Border Crossings: Western Union Empire Moves Migrant Cash Home by Jason DeParle in today's NY Times, details how the former telegraph company makes huge profits from illegal immigration. It then uses these profits to aid illegal aliens, support organizations which aid illegal aliens, and oppose politicians such as Tom Tancredo who oppose illegal immigration.

Minimum Wage

It would strengthen America to increase the minimum wage from $5.85 to $12 per hour (less if in euros). Of course, the minimum wage should increase each year based on the CPI. For example, if inflation as measured by the CPI goes up 2.3% in 2007, then the minimum wage in 2008 should be $12.28 per hour.

If we also deported illegal aliens and tightened our border with Mexico, there would be plenty of jobs available to disadvantaged Americans. As most people know, a job is the best welfare program. The higher minimum wage combined with a lower unemployment rate would go far toward correcting our lopsided income distribution, leading to more economic justice and less social unrest (fewer crimes).

NY Times Newspeak

Re Editorial Observer: What Part of 'Illegal' Don't You Understand? by Lawrence Downes in today's NY Times:

There they go again. The NY Times uses newspeak (see Wikipedia) and ad hominem attacks on its opponents when discussing illegal immigrants because facts and logic are not on their side.

Mr. Downes likens the crime of illegally sneaking into our country with his own jaywalking. And if you want all illegal aliens deported, you are a bigot. He also sees the word illegal "as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred".

I do not doubt that there are bigoted and racist Americans who want to end illegal immigration. There are also murderers and rapists who favor the "immigration reform" views of Mr. Downes and the NY Times.

But my interest is, what is best for America. In this matter, deportation of illegal aliens and doing a better job of preventing them from crossing into our country, would be better for America than the current situation.

I see the world as vastly overpopulated with humans. It is easy to identify the regions which are overpopulated: they have a lot more emigrants than immigrants. So, I would offer the following as a partial list of overpopulated places: Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, and most of Africa.

The only humane way to deal with this problem is sterilization and birth control. Otherwise, the source countries stay overpopulated and the destination countries become overpopulated.

I imagine many people believe that our planet is not overpopulated. What they should do is look at all the suffering caused by hunger, disease, wars, and human pollution.

In matters such as this, "absolutes" do not apply; there is no ideal population size. It is a matter of degrees, not absolutes. But clearly, our planet is overpopulated, and illegal immigration just makes the problem worse.